|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is not Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3968 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Portillo writes:
What do you think of these quotes by Theodosius Dobzhansky?
What do you guys and girls think of this quote by Theodosius Dobzhansky? quote: quote: quote: Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 287 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10299 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4415 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
Thanks for your replies everyone. I just need your expert opinion on one more quote by Julian Huxley.
quote: Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 230 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Porillo writes: As I didn’t know who Julian Huxley was, I got him from Wiki : Julian Huxley - Wikipedia
Thanks for your replies everyone. I just need your expert opinion on one more quote by Julian Huxley. Wiki writes: OK. He was an evolutionary biologist who studiedbiology. I’m not an expert in evolutionary biology in any way. 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.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 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. "The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Portillo writes: 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. 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.Portillo writes: 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. 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.Portillo writes: Of course it does. More than 13 billion years is a very long time. It’s been unrolling from the Big Bang to us. Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time,Portillo writes: 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. which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization, in its products.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: Of course it is. That’s what all the evidence we have indicate. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution - a single process of self-transformation."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10299 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 4222 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 108 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3968 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
AM writes:
Nothing in your post is correct - it is all wrong. 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 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024