Working scientists create working definitions with which to work.
Yes, working definitions. In my field an example is the delta forming at Oranjemund. It's been forming for and changing for millions of years.
The depositional environment works for diamond exploration in that area, but won't work in the Mississipi Delta. The processes for diamond deposition are not favourable in that Mississipi area. No Kimberlites of the right ages around around!
Maybe that's the creationist problem? They don't realise that different conditions apply in different circumstances? To me it seems as if their problem is that they don't know anything about basic science though they pretend to do it? But, when they think that everything was poofed into existence in one shot they really are not even open to contemplate reality? Hence their insistence on one definition for everything?
So, at a minimum, a cell must be self contained, must metabolize, and must be a "protein factory"
This then will exclude Tasmanian Tiger Cancer from being alive.
What those guys do is to be part of a Tassie Tigers as cells (they come from Tassie Tigers, they are self-contained, they metabolize and are a protein factory), then can't do most of those things when leaving; then they infect another Tassie tiger by air and they do it all again. Are they dead or in between?
Back to your definition of life. As a biologist, I don't think it is good enough. What difference does it make to you if biologists use multiple definitions for life?
As a coal geologist, what difference does it make whether those blackish rocks obtained from the Waterberg Coalfield are defined as coal or not?
According to international classification, the Waterberg Coalfield is comprised of carbonaceous shale. Not coal. Yet, it burns. And is used in coal-fired power plants. And can also produce high quality coking coal. And metallurgical coal.
One definition for everything relating to coal doesn't describe everything...what applies to some rocks don't apply to others. Some are not even classified as coal...yet, they can and do perform the same functions when used in real life by people. One size does not fit all.
It's also not an equivocation either; it is trying to describe reality. Reality can't always be described in one definition.
Yes, and you could have a God who created all kinds of living things 6000 years ago!
Actually, the Theespruit Formation of the Barberton Supergroup started forming 3547 ma years ago. And those rocks contain fossils of prokaryotes. No elephant fossils in there.
The tonalitic and trondjemitic gneisses of that area started forming around 3645 ma ago.
These are facts whether you like them or not. So, no, Spooks couldn't have poofed all 'kinds' into existence 6000 years ago. Evidence, AlphaOmegakid, I know that evidence doesn't mean much to you, but in science the evidence is very important.
Yes, Please don't forget Cell Theory which is much more important than evolution theory regarding OOL.
Really? I thought that the modern evolutionary theory deals with genetic variation and natural selection? Have you ever published anything about evolution in any peer-reviewed scientific journal dealing with the subject?
Evos have argued for years that evo theory does not apply to OOL. So what ist it? You seem to think evolution does apply to OOL. Hmmmm?
I'm not really too sure why you brought this up. For me (not being a biologist) the theory of evolution deals with genetic variation and natural selection. Basically describing the mechanisms of how all the life-forms we experience today came along from unicellular life. That's the TOE.
Life (as we know it) evolved from prokaryotes to what we encounter today by means of genetic variation and natural selection. That's the theory of evolution in a nut shell for me.
Actually it is you making the bodacious claims as facts. So please support yours with evidence. I made no claims that I have to support. I know reading comprehension can be difficult. Maybe that's why you are so quick to believe that these are facts.
So, you doubt the Barberton Supergroup? Do you doubt the fossils found in those rocks? What exactly do you doubt?
So, according to your statements TOE doesn't apply to OOL.
Actually, the ToE for life, as we know it, only applies to life as we know it. Inhereted characteristics and natural selection might also have applied to complex organic molecules before the first cells formed, we don't know yet.
Or better stated, TOE addresses first life to man, but not rocks to first life. But , if you have read this forum, you can see that RAZD wants the theory to apply to rocks to first life. So I am trying to pin him down.
I don't think a creationist would ever be able to pin RAZD down. Unlike creationists, RAZD knows a lot.
According to Evo theory life began (cellular Life) about 3.5B years ago.
Nope. Not at all. Struggling with the basics, aren't you? You've got it the other way round. Science works the opposite way you do.
According to the science of geology the empirical, verifiable evidence is quite clear. The oldest forms of what we call life life were unicellular. Prokaryotes. In WA those fossils are around 3.8 billion years old. In SA around 3.5 billion years old.
The theory of evolution is an explanation of what was discovered.
Seems like you're really, really struggling to know what the word 'evidence' means. Hey, AOk, in science the evidence comes first. The opposite of what you do.
I didn't know that the theory of evolution had six levels.
From all the variations of Theory of Evolution I got from scientific sources it seems as if the theory of evolution deals with how modern life came about. Nothing to do with the formations of stars or the universe or the earth or anything like that.
The theory of evolution deals with biology.
Are you sure you've ever read anything scientific on the theory of evolution? I certainly can't anything scientific on the theory of evolution dealing with the Universe or six levels or anything like that. Anywhere.
Ah, at last we got a creationist venturing into the definition of genetic information or how the term is used amongst biologists. Tip the hats!
You do know what they say about opinions don't you? Contrary to yours, the definition of genetic information is quite well defined within a biological context. Here is a definition:
The genetic potential of an organism carried in the base sequence of its DNA (or, in some viruses, RNA) according to the genetic code.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/...ish/genetic-information My definition describes, in part, the Central Dogma of Biology. The principles of which are taught in "every" high school Biology book around the world. If you read this wiki article you will find the word "information" is used 29 times. It seems the evidence that this is well understood in Biology is overwhelming.
This definition doesn't provide any information on how to measure genetic information though. Could you be more specific on how to measure the amount of genetic information, AOk? For example, how does this definition determine or measure whether a crocodile has "more genetic information" or "more genetic potential" or "less genetic information" or "less genetic potential" than an elephant?