Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life --- if it did, we would pwn it back to last Thursday.
Evolution concerns itself with life --- after life appears on the earth --- (or in the universe) --- God and angels [conveniently] excepted.
How's that?
Poe's lawAnd what if I and my friends all said that the U.S. Libertarian party is a communist front organization, and you then said no it isn't, to which I replied, "You are making this claim of denial so the burden of proof is on you to show how and why all of us are wrong." Kind of an ass-backward demand isn't it. The burden in the case of the OP ultimately lies with those who make the association between evolution and origins, not those of us who deny it. And so far I have NEVER EVER seen any creationist show such a connection, nor have I ever seen it made in evolutionary literature. So put the burden of proof where it belongs.
Evolution does NOT concern itself with origins.
At the point the first living organism evolves into something else. Evolution doesn't address how that first living organism came into being.I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this.
Reason being is this:
1) The barrier between life and non-life is a bit "fuzzy". Likewise, the barrier between abiogenesis and evolution is also fuzzy. A which point do you go from the former to the latter?
To put a bit finer point on it; evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with HOW life changes. And, while its origin certainly played a role, it's nature is not a concern of evolution. The earliest evolution would get into the game is with the first change.2) The origin of life will have a direct consequence on its subsequent evolution. It stands to reason that if there are multiple avenues to produce life, then the consequence of the path chosen will invariably affect the evolution of that life. This will influence the very makeup of life (chemical composition), mechanism for evolutionary change (RNA, DNA, reproduction) and so forth. Since evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with why contemporary life is the way it is, its origin invariably plays a role.
But not how that single origin point came to exist. Evolution is so named, and not named "origins," because that's what it deals with: evolving--"To undergo gradual change; develop:"Now granted not every aspect of the ToE will concern itself with life's origins. Much like how if you're studying evolving populations of contemporary species of ants, you might not be so concerned about the origin of invertebrates. But since evolutionary biology in the broadest sense concerns itself with the ultimate tree of life and the interrelations of every living thing on this planet, getting down to that single origin point will eventually be encapsulated by the theory.
I'd assume so, seeing the atheist icon... but his serious persistence has me worried.I can only hope so. Don't believe I've ever run into the guy before
That sounded painfulEvolution does not concern itself with the origin of life --- if it did, we would pwn it back to last Thursday.
Evolution concerns itself with life --- after life appears on the earth --- (or in the universe) --- God and angels [conveniently] excepted.
How's that?
At the point the first living organism evolves into something else. Evolution doesn't address how that first living organism came into being.
To put a bit finer point on it; evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with HOW life changes. And, while its origin certainly played a role, it's nature is not a concern of evolution. The earliest evolution would get into the game is with the first change.
They could be, but as it now stands they would not be of interest to evolutionists. This isn't to say that if they existed they would never be, but right now if it doesn't or hasn't lived evolutionists aren't interested.The "point", however is that there is no "point" at which you go from non-evolution to evolution. More like a fuzzy blob with some overlap between the two.
For example, what if we have pre-life replicators that undergo change leading to living replicators. Are the pre-life replicators not evolving?
But different life evolves differently, so there's no single "how life is built." What can I say other than, at the present neither evolutionists or their theories concern themselves with origins. So, while you may think they should, they don't.With evolution we are concerned with how life changes. But how life changes is a consequence of how life is built. And how life is built is a consequence of life's origins.
They could be, but as it now stands they would not be of interest to evolutionists. This isn't to say that if they existed they would never be, but right now if it doesn't or hasn't lived evolutionists aren't interested.
But different life evolves differently, so there's no single "how life is built."
What can I say other than, at the present neither evolutionists or their theories concern themselves with origins. So, while you may think they should, they don't.
(From Panda's Thumb)The second statement, splitting the OOL from evolutionary theory, is only technically correct in a sort of legalistic, hairsplitting way. Sure, it’s true that technically, “evolution” only happens once you have life, or at least replicators, but getting from replicators to the last common ancestor is most of what most people think about when they’re thinking about the origin of life, i.e., “where did the evolutionary ancestor of all life today come from?” and all of that is evolution all the way. Furthermore, even the origin of the first classical “replicator” was itself very likely an evolutionary process, in that it occurred in stepwise fashion and not all-at-once, and that the first replicator was likely preceded by various sorts of pseudoreplication, statistical inheritance and kinetic biases. If you remove evolution from your thinking about the origin of the first replicator then it is very likely you will never understand how it happened, or what the current research on the question is about.
Well it's too bad you can't spray Weed-B-Gone on something w/o having to worry about it coming back tougher next year.But not how that single origin point came to exist. Evolution is so named, and not named "origins," because that's what it deals with: evolving--"To undergo gradual change; develop:"
Well it's too bad you can't spray Weed-B-Gone on something w/o having to worry about it coming back tougher next year.
On the other hand, Jesus did say that the end-times would be marked by a rise in pestilence.
I'll just be glad when the LORD returns and puts an end to all of this.
You should see how we used to be scored when we saw Christian symbols on the Rorschach Test....You're looking forward to the end of the world?
That's not sane...
I don't think we need to be looking forward to the Apocalypse to be judged as 'not of sound mind'; we just need to believe in that icon that's on many flags, and that should do it.All the same, someone looking forward to the apocalypse can't be said to be of sound mind.
It evolved.Evolution doesn't address how that first living organism came into being.
And that change was to a self-replicating molecule that was not alive.To put a bit finer point on it; evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with HOW life changes. And, while its origin certainly played a role, it's nature is not a concern of evolution. The earliest evolution would get into the game is with the first change.
But not how that single origin point came to exist. Evolution is so named, and not named "origins," because that's what it deals with: evolving--"To undergo gradual change; develop:"
From Wikipedia
"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."
source
When a person tells reality to "take a hike" he is generally considered to be of unsound mind.I don't think we need to be looking forward to the Apocalypse to be judged as 'not of sound mind'; we just need to believe in that icon that's on many flags, and that should do it.
Goodbye --- /thread
Evolution doesn't concern itself with a lot of stuff --- like time.If evolution makes no claims abou the origin of life, then evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life.
Hi PeteORLY? You speak for all evolutionists now?
From everything I've read on both molecular evolution and abiogenesis (i.e. actual scholarly literature), there is tremendous overlap between origins and subsequent evolution of early life. Again, the problem is there is no rigidly defined barrier between "life" and "non-life". Once you cut everything down to very primitive replication (i.e. precellular life, basic RNA or even more primitive replicators), the barrier is very fuzzy indeed. Especially since contemporary life even down to your basic prokaryotes involves cells and DNA.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?