Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 16 of 251 (653596)
02-23-2012 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Portillo
02-23-2012 12:05 AM


quote:
Is prebiotic evolution evolution?
No. It is another name for a theory of abiogenesis. The ToE refers only to reproducing living things.

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Portillo, posted 02-23-2012 12:05 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 02-23-2012 6:13 AM Warthog has replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 17 of 251 (653597)
02-23-2012 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coyote
02-23-2012 12:31 AM


Re: Question
If lifeless self-replicating chemicals coalesced together to form a living organism. That is a spectacular example of evolution.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2012 12:31 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2012 12:53 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 251 (653598)
02-23-2012 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Portillo
02-23-2012 12:41 AM


Re: Question
I would consider that abiogenesis.
When those new life forms began to adapt to their environment and change through mutation and natural selection, I would consider that evolution.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Portillo, posted 02-23-2012 12:41 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 19 of 251 (653600)
02-23-2012 2:34 AM


Taq writes:
As to abiogenesis and evolution specifically, the theory of evolution would not change one iota if we found that God magically poofed an RNA replicator into being which then evolved into the biodiversity we see today.
Tangle writes:
1. God did it
3. Aliens planted it
Does that mean that an intelligent agent is a valid alternative theory for the origin of life?
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 2:59 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 41 by jar, posted 02-23-2012 9:51 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 20 of 251 (653601)
02-23-2012 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Portillo
02-23-2012 2:34 AM


Portilo writes:
Does that mean that an intelligent agent is a valid alternative theory for the origin of life?
Logically, they can't be totally ruled out. (Although the alien hypothesis just pushes the problem further away by not providing an ultimate cause)

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Portillo, posted 02-23-2012 2:34 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 21 of 251 (653602)
02-23-2012 3:02 AM


Message from Buzsaw
I've had a message from Buzsaw in which he asked me to post the following
Buzsaw writes:
I have never ever alleged that abiogenesis is evolution. My position is emphatically that it MUST happen before evolution can begin. The beginning of life by whatever means is the biopoesis. Once this biopoesis happens evolution can allegedly begin.
If it's at all possible to allow Buz to post in this particular thread, I think we may have a productive discussion, maybe even a learning experience for all.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 3:09 AM Trixie has replied
 Message 24 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:10 AM Trixie has not replied
 Message 45 by dwise1, posted 02-23-2012 11:24 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 22 of 251 (653603)
02-23-2012 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Trixie
02-23-2012 3:02 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
I have no problem allowing Buz in here.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Trixie, posted 02-23-2012 3:02 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Trixie, posted 02-23-2012 3:18 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2012 8:39 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 23 of 251 (653604)
02-23-2012 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tangle
02-23-2012 3:09 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
It would help if an explanation of why the alternatives are not abiogenesis was included. I'm sorely pressed for time just now so can't do it. If it hasn't been done before I get back, I'll do it then, but we're talking about 10 hours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 3:09 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 251 (653607)
02-23-2012 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Trixie
02-23-2012 3:02 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
Buzsaw message to Trixie writes:
I have never ever alleged that abiogenesis is evolution. My position is emphatically that it MUST happen before evolution can begin. The beginning of life by whatever means is the biopoesis. Once this biopoesis happens evolution can allegedly begin.
-Bold mine
For sake of argument and discussion I can agree with Buz concerning this scenerio.
For the record I do not believe evolution happened. I believe the literal interpretation of Genesis and believe abiogenesis and evolution should not be seperated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Trixie, posted 02-23-2012 3:02 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 4:22 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 38 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2012 8:42 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2012 10:28 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 25 of 251 (653608)
02-23-2012 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Chuck77
02-23-2012 4:10 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
Chuck77 writes:
and believe abiogenesis and evolution should not be separated
Yes, but can you try to explain why you think that?
Particuarly if you believe, like Buzz now says, that abiogenesis is not evolution
They appear to be two logically incompatible statements.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:10 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:32 AM Tangle has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 251 (653609)
02-23-2012 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tangle
02-23-2012 4:22 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
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.
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?
Origins is important. It shouldn't be swept under the rug and labled another theory. It is because it hampers the TOE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 4:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 4:41 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 02-23-2012 4:50 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2012 4:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 34 by Warthog, posted 02-23-2012 7:10 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2012 7:37 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 46 by Taq, posted 02-23-2012 11:31 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(6)
Message 27 of 251 (653610)
02-23-2012 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Chuck77
02-23-2012 4:32 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
Chuck77 writes:
I don't think they SHOULD be different.
Whether they should or shouldn't be different is utterly irrelevant - surely you can see that?
They ARE different; that's all that matters.
I think beer should be free; sadly it isn't and no amount of wishing it was different is going to change that fact of life.
You seem to have accepted that they are different but wish they weren't; that's a very human feeling but it's not a rational argument.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:46 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 29 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:49 AM Tangle has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 251 (653611)
02-23-2012 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tangle
02-23-2012 4:41 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
Tangle writes:
Whether they should or shouldn't be different is utterly irrelevant - surely you can see that?
They ARE different; that's all that matters.
Oh, ok. Sorry to have disturbed you guys. Cheerio.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 4:41 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 29 of 251 (653612)
02-23-2012 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Tangle
02-23-2012 4:41 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
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.
I fell for what you said in your OP, my bad.
Are we just gonna go with your last comment? That "they ARE different, that's all that matters?"
It's a far cry form you original proposal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 4:41 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2012 5:24 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 30 of 251 (653613)
02-23-2012 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Chuck77
02-23-2012 4:32 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
Chuck writes:
I don't think they SHOULD be different.
But they just are.
Chuck writes:
I think ORIGINS should be incorporated with the theory.
But evolution would remain unchanged however life first arose.
Chuck writes:
My point is regardless of evolution being true or not it avoids one of the most important questions.
It doesn't answer that question. But that isn't the same as avoiding it. The question you want an answer to is being actively researched as we write.
Chuck writes:
How did it all start?
We don't really know. Yet.
Chuck writes:
What evolved from what?
All present and past life evolved from this first instance of life. That is the theory of common ancestry in a nutshell.
Chuck writes:
Could it have evolved or was it already created like the Bible says?
We know life evolved. What we don't know is how it originated.
Chuck writes:
Origins is important.
It is important in the wider sense. But it doesn't really affect the ToE too much. Whether sparked into existence by a divine being or the natural consequence of chemical soupit makes no real difference to the evidence for common ancestry and descent with modification.
Chuck writes:
It shouldn't be swept under the rug and labled another theory.
It isn't being swept anywhere. Origins of life is a topic of active research.
Chuck writes:
It is because it hampers the TOE.
How? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Chuck77, posted 02-23-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024