Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 4:44 PM
451 online now:
jar, kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Rrhain (6 members, 445 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,990 Year: 6,596/21,208 Month: 2,357/2,634 Week: 20/525 Day: 20/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213141516
17
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
Panda
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 241 of 251 (657705)
03-30-2012 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Portillo
03-30-2012 4:02 AM


Portillo writes:

What do you guys and girls think of this quote by Theodosius Dobzhansky?


What do you think of these quotes by Theodosius Dobzhansky?

quote:
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

quote:
I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.

quote:
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Portillo, posted 03-30-2012 4:02 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(2)
Message 242 of 251 (657708)
03-30-2012 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Portillo
03-30-2012 4:02 AM


I think that in this quote Dobzhansky is using the term evolution so broadly that it is almost meaningless scientifically. While I can't get access to the article 'Changing Man' that the quote comes from (Dobzhansky, 1967) in his famous 'Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution' article he quotes Teilhard de Chardin and it illuminates where he is coming from ...

Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow this is what evolution is.

This seems to be taking evolution in its older and broader sense of the unrolling of something and it relates to De Chardin and Dobzhansky's theistic positions. They both seem to see the history of the cosmos as an unrolling of god's plan, in which the evolution and spiritual development of man is the current highest point on the way to some even grander evolutionary future (ultimately to what De Chardin called the Omega Point).

If we wanted to use this thinking to re-frame the title of this thread it would be that Biological evolution is not Abiogenesis. I was going to say Biological evolution is not Chemical evolution, but Chemical evolution itself is a term with many different connotations, although many of them would be in sympathy with De Chardin and Dobzhansky's line of reasoning such as the creation of chemical elements during nucleosynthesis.

We might further phrase the distinction as being between the evolution of life and the evolution to life.

As I said, I think this paints evolution rather too broadly, and certainly much more broadly than it is generally understood either on this site or in the biological sciences.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Portillo, posted 03-30-2012 4:02 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 243 of 251 (657749)
03-30-2012 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Portillo
03-30-2012 4:02 AM


What do you guys and girls think of this quote by Theodosius Dobzhansky?

If Dobzhansky had known how creationists would twist his words I am sure he would have phrased it more carefully.

What Dobzhansky is saying is that the idea that things change over time through physical mechanisms should not be limited to evolution. I think we can all agree with this. He is also very careful to separate abiogenesis and biological evolution. He states that life comes about through "evolution of inorganic matter" while man is the product of the "evolution of life". These are different types of evolution as Dobzhansky notes. When we speak of the evolution of life we are talking about specific mechanisms that do not apply to the evolution of inorganic matter. They are different things, each independent of the other.

Also, we could be completely wrong on how evolution of inorganic life occurred and still be right on how life evolved. That has been the point from the very beginning, and nothing Dobzhansky says casts doubt on this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Portillo, posted 03-30-2012 4:02 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 244 of 251 (658049)
04-02-2012 3:25 AM


Thanks for your replies everyone. I just need your expert opinion on one more quote by Julian Huxley.

quote:
"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, comparative law and religion, began to be studied for an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process.

Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution in general. Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization, in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution - a single process of self-transformation."


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 245 by Pressie, posted 04-02-2012 7:58 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 246 by Taq, posted 04-02-2012 2:01 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 247 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2012 5:38 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1479
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 245 of 251 (658077)
04-02-2012 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Portillo
04-02-2012 3:25 AM


Porillo writes:

Thanks for your replies everyone. I just need your expert opinion on one more quote by Julian Huxley.

As I didn’t know who Julian Huxley was, I got him from Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley
Wiki writes:

Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS[1] (22 June 1887 – 14 February 1975) was an English evolutionary biologist, humanist and internationalist. He was a proponent of natural selection, and a leading figure in the mid-twentieth century evolutionary synthesis. He was Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund.”

OK. He was an evolutionary biologist who studied…biology. I’m not an expert in evolutionary biology in any way.
May I ask you a question, Portillo? Why don’t you quote from all those other thousands of evolutionary biologists, all over the world, alive today? I hope you realize that thousands of peer-reviewed, scientific articles from evolutionary biologists, are published in scientific journals every month?
Portillo writes:

"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields.

The concept of evolution has been around from before the Romans. The word evolution comes from Latin (evolutio), which means unrolling. The concept has thus been around for a very long time. From way before Christian creationism started.
Portillo writes:

” Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, comparative law and religion, began to be studied for an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process.”

Of course it is. That’s what all the evidence indicate. Things change in more than 13 billion years! They unroll to get to what they are today.
Portillo writes:

” Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution in general.

Biological evolution certainly is only one aspect of the concept of evolution, because, for example, the earth does not reproduce. Life does. Biological evolution is only one aspect, although it is very important to us, as it indicates where life, and therefore us, come from.
Portillo writes:

Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time,…

Of course it does. More than 13 billion years is a very long time. It’s been unrolling from the Big Bang to us.
Portillo writes:

… which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization, in its products.

Of course it does. The earth, for example, started out as elements accumulating. Now you even have, for example, snowflakes and biotite crystals forming every day. Way more organized than water vapor or lava.
You must also realize that the concept of evolution can give you less variety, for example, a meteorite could strike the earth again, vaporize all those snowflakes and biotite crystals and most life could be wiped out. Rolling out can also give you less variety. Or, as in the case of Mars, the atmosphere and liquid water could just "disappear". That’s unrolling giving less variety.
Portillo writes:

… Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution - a single process of self-transformation."

Of course it is. That’s what all the evidence we have indicate.
You still should not make the mistake of thinking that biological evolution happens by the same process as happens for the evolution of stars, for example. That’s why we have one theory for the variety of species and completely different theories for the variety of stars. Completely different methods.

Edited by Pressie, : Added qs quotes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Portillo, posted 04-02-2012 3:25 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 246 of 251 (658136)
04-02-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Portillo
04-02-2012 3:25 AM


Thanks for your replies everyone. I just need your expert opinion on one more quote by Julian Huxley.

My opinion is the same as the Dobzhansky quote. Biological evolution involves specific mechanisms that are not present in inorganic or cosmic evolution. We can be completely wrong about abiogenesis or cosmic evolution and this does not affect our understanding of biological evolution because they operate through different mechanisms, and hence different theories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Portillo, posted 04-02-2012 3:25 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9323
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 247 of 251 (658159)
04-02-2012 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Portillo
04-02-2012 3:25 AM


What's the point??
The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of stars

So what is this "concept of evolution" that is common to both biological evolution which discusses descent with variation, such that the offspring are different from their progenitors, and the life-histories of stars which subject matter is about processes going on in a single stellar object?

Is the common concept simply things changing over time? Because it is difficult to see anything else common and having any significant meaning. And is that common concept the least bit controversial?

If the point is try and establish that dwise1 misspoke, what is the point of that? It's pretty clear by now what meaning was intended. If you were having this same discussion face-to-face, wouldn't you have dropped the subject as soon as the other person said, "no, that's not what I meant".

If you cannot think of a relevant concept that 1) ties together all of the types of evolution given by Huxley, and that 2) you yourself actually reject for all of the relevant fields, then you have no argument. Do you, for example reject the idea that stars change as they consume their hydrogen through fusion, or that languages change over time?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Portillo, posted 04-02-2012 3:25 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 248 of 251 (676071)
10-18-2012 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
02-23-2012 9:21 AM


Re: Resolving Some Confusion
What is pre-life, pray? The concept sounds like pre-virginity to the feline.
Transition from non-life to pre-life sounds like losing pre-virginity. Replication errors in pre-life? What's that? The concept is memory error which is not just forgetfulness but a substitution of the forgotten with fiction some of which fits changing reality. While both to forget something or to tell fibs in place of the forgotten, something has to be in memory already. Memory seems to be the essence of being alive. No difference between the virus and the human.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 02-23-2012 9:21 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Larni, posted 10-19-2012 8:16 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 250 by Panda, posted 10-19-2012 9:41 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 251 by Admin, posted 10-19-2012 9:44 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3932
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 249 of 251 (676088)
10-19-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-18-2012 10:10 PM


Re: Resolving Some Confusion
Memory seems to be the essence of being alive.

Evidence, please.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 10:10 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1063 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 250 of 251 (676096)
10-19-2012 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-18-2012 10:10 PM


Re: Resolving Some Confusion
AM writes:

What is pre-life, pray? The concept sounds like pre-virginity to the feline.
Transition from non-life to pre-life sounds like losing pre-virginity. Replication errors in pre-life? What's that? The concept is memory error which is not just forgetfulness but a substitution of the forgotten with fiction some of which fits changing reality. While both to forget something or to tell fibs in place of the forgotten, something has to be in memory already. Memory seems to be the essence of being alive. No difference between the virus and the human.


Nothing in your post is correct - it is all wrong.
Nothing in your post is true - it is all false.
Nothing in your post makes sense - it is all nonsense.
I think that just about sums it up.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 10:10 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 251 of 251 (676099)
10-19-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-18-2012 10:10 PM


Re: Resolving Some Confusion
Hi Al,

Because people are having so much trouble making sense of your posts I'd like you to restrict your participation to just a few threads. Please stop participating in this thread. Thanks.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-18-2012 10:10 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213141516
17
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017