Quiz and Evolutionary Biology

quote:

---

let me restate that answer. "I dont agree with evolution which "matter comes from non living-matter"

---

...which has nothing to do with the evolution of lifethis is "abiogenesis", which is a separate scientific concept from Evolution.The evidence for Evolution does not hinge on if life came from non-life. Even if the first life had been "created" by magical means, ever since that first life came to be, all the evidence points towards evolution as the means through which it changed.

quote:

---

I also dont agree with MACRO evolution.

---

Upon what scientific evidence do you base this rejection of a widely-accepted and extremely well-supported scientific fact?Basically, you would have to show some mechanism which prevents many small allele changes in a population from accumulating to large allele changes in a popularion over time.Please explain.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-26-2003]

Crap!Admin, can you please remove the apostrophe "s" in the thread subject?Thanks{Done (10/28/03) - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-28-2003]

Bump

bumpetty bump

BUMP!!!

- deleted -[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 10-31-2003]

'this is "abiogenesis", which is a separate scientific concept from Evolution.'Do you believe in abiogenesis?
I believe in Genesis.

mike the wiz responds to schrafinator:

quote:

---

Do you believe in abiogenesis?

---

Non sequitur.Whether or not schrafinator considers abiogenesis to be the method by which life originated has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is not dependent upon how life came into being. It could have happened chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extra-terrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method I haven't mentioned. Evolution doesn't care. So long as life does not replicate perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.So in a discussion about evolution, why do you ask about abiogenesis when you know it has nothing to do with evolution?

quote:

---

I believe in Genesis.

---

Bully for you.What does that have to do with evolution?I like the Manhattan Transfer.What does that have to do with evolution?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

To be honest, I'm not on a witch hunt. This may seem inconcievable to you Rhain, but I was just interested in her answer. call me odd, but I take an interest in what people think. The same applies in 'Universal Perfection'. I did not attack anyone, I was interested in increasing the knowledge within the wiz box.Infact you are making the implications of abiogenesis being evolution, not me.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-31-2003]

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

To be honest, I'm not on a witch hunt.

---

But you play games, mike. You say things you don't mean, you equivocate, you refuse to answer questions directly asked of you, and you abandon threads when the going gets tough.Why on earth should anybody believe you now?

quote:

---

Infact you are making the implications of abiogenesis being evolution, not me.

---

(*chuckle*)See what I mean? Superb example of game playing. Here you actually lie about what someone has said.Tell us, mike, how does the following: possibly come to mean that evolution is dependent on abiogenesis or that abiogenesis requires evolution?I really want an answer to this, mike. How does one interpret "Evolution is not dependent upon how life came into being" to mean "Evolution is dependent upon life coming into being via abiogenesis"?I know that I have a problem with dropping my nots when writing. I will be saying something that will use the word "not" and for some reason, the final draft will not contain that word. But I'm looking at what I said and the not is there.How does "Evolution is not dependent upon how life came into being" come to mean "Evolution depends upon abiogenesis"?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

'Why on earth should anybody believe you now?'Okay fair enough, you got me by the unmentionables. You did not imply it. What you did do is say it's what I was implying. But if you look in other threads you will see I have said abiogenesis is not evolution.'and you abandon threads when the going gets tough.'I abandon threads when it's 10 people versus me, or my fingers are aching. However, I don't recall running away from any so called tough debate.

Everyone beleives in abiogenesis. At one time there was not life, now there is. Unless you believe there has always been life, which does not seem to be a common belief."Abiogenesis" means nothing more or less than that. And of course I believe it, as does every creationist.Do I believe in any specific explanation? Not really, and it's a difficult enough situation that even if we show a way it *could* have happened, we may never know the true history of life. I'll remain officially undecided on this for now.I hope this doesn't seem like a trivial point. The truth is, creationists and scientists alike "believe in" abiogenesis. Scientists approach it from a scientific viewpoint, creationists invoke miracles, but everyone agrees it happened.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-31-2003]

quote:

---

Do you believe in abiogenesis?

---

Well, yes, I do, and as Zhimbo has pointed out, so do you, most likely.Am I 100% confident that we understand how life on Earth began?Absolutely not.Does how life got here make any difference to the fact that once life got here, evolutionary forces began to have an effect?No.

quote:

---

I believe in Genesis.

---

Which version of Genesis?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-31-2003]

Look at any stagnant pond and you'll see a reflection of early Earth. Green scum. It's the way things were back before the planet had enough oxygen to allow life to evolve a little, to breathe, to get some legs under it and trot around.Your scummy ancestors had the planet to themselves up to about 2.2 billion years ago. These single-celled organisms were the only things that could survive on a diet nearly bereft of oxygen.The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution doesn't apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas don't work without a theory of meteorology.There is a great deal about abiogenesis which is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis.

'Well, yes, I do, and as Zhimbo has pointed out, so do you, most likely.'I believe the creation of life, as described in genesis.'Does how life got here make any difference to the fact that once life got here, evolutionary forces began to have an effect?'as Zhimbo said, we can never know the full picture from history. So I'm afraid the toe remains the toe.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-31-2003]