Evolutionary debate

[plindboe]

Balderdash and bluffery.

Everyone thinks that Evolution and Chemical Evolution are part of evolutionary theory.

Please don't limit your knowledge by relying on my research. Pick your own sources:

The scientific objective of the Center for Chemical Evolution is to demonstrate that small molecules within a model inventory of prebiotic chemistry can self-assemble into polymers that resemble RNA and proteins. The members of this Center hold the common belief that achieving a “one pot” self-assembly of life-like polymers is possible and an attainable scientific goal.
Chemical Evolution II: From the Origins of Life to Modern Society


Chemical Evolution describes a variety of theories that posit the view that life originated through purely chemical transformations of nonliving matter...

<h3 class="r">Chemical Evolution of Life on the Early Earth

Chemical evolution may refer to: Nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements in the universe either through the Big Bang, or supernovae; Abiogenesis

Chemical Evolution: Physics of the Origin and Evolution of Life

Chemical evolution describes chemical changes on the primitive Earth that gave rise to the first forms of life.

​

</h3>

The word "evolution" can be applied to other things outside the Theory of Evolution, as the word simply means "change". The word "gravity" can also mean "serious", so you'd be a fool to think that all things labelled "gravity" must be part of the Theory of Gravity. That's essentially what you're doing here.

Peter

 

[Split Rock]

What happened to "Law of..." -- as in, "Law of Gravity" or "Laws of Thermodynamics"?

Laws describe very specific processes.. such as the movement of an object under no unbalanced force. The theory of evolution explains the diversity and ditribution of life, which is too varied to be explained by a single law. Get it now?

All I'm saying is that you guys seem to want us to adhere to this one theory, but where are the competing theories?

There are none.

After all, the moon has four major ones.

Hypotheses... but life is not the moon, now is it? Actually, the origin of the moon would be more comprable to the origin of life. In both cases there are a number of hypotheses.

Does evolution stand alone?

You finally have something right! Yes, evolution stands alone in explaining the diversity and disrtibution of life.

ETA: And is there something wrong with me questioning this stuff? Am I treading on sacred ground here? Is the Darwin Squad about to issue me a summons?

There is nothing wrong with questioning this "stuff." We do get annoyed at having to repeat the answers to you guys over and over again, however.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hypotheses...

Five Serious Theories

Five serious theories have been proposed for the formation of the Moon (not counting the one involving green cheese):

1. The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.
2. The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.
3. The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.
4. The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.
5. The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth.

SOURCE

 

[Split Rock]

Some more evolutionist dishonesty.

The only source which defines evolution as the ''change in allele frequency in a population'' is found from a 21 year old obscure textbook pasted on the 'TalkOrigins' website. This is it:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

But this is not the real definition of evolution which can be found in real science dictionaries. See below where i give you the correct definition.




No, the real definition is as follows:

''The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection''

- The American Heritage Science Dictionary

You really should stop calling others here liars, when you are wrong. Here are some more definitions that do not feature the mistake of claiming natural selection is the only mechanism of evolutionary change:

"Evolution
Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny"
Evolution - definition from Biology-Online.org

"The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."
Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution

These are the types of definitions for evolution we actually use in biology.

 

[Split Rock]

Five Serious Theories

Five serious theories have been proposed for the formation of the Moon (not counting the one involving green cheese):

1. The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.
2. The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.
3. The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.
4. The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.
5. The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth.

SOURCE

It is more proper to call these hypotheses rather than theories, regardless of what this website says.

Have you found an alternative scientific theory that explains the diversity and distribution of life yet?

 

[Split Rock]

Balderdash and bluffery.

Everyone thinks that Evolution and Chemical Evolution are part of evolutionary theory.

Please don't limit your knowledge by relying on my research. Pick your own sources:

The scientific objective of the Center for Chemical Evolution is to demonstrate that small molecules within a model inventory of prebiotic chemistry can self-assemble into polymers that resemble RNA and proteins. The members of this Center hold the common belief that achieving a &#8220;one pot&#8221; self-assembly of life-like polymers is possible and an attainable scientific goal.
Chemical Evolution II: From the Origins of Life to Modern Society


Chemical Evolution describes a variety of theories that posit the view that life originated through purely chemical transformations of nonliving matter...

<h3 class="r">Chemical Evolution of Life on the Early Earth

Chemical evolution may refer to: Nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements in the universe either through the Big Bang, or supernovae; Abiogenesis

Chemical Evolution: Physics of the Origin and Evolution of Life

Chemical evolution describes chemical changes on the primitive Earth that gave rise to the first forms of life.

​

</h3>

Are you going to include Stellar Evolution with Biological evolution as well? I can find plenty of websites that include the phrase "Stellar Evolution" if you want to see them. The point others have tried to explain to you is that Biological Evolution (ie the origin of species) is not dependent on Chemical Evolution (ie the origin of life). I'll put it another way... lets day I agree that your god created the first life on earth, and then left it to evolve. How would the Theory of Evolution be changed?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Five Serious Theories

Five serious theories have been proposed for the formation of the Moon (not counting the one involving green cheese):

1. The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.
2. The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.
3. The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.
4. The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.
5. The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth.

SOURCE

A semantic quibble. Come, I'm used to better arguments than this

 

[AV1611VET]

It is more proper to call these hypotheses rather than theories, regardless of what this website says.

Tell them that -- don't tell me.

That is, if you think you're more knowledgeable than they.

Tell these guys too, while you're at it: Phy229.

(Better yet, just hang up that Arab Phone, I'm not answering it.)

 

[AV1611VET]

A semantic quibble. Come, I'm used to better arguments than this

Why are you telling me this?

I said 'theory', and I'm sticking to it* -- despite what any Internet scientists say to the contrary.

* As long as I have backup from other sites.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why are you telling me this?

I said 'theory', and I'm sticking to it* -- despite what any Internet scientists say to the contrary.

* As long as I have backup from other sites.

So you won't listen to internet scientists who disagree with you, but you'll listen to internet scientists who agree with you?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you won't listen to internet scientists who disagree with you, but you'll listen to internet scientists who agree with you?

But why are they disagreeing with me?

I quoted two other sources.

Should I just automatically agree with them -- like they did the Pluto vote -- and find out later it was rigged?

 

[pgp_protector]

Why are you telling me this?

I said 'theory', and I'm sticking to it* -- despite what any Internet scientists say to the contrary.

* As long as I have backup from other sites.

Then don't complain when People who said they were Christian are pointed out for what they did.
Crusades, Witch Trials, Fred Phelps Clan, Ect.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your claim was that chemical evolution is part of biological evolution...

Your baloney pile grows deeper with each post you make.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting Balderdash and bluffery.

"Everyone thinks that Evolution and Chemical Evolution are part of evolutionary theory."

 

[SkyWriting]

The word "evolution" can be applied to other things outside the Theory of Evolution, as the word simply means "change". The word "gravity" can also mean "serious", so you'd be a fool to think that all things labelled "gravity" must be part of the Theory of Gravity. That's essentially what you're doing here.

Peter

As long as it includes or implies that it's Gravity theory, then yes, I'd be a fool not to draw a direct connection.

 

[Split Rock]

Tell them that -- don't tell me.

That is, if you think you're more knowledgeable than they.

Tell these guys too, while you're at it: Phy229.

(Better yet, just hang up that Arab Phone, I'm not answering it.)

There isn't anyone official out there determing if something is a theory or an hypothesis. Why do you care, anyway? I asked you if you found a scientific theory (or hypothesis if you like) to replace evolution. Have you found it yet? If not, whatever is your point? That we don't know how the moon formed? How does that impact our understanding of the diversity and distribution of life on earth?

 

[Split Rock]

Your baloney pile grows deeper with each post you make.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting Balderdash and bluffery.

"Everyone thinks that Evolution and Chemical Evolution are part of evolutionary theory."

Except for those scientists working in the field of evolutionary biology... but who cares what they say... right? Maybe you should read On the Origin of Species and show me where Darwin talks about chemical evolution. Or maybe you can tell me how the theory of evolution would change if your god poofed the first life into existance on earth. Or maybe you could stop repeating your mistaken assertions?

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you going to include Stellar Evolution with Biological evolution as well? I can find plenty of websites that include the phrase "Stellar Evolution" if you want to see them. The point others have tried to explain to you is that Biological Evolution (ie the origin of species) is not dependent on Chemical Evolution (ie the origin of life). I'll put it another way... lets day I agree that your god created the first life on earth, and then left it to evolve. How would the Theory of Evolution be changed?

That's another branch of "science" that should be in the category of "Egghead musings." But it's fairly harmless.

God did create life on earth and engineered it to adapt to a degrading environment. But He "started" biological evolution with more than one cell from which all forms of life descended.

 

[Split Rock]

But why are they disagreeing with me?

I quoted two other sources.

Should I just automatically agree with them -- like they did the Pluto vote -- and find out later it was rigged?

I knew Pluto had to appear in the discussion sometime.

Witch Trials!!

Sale of Indulgences!!!

The Spanish Inquisition!!!!

 

[Split Rock]

That's another branch of "science" that should be in the category of "Egghead musings." But it's fairly harmless.

Yeah... all those silly "Egghead musings." Like the ones that allowed you to be safe and comfie in your home with the air conditioning, and the tv, and the internet, and the microwave, and your cell phone, and your Playstation 3, etc., etc.

God did create life on earth and engineered it to adapt to a degrading environment. But He "started" biological evolution with more than one cell from which all forms of life descended.

You didn't answer my question... did you?

 

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps most people do think that -- you haven't presented any evidence either way, so it's a little hard to tell. Regardless, boundaries between scientific fields are decided by the scientists in those fields, not by the ignorance of those outside.

And they make little, if any distinction.
I'm not sure you know who those imaginary people are that make these "boundaries" up.