How do you define the word Evolution?

Seems a bit strong of a claim, to me. There's some weird shit out there... And have we even found it all?

Not right now, no. I just don't think it is conclusive that ALL life has a common ancestor.I would agree that, currently, we do not have data or observations telling us otherwise, but we might have some candidates or there might be something different out there that we haven't found yet.For example, they found some really weird microbes in a cave:

quote:

---

In a Mexican cave system so beautiful and hot that it is called both Fairyland and hell, scientists have discovered life trapped in crystals that could be 50,000 years old.

​

The bizarre and ancient microbes were found dormant in caves in Naica, Mexico, and were able to exist by living on minerals such as iron and manganese, said Penelope Boston, head of NASA's Astrobiology Institute. .

​

"It's super life," said Boston, who presented the discovery Friday at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Boston.

​

If confirmed, the find is yet another example of how microbes can survive in extremely punishing conditions on Earth.

​

Though it was presented at a science conference and was the result of nine years of work, the findings haven't yet been published in a scientific journal and haven't been peer reviewed. Boston planned more genetic tests for the microbes she revived both in the lab and on site.

​

The life forms40 different strains of microbes and even some virusesare so weird that their nearest relatives are still 10 percent different genetically. That makes their closest relative still pretty far away, about as far away as humans are from mushrooms, Boston said.

---

Are you confident those microbes have a common ancestor with us? Go on Sure, and most of that stuff obviously shares a common ancestor. I was thinking about something novel that doesn't

And that makes sense: If I don't want to theorize that all life evolved from a common ancestor, then I don't have to.That theory is itself a conclusion of the application of the ToE based on the available data. But the ToE, as its own theory, doesn't have to include it. It certainly doesn't rule it out.The data we have can be explained by all life having a common ancestor. It is fair to say that all life does have a common ancestor, with the implied caveat "as far as we know".That doesn't mean we cannot find some life that has a different ancestor, or that there definitely isn't some out there somewhere, it just means that it hasn't been proven scientifically yet.So people may or may not use the ToE to theorize about LUCA, it is up to them as you said.

Biology IS fuzzy...

Are you retarded?

Mmhmm, I suppose you were only pretending to be retarded:

quote:

---

Fuzzy enuf for Darwinist charlatans to play silly-buggers with.

---

So yeah: FOR

No, that's not true. It does have use.But, to give you an inch, it isn't necessarily required in all of applied biology.And that's because, as I said, that applied biology is basically just really complex chemistry. It is on a more micro-scale that where the process described in Theory of Evolution operates - which is on phenotypes and at a more macro-scale.Make sense?ABE: Also see: Message 558Not quite right - they are not "synonymous",Common decent comes from the ToE being applied to the empirical data that we've uncovered. Without the additional data, the ToE does not get to Common Decent all on its own.The ToE would work just as well with, say, all life coming from two common ancestors, or even more.Edited by New Cat's Eye, : ABE

Sure, but think about it: Where do babies come from?They come from parents, who came from parents, who came from parent, who came from parents.All animals come from a previous generation, so if there are more diversity of species today than there were in the past, then it follows that the species today came from, albeit very gradually over many many generations, the species of the past.No animals just magically pop into existence one day... Or a few... that's the point I'm making: It doesn't have to be one universal common ancestor.

Sure, but it doesn't have to be.Look, the topic is defining evolution. And the "definition" that I'm responding to is that evolution is synonymous with common decent.That's not true. Right, being synonymous with common decent is not a valid definition of evolution. As I've said, common decent is a conclusion derived from applying the ToE to the data that we have available. Back in the day, it started as a hypothesis - but it still wasn't synonymous with evolution.See Message 558.Here, review all my messages in this thread. No, not "one day". And there was not just one first living thing.Being "alive" is not a binary condition... They could have had a semi-living ancestor Yeah, and it gets a little bit circular - but in regards to defining evolution and defining life, one way is to define life as that which is capable of evolving.

That should be telling you one of the many reasons why purebreeds are a bad model: Nature doesn't have wants like that.

You don't know the reason, but you're confident that it is "very likely". Or, ya know - you're wrong.

You shouldn't call yourself names...