Evolution is not Abiogenesis

quote:

---

Depending on how masochistic you guys are feeling, you could petition Percy to get Buz the right to post in perhaps just this one topic?

---

Absolutely. This is one that really demands a full quota of creationists. Otherwise, we'll all just end up agreeing with each other in a rational discussion...

quote:

---

Is prebiotic evolution evolution?

---

No. It is another name for a theory of abiogenesis. The ToE refers only to reproducing living things.

Chuck, I think I see where you're coming from even though I don't agree.

quote:

---

I don't think they SHOULD be different. I think ORIGINS should be incorporated with the theory. It's not because there wouldn't be one if it was.

---

I think you're saying that to understand something, you need to know where it came from as part of that understanding.As a very broad analogy...To me it seems like you're looking at it like an engineer needing to understand the materials before building with them - you need to know more than just how to make the mechanical parts fit together. You need to understand how and why they are made that way. Am I close?To me it seems more like the mechanic who fixes the car. You need to know how the parts you have work together and how to figure out what's going on when they don't do what they should. Although it can be very helpful, the mechanic doesn't need the depth of understanding of materials to do their job.Although there's no 'fixing' involved in the ToE, understanding it doesn't require us to know how the parts were originally made, it just requires us to see how the parts are working together. We see the machine in action and we have figured out a lot about how it runs.

quote:

---

My point is regardless of evolution being true or not it avoids one of the most important questions. How did it all start? What evolved from what? Could it have evolved or was it already created like the Bible says?

---

Evolution doesn't avoid origins - it's just not part of the field. The study of origins is a busy field of its own with lots of research going on.I remember mathematics at school was one of two subjects that were inescapable. During my entire schooling career, I don't remember once being taught about how the mathematics was discovered i.e. where it came from. All I was taught about was how it works. Who figured it out is part of history, not mathematics.

quote:

---

Origins is important. It shouldn't be swept under the rug and labled another theory. It is because it hampers the TOE.

---

I don't agree that it is as important as many think. It is certainly interesting. It may never get beyond likely hypotheses and it won't make much difference if it did. Even if a testable mechanism is found, it won't prove or disprove god. Nor will it guarantee that this is how life actually did form on this rock. The best we can really hope for is to prove how it didn't happen.On a very real level, the only connection the origin of life has with evolution is in supplying the parts.

quote:

---

I disagree on this point. In my view, evolution becomes an important part of the theory as soon as you've got replication with inheritance and selection. This, most likely, started occurring some time before you got anything we'd recognise as "living".

---

Yeah, you got me - trouble with writing on a phone when you're supposed to be working I agree with you.I will point out that there's a hazy line defining life. What, exactly does 'living' mean?ABE - thinking about it, I'm technically right as prebiotic literally means 'before life' Edited by Warthog, : being a smartarse

quote:

---

No. You were right the first time. Hopefully we won't allow this thread to turn into arguing and equivocating over the term evolution, accompanied by "hear no evil" denials by the usual suspects.

​

The theory of evolution is about the origin of species.

---

Thanks, you've made me read that again with more thought to the semantics.I looked at 'replication with inheritance and selection' and read it as a reasonable definition of life without much reflection. Just figured it was close enough for my purposes. I'm happy to stay out of this definition war lest my ignorance show. All I really meant was that prebiotic evolution wasn't related to the ToE.Mr Jacks comment could be read as you describe but I didn't. If so, I agree with you too. (I'm feeling very agreeable). Misusing the terminology to twist the concepts I've seen a lot of - I know what you mean.Benefit of the doubt - I'm not sure that it should be read like that. Only Mr Jack could confirm or deny that one.

I see now what NoNukes (Message 43) and Dwise (Message 65) were talking about...

quote:

---

There are other forms of evolution such as sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, stellar evolution, quantum evolution, galaxy evolution, evolutionary epistemology, evolutionary ethics, evolutionary logic, Darwinism, cultural evolution, social evolution, postbiological evolution.

---

All of these other forms are parts of different sciences although some are offshoots of the ToE. Just having the word evolution in the name doesn't mean it's equivalent to the ToE. Do we have to get as specific as modern evolutionary synthesis?

quote:

---

Evolution is change!

---

And if you add an R it's Revolution!Evolution is a much broader term than the Theory of Evolution used on this forum. From the OP... It was specifically stated that the post was referring to the Theory of Evolution rather than the broad term evolution. Changing the meaning to suit your argument is disingenuous.Edited by Warthog, : Forgot about the subtitle (trying to be good)

Seeing as you completely ignored my last post and continued along on your merry way, I'll recap.

quote:

---

From the OP...

​

Tangle writes:

​

I thought it might be useful to start a thread on how scientists explain the difference between the Theory of Evolution, the various ideas about how life started here on earth and why religious believers find it so hard to grasp what scientists think is a simple and obvious point.

​

It was specifically stated that the post was referring to the Theory of Evolution rather than the broad term evolution. Changing the meaning to suit your argument is disingenuous.

---

So, a bit at a time...

quote:

---

So let me get this straight.

---

Let's hope so.

quote:

---

When this forum discusses evolution, it is primarily talking about biological evolution.

---

Yes, generally that's true. In almost every case, in fact. In this thread in particular, it should be noted that the term was defined in the OP.

quote:

---

However, evolution can be used in other contexts aswell.

---

Of course it can. When I am talking sociology, I can refer to the development of mythological constructs as evolution. Nobody then mentions DNA or fossils as anyone with basic comprehension skills understands the term in context. They also know I'm not talking about a car.Why do you feel the need to confound a perfectly rational discussion with diversions like this?

quote:

---

And in year one of those 150 years, it didn't have a list of requirements to pass.

---

Marc, I can't figure out what list of requirements you are referring to. In year one and onwards, Darwins ToE was one of the most hotly contested theories around. It went through the same purge by fire that ID is having now. The difference between the two is that the ToE gradually built up a huge amount of evidence to back it up, while ID doesn't seem to have any. What science has been done regarding ID?In a nutshell, the scientific method is the basic yardstick that scientists use to validate methodology. Is this the list of requirements you are referring to?Both creationists and IDers approach the argument using an engineering design process, beginning with the assumption of a creator, which science does not do. Because of this they construct an argument that must include a creator. ID is not simply another viewpoint - it depends on faith in a creator. Without evidence of this, how can we call it science?Science accepts only that which can be observed. No assumptions are inviolate in science. Even evidence is subject to verification and if a flaw is found in methodology, it is diminished in usefulness or rejected entirely. The beauty of this principle is that it uses petty human rivalries to weed out mistakes - people universally like being right and will usually find holes in weak arguments to do so.and regarding your question...

quote:

---

How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;

​

*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea

---

It would be affected thus, most likely...The Christian God - Backslapping and self-congratulations on being right when the end times come. As long as they've picked the right Christian God.The Flying Spaghetti Monster - Don't be silly, the FSM is merely an atheist diversion to trick us into forsaking the one true God (see above and below)Allah - The word terrorist may never be spoken again as the righteous celebrate in their moral victory over the infidel. ID would be unaffected mostly, except that it would include the phrase the Americans were wrong. Oh, and Adnan Oktar would look even more smug and self satisfied.Spacemen from another planet - We would then live in fear of the coming harvest...Any other idea - Such as life developed on a natural path and no observable evidence of direction or design were noted?On a more serious note, ID would change according to the faith of ID advocates i.e. whether they believe in the christian god (as the huge majority do) or in the Great Green Arkleseizure. This is exactly the problem.Edited by Warthog, : fixed link