Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9207 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Fyre1212
Post Volume: Total: 919,412 Year: 6,669/9,624 Month: 9/238 Week: 9/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 76 of 251 (653816)
02-24-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
My whole problem with the TOE and abiogenesis is that they are seperated when (as Modulous pointed out) the Bible isn't.
Chuck77, I look forward to seeing your attempts to promote a Creation theory, although I probably will insist that your efforts won't really lead to a theory. I do find your honesty about your thought processes quite refreshing.
Totally unexpected. Bravo.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 251 (653822)
02-24-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
A very good first step. As you progress though and find that Creationism is simply not supportable, please remember that that does not mean you have to abandon Christianity, only that you throw away a very false and worthless product marketed as Christianity Lite.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Jefferinoopolis
Junior Member (Idle past 4338 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 09-27-2010


Message 78 of 251 (653823)
02-24-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
02-23-2012 2:51 PM


Re: Resolving Some Confusion
quote:
Evolution doesn't require that assumption. All Evolution assumes is that life exists which seems to be a pretty good assumption.
I understand that evolution doesn't require that assumption. However, if life did start with a self-replicating molecule. If we can ever provide enough evidence to conclude that (and I like to think we will) then how do we decide when life began? When did the molecule become the organism? The theories will get a bit tangled up at this point.
That being said. I agree. In the absence of that knowledge they are two separate questions. It really is that simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 02-23-2012 2:51 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Rahvin, posted 02-24-2012 6:49 PM Jefferinoopolis has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6076
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.1


(2)
Message 79 of 251 (653825)
02-24-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
Good idea. I wish you luck.
In 1984 I heard "creation science" described as a book with two chapters: Chapter One is "Evolution" and Chapter Two is "Everything That's Wrong with Chapter One." And indeed, in all these 30 years I have seen creationists boast of having "mountains of evidence"* for creation and yet all they would ever present has been attacks against evolution and other sciences. During that time, I and others have repeatedly asked creationists for some of their positive evidence FOR creation, which they never would provide. When I wrote to Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR I included that same question, to which he responded that negative evidence against evolution is positive evidence for creation; he also stated that the "evolution model" includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern." And when creationists pressuring a school board offer a "compromise" to having "creation science" taught in the public school, that "compromise" being that negative evidence against evolution be taught, I have to roll my eyes because that "compromise" is the exact same thing! "Creation science" consists entirely of negative "evidences" against their idea of evolution.
And at the 1998 International Conference on Creationism, Dr. Kurt Wise, widely regarded as one of the few honest creationists and who has had to repeatedly correct other creationists, gave an assessment of the state of creationist theory in his closing presentation as reported by Robert Schadewald:
quote:
Saturday afternoon, speaking on "A College Creation Curriculum" at an Educators' Symposium (nontechnical) session, Wise presented an impressive review of global plate tectonics, hitting most of the highlights and pointing out the consilience between several independent lines of evidence. He told the audience that evolution is a powerful theory, and that anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn't understand evolution. He said point blank that if it weren't for his religious beliefs if he had only the scientific evidence he would accept evolution himself.
Saturday evening, Wise gave the closing presentation for the conference, and among other things, he reviewed the state of the creation model in various fields. Astronomy? No creation model exists. Biology? Same. Paleontology (his own field)? Same. He thinks a couple of other fields, such as the development of a Flood model, are making slow progress.
Despite this seemingly gloomy summary, Wise sent people away fired up. His message was that creationists have an enormous amount of work to do, and it is time for them to get cracking. He appealed to everyone present to pitch in and do whatever they could. One prominent creationist told me later that he thought the Wise windup was the best presentation of the conference.
One of the things that article brings out is that there is a difference between higher-level creationists, such as Schadewald would meet at these conferences, and the grass-roots creationists, such as we encounter on-line and at school board meetings. It is possible that you might find someone out there who has made serious attempts to develop a model. That someone will be hard to find, since his work will not enjoy anywhere near the same popularity as the claims of the likes of Kent Hovind. The creationist community does not judge claims on their truthfulness or quality, but rather on how convincing they sound, since the purpose of those claims is to convince people, especially themselves. And the more sensational a claim is, the more convincing it will sound. An honest researcher's work will not be sensational nor will it sound convincing and so it will not be deemed worthy by the creationist community. For you to find that work, you will have to work hard at it.
When you find a claim and are trying to assess it, do not ignore what "evolutionists" have so say about it. Through their critiques of a creationist claim, you can learn whether it has been refuted, something that creationist sources will never tell you. Most creationist claims have been around since the 1970's and 1980's and they were refuted in the 1980's, but creationists continue to use them ignorant of the facts. talkorigins.org and other sites will bring you up-to-date on a claim's status and history. And you will learn some science in the process. It's a win-win.
And if you find that what you're learning starts to conflict with your theology, keep in mind that theologies are created by fallible humans. Indeed, we each create our own theology which, even though it's based on another theology, consists of our own misunderstanding of the theology we want it to emulate. Finding your own theology to be faulty and in need of correction should come as no surprise and should never be viewed as "questioning God", because it isn't.
Again, good luck on your quest. If you even begin to succeed, you will be doing a great service.

{* FOOTNOTE: In 1985, I attended a debate between the ICR's greats, Gish & H. Morris, and two professors from San Diego State University, Thwaites and Awbrey. It was at that debate that I heard Morris' false claim about moondust and a "1976" NASA document (see my page on it), which prompted me to write him for more information. A creationist co-worker, who regarded Gish and Morris as his heros, also attended that debate and we sat together. On our way out, he was stunned and kept muttering, "We have mountains of evidence that would have blown them away. Why didn't they present any of it? We have mountains of evidence ... " Within the year, we both went our own professional ways and I didn't see him again until 1991. He was still a fundamentalist Christian, but he wanted nothing whatsoever to do with creationism and he hated creationists with a passion. }
Edited by dwise1, : marked footnote with color

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4059
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.4


(2)
Message 80 of 251 (653832)
02-24-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Jefferinoopolis
02-24-2012 3:43 PM


Re: Resolving Some Confusion
I understand that evolution doesn't require that assumption. However, if life did start with a self-replicating molecule. If we can ever provide enough evidence to conclude that (and I like to think we will) then how do we decide when life began? When did the molecule become the organism? The theories will get a bit tangled up at this point.
We'll determine exactly when chemistry becomes biology around the same time we decide exactly at what wavelength blue shifts into green.
The line is blurry, as an inevitable consequence of the definition of the word "life." We'll know that the precursors were not "alive" when he process began, and that at some point later the results of the process became identifiable as "living." What comes in between will just be indeterminate, as with viruses and prions.
I rather think that the whole "chemistry vs biology" debate is a bunch of irrelevant nonsense anyway - biology is chemistry, much the same way that chemistry is physics. Modern cellular life may be a rather complex set of interdependent chemical chain reactions, but it seems to me that most of the issue is simple anthropomorphic egotism. Humans just don't like the thought of being "not special," so for some reason being "alive" has to be distinguished from "just chemistry."
I don't particularly care about "life." I care about sentience, self-aware minds. I might require "life" to support my mind, but I don't consider myself any more or less morally significant than a hypothetical sentient robot. Obsession over "life" diminishes hypothetically possible forms of sentience that do not fall under any definition of "life." But that's an ethical argument, and for a different thread.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Jefferinoopolis, posted 02-24-2012 3:43 PM Jefferinoopolis has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(3)
Message 81 of 251 (653848)
02-24-2012 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
02-24-2012 3:53 AM


Re: Creation theory.
My whole problem with the TOE and abiogenesis is that they are seperated when (as Modulous pointed out) the Bible isn't. I can't seem to wrap my brain around seperating it all when it comes to life, how it works, how it came to be, where it is going.
When we look at the ToE it is basically describing a mechanism to explain how the diversity of life we see around us came to be. That mechanism, put simply, being descent with modification through natural selection. But how do you apply this mechanism to abiogenesis?
When discussing abiogenesis there is no theory, not even a unified hypothesis, but instead a series of hypotheses describing potential steps. The discussion of these steps revolves around the chemicals that may have been present on the early earth, what their properties were (hydrophobic/hydrophilic, acid/base etc.), whether the environment was reducing or oxidising, and how these factors affect how the various chemicals combine, what reactions would be available. This is not the language of biology but of chemistry.
The separation of abiogenesis and evolution is not by choice. It is by necessity of the fact that for most of abiogenesis the prerequisites for evolution did not yet exist. There was no descent, no genetic material which to modify and the only selection would be the simple laws which govern chemical reactions. That's not to say there was no transitionary period, quite probably involving RNA. But only once we can elucidate the early stages of abiogenesis can we understand where the two fields intersect, which may even lead to a greater understanding of the early stages of evolution. It is very far from an attempt to sweep it under the carpet.
Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 02-24-2012 3:53 AM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 251 (653870)
02-25-2012 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Warthog
02-23-2012 7:10 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
Sorry Warthhog. I forgot to mention this post of yours in my previous general reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Warthog, posted 02-23-2012 7:10 AM Warthog has seen this message but not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4409 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


(1)
Message 83 of 251 (653872)
02-25-2012 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by dwise1
02-24-2012 2:27 AM


Re: Message from Buzsaw
quote:
For us, evolution is biological evolution only.
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. Evolution is change!
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 02-24-2012 2:27 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Trixie, posted 02-25-2012 6:23 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 87 by Warthog, posted 02-25-2012 8:30 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 89 by dwise1, posted 02-25-2012 3:26 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 02-27-2012 2:25 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3954 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(7)
Message 84 of 251 (653877)
02-25-2012 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Portillo
02-25-2012 3:56 AM


No shit, Sherlock!
That's exactly what dwise1 was saying and what you've just amply demonstrated. Unless otherwise stated, just about every reference to evolution made on this board is talking about biological evolution, the Theory of Evolution, Darwin's work "On the Origin of Species".
If you choose to conflate all of your examples with what we're saying, that's up to you, but unless we're all using the same definition, discusson is impossible. Changing definitions mid-conversation is a recipe for confusion. It's also a tactic used with boring regularity by those who wish to deny biological evolution, who don't accept the mechanism of descent with modification.
Can you tell me how the Theory of Evolution is affected by, or deals with the evolution of galaxies, of stars? In a thread entitled "Evolution is not Abiogenesis" it's pretty darned obvious that we're talking about biological evolution and a particular idea of the origin of life. This thread is asking if the ToE is affected by the method by which life originated. You seem to be broadening it to take in just about everything that changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 3:56 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 6:30 AM Trixie has replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4409 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 85 of 251 (653878)
02-25-2012 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Trixie
02-25-2012 6:23 AM


Try to debate without using swear words.
Yes, this thread is about biological evolution. The post mentioned that when talking about evolution, it ONLY means biological evolution. Not just in this thread but any context, which isnt true.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Trixie, posted 02-25-2012 6:23 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Trixie, posted 02-25-2012 7:12 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 9:12 AM Portillo has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3954 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 86 of 251 (653880)
02-25-2012 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Portillo
02-25-2012 6:30 AM


Oops, wrong again!
Portillo writes:
The post mentioned that when talking about evolution, it ONLY means biological evolution. Not just in this thread but any context, which isnt true.
No, it did not say that and you know it. Here's the quote in context
dwise1 writes:
I think that a very large part of the question is that Buz, Chuck, Portillo, and other creationists apply an entirely different definition to "evolution" than we normals do. For us, evolution is biological evolution only, the natural consequences of life doing what life naturally does. But for them, "evolution" is something entirely different, a complete atheistic worldview that demands the inclusion of abiogenesis -- the standard meaning, not your redefinitions. A large part of my position is that, if they are indeed redefining the terminology out from under us, they must at least inform us of just exactly what their definitions are. But then, that would work against their standing operating procedures of trying to generate confusion.
Now, using the above, show me where dwise1 says that evolution ONLY means biological evolution in ANY context. As far as I can see he says that "FOR US", meaning those who accept biological evolution, evolution means biological evolution. Given the forum this is stated on and the subject under discussion, that statement is true.
The only way you seem to have to demonstrate that your assessment is correct is to miss out part of what dwise1 actually said and make a false claim about what he did say. Unfortunately for you, we can all go back and see what he said, since this is a written statement. Tactics used by creationists in oral debates and which rely on misrepresenting what has been said do not work in written debate. All it does is demonstrate the falseness of your statement.
I see you have a problem with the use of a well-known and well-used phrase because it contains the word "shit". Tough. It's a shame you don't have the same sensibilities about misrepresenting people. Or do you take the position that, to coin another well-known phrase, "lying for Jeebus" is ok because the ends justify the means?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 6:30 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 5:55 PM Trixie has replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(4)
Message 87 of 251 (653884)
02-25-2012 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Portillo
02-25-2012 3:56 AM


Semantic Trickery
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...
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.
Edited by Warthog, : Forgot about the subtitle (trying to be good)

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 3:56 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22929
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.2


(3)
Message 88 of 251 (653888)
02-25-2012 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Portillo
02-25-2012 6:30 AM


Re: Try to debate without using swear words.
Hi Portillo,
This is sort of off-topic, but why are you doing this? To the rest of us this looks like a purposeful attempt to confuse and obfuscate. It looks like, having perhaps decided that the battle in this thread can't be won, that you've decided to destroy any focus and clarity the thread might have.
It is rare that people act out of base motives, so I have to believe that you have a clear conscience and do not believe you're doing any such thing, but I have to wonder what the heck you're thinking. You really believe that Dwise1 is saying that we evolutionists only accept one definition of evolution, no matter the context? Really? Even if you really and truly believe this in your heart of hearts, wouldn't it be a better strategy to hide this fact so that people don't think you're, uh, comprehensionally challenged, or worse, lying?
Last night I heard a BBC interview with a Syrian minister who employed simple denial in his responses to question after question, for example (this is paraphrased from memory):
"What's your reaction to the death of the two journalists yesterday?"
"We have no evidence they were even in this country. You can fake anything on the Internet."
"What's your reaction to the video of the father who blamed your attack on Homs for the death of his two year old son?"
"People can say anything. Videos can be faked."
etc...
Obviously he's lying. He doesn't really believe that wholesale faking of videos of Homs being bombarded is taking place. But his job is to put the damning evidence in the best light possible, and so he is attempting to cast doubt. Probably at least some people will believe him, but that he's lying is obvious to most of the world.
You've participated here with sincerity and integrity, but my problem with your supposed interpretation of Dwise1's words is that while I don't believe you're lying, the other interpretations of your behavior are not particularly flattering, either.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 6:30 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 6:19 PM Percy has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6076
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.1


(1)
Message 89 of 251 (653950)
02-25-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Portillo
02-25-2012 3:56 AM


What is Evolution?
As a retired US Navy chief, I tell you that the US Navy uses evolution countless times every single day on all its ships and in all its commands. In fact, without evolution the Navy could not possibly function, let alone be a Global Force for Good.
What I just told you is absolutely true. In the Navy, an evolution is when a group of sailors, sometimes all hands, is organized to turn out and perform a task together. Of course, it also has nothing to do with biological evolution, but if we were to apply your faulty reasoning then we would have to. Kind of a pity we can't, because there's no way you could possibly ignore the existence of Navy evolutions.
Words mean something! In fact, many words mean more than one thing, in which case context becomes paramount in determining the word's meaning. Specialized disciplines (including the sciences, the humanities, the military, engineering, hobbiest communities, and just about every profession and trade and activity) have their own specialized vocabularies, often called with mistaken disparity "jargon". Rather then invent completely novel and unique new terminology, most of these "jargons" take common English words and give them the new meanings that they need. If you are a student or have been a student, especially on the college level or even in a military technical school, then you will have sat through many first lectures in which the instructor gave you a list of terms that would be used in the course and their specialized definitions that are different from those words' common English usage. And that are different from one discipline to the other, a source of confusion when people from different disciplines get together (eg, dancers and musicians when they talk about rhythm, electrical engineers and technicians disagreeing over which direction current flows).
Jargon is vitally important for communication within a discipline as it enables the exchange of concise and accurate information, but knowledge of that specialized is required to understand those exchanges (eg, trying to communicate programming structures and operations to another programmer is very easy, but to a non-programmer is incredibly difficult). As a result, outsiders disparage the use of these specialized vocabularies, even though they are themselves insiders in other groups with their own specialized jargons.
In the meantime, creationists have worked to take full advantage of jargon to generate and spread confusion. The most common example is the one that you just used yourself, the widespread practice of semantic shifting, in which a word is taken from one specialized usage and the definition from another usage is substituted instead. This is frequently used in quote-mining. It is also used in deceiving creationist followers by redefining words such as "theory" and "evolution".
I'm sure you don't know this, but Darwin took a pre-existing word, "evolution", and applied a new and different meaning to it, creating a jargon. Here's the entry from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution:
quote:
evolution
—noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1615—25; < Latin evolution- (stem of evolutio ) an unrolling, opening, equivalent to evolut ( us ) ( see evolute) + -ion- -ion
Synonyms
1. unfolding, change, progression, metamorphosis.
Look at the date of its origin: 1615-25. At least two centuries before Darwin's theory. What did it mean? The growth and development of something, anything, by whatever means. None of which has anything to do with Darwin's theory.
Darwin derived his own specialized meaning of the term long after it had been established, not the other way around. Terms like "stellar evolution" derive from the older meaning, not from Darwinism.
This standard creationist "kinds of evolution" argument that you're trying to foist off on us is false and pure deception.
And, yes, because of the context of this topic's subject matter and of the "discussion" (one-sided, because we had been trying to dialogue with a creationist), it is abundantly clear and inescapable that we have been talking about biological evolution and only biological evolution. The problem that I was touching on when you quote-mined me is that while we are talking specifically about biological evolution, you (plural) are most likely applying your own special jargon meaning that includes an entire atheistic philosophy and social agenda, none of which has anything at all to do with biological evolution. Kind of like your term "evolutionist" which some of us have accept as meaning "not a creationist" whereas the creationist meaning applies it to everybody who accepts evolution and is overloaded with a mountain of perjoratives including atheism, God-hating, anti-religion, even though the majority of these "evolutionists" are believing Christians and other forms of theist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Portillo, posted 02-25-2012 3:56 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2012 4:35 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 123 days)
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 90 of 251 (653960)
02-25-2012 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by dwise1
02-25-2012 3:26 PM


Re: What is Evolution?
I didn't think Darwin used the term 'evolution'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by dwise1, posted 02-25-2012 3:26 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by dwise1, posted 02-25-2012 4:51 PM Dr Jack 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