Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Astrophile]

Not reading everything (my fault for lack of time). I do not confuse abiogenesis with evolution, although evolution is virtually impossible without abiogenesis, isn't it? You really can't have evolution, can you, without abiogenesis.

To use an analogy, you can't have chemistry without the chemical elements, but chemistry was a science centuries before we understood how the elements were made.

Also, in principle, abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. Evolution would still work if God had created the first procaryotic organisms about 3800 million years ago and had then left them to their own devices.

 

[leroy]

There are quite a few. For biologists evolution is the change in percentage of gene alleles of a population.

A bit more general is that it is the process that led to the diversity of life today that started with a common ancestor. There are others.

I am asking for a definition for evolution in the context of the first post of this thread. When you say that there is “lots” of evidence for evolution and zero evidence against it (as the first post implies) what exactly do you mean by evolution?”


Or to put it this way, when you say that evolution is an uncontroversial theory what exactly do you mean by “evolution”?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am asking for a definition for evolution in the context of the first post of this thread. When you say that there is “lots” of evidence for evolution and zero evidence against it (as the first post implies) what exactly do you mean by evolution?”


Or to put it this way, when you say that evolution is an uncontroversial theory what exactly do you mean by “evolution”?

For you we will use the simpler definition that all life evolved from a common ancestor. And there are literally mountains of evidence for that sort of evolution. In the sciences there is no controversy. A handful of loons oppose it, but a percentage far lower than that of the mentally ill in the population as a whole. Most creationists do not understand the concept of evidence and are afraid to learn. It is not that difficult of a concept, yet it scares the bejesus out of them.

 

[leroy]

To use an analogy, you can't have chemistry without the chemical elements, but chemistry was a science centuries before we understood how the elements were made.

Also, in principle, abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. Evolution would still work if God had created the first procaryotic organisms about 3800 million years ago and had then left them to their own devices.

While evolution doesn’t depend on abiogenesis, evolution does depend on some assumptions,

1 that abiogenesis happened billions of years ago

2 that abiogenesis only happened once (or at least that only one line survived to this date)

3 that the first living thing was simple, much simpler than modern unicellular organisms.

 

[leroy]

Your definiton for evolution:

For you we will use the simpler definition that all life evolved from a common ancestor. And there are literally mountains of evidence for that sort of evolution. In the sciences there is no controversy. A handful of loons oppose it, but a percentage far lower than that of the mentally ill in the population as a whole. Most creationists do not understand the concept of evidence and are afraid to learn. It is not that difficult of a concept, yet it scares the bejesus out of them.

Obviously that definition is circular, what do you mean by “evolved”?

 

[Subduction Zone]

While evolution doesn’t depend on abiogenesis, evolution does depend on some assumptions,

1 that abiogenesis happened billions of years ago

No, it depends upon an abiogensis event, not necessarily natural abiogenesis. And the fossil record confirms that. No life to be found at one time.

2 that abiogenesis only happened once (or at least that only one line survived to this date)

Again not an assumption since the shared DNA of life appears to confirm this.

3 that the first living thing was simple, much simpler than modern unicellular organisms.

Not much of an assumption there. Since life has had billions of years to evolve it is not that big of a jump to realize that it would be more complex today than in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your definiton for evolution:


Obviously that definition is circular, what do you mean by “evolved”?

No, not really. Just poor reading comprehension on your part. I tried to simplify it since the more technical one did not seem to appeal to you.

When you all but demand a simpler explanation it is rather hypocritical to complain about supposed errors that result from simplification.

Correct all of your errors in your previous post and I will rewrite it for you.

 

[YoursTrue]

To use an analogy, you can't have chemistry without the chemical elements, but chemistry was a science centuries before we understood how the elements were made.

Also, in principle, abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. Evolution would still work if God had created the first procaryotic organisms about 3800 million years ago and had then left them to their own devices.

3800 million years ago? That's a long time. And those first procaryotic organisms weren't all that simple, were they? Plus, how do you know that is what first happened? Yes, abiogenesis is how it (evolution) came about. So while you have your definitions, I'm not convinced that the emergence from non-living matter was not necessary for the saisd process of evolution to get started.
"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. This article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred."
Wikipedia abiogenesis.
According to scientists, evolution would not, could not, have occurred without abiogenesis. Therefore it is not evolution as in living matter, but without it, evolution or life could not have occurred. Therefore, it is necessary and integral to the process of evolution. Evolution deals with living matter. Abiogenesis deals with how that all occurred from non-living matter. Abiogenesis and evolution are inexorably linked.

 

[leroy]

No, not really. Just poor reading comprehension on your part. I tried to simplify it since the more technical one did not seem to appeal to you.

When you all but demand a simpler explanation it is rather hypocritical to complain about supposed errors that result from simplification.

Correct all of your errors in your previous post and I will rewrite it for you.

Again you used the Word "evolved" in your definition for evolution, that definition is cyrcular...... But anyway so what do mean by "evolved"?

 

[leroy]

No, it depends upon an abiogensis event, not necessarily natural abiogenesis. And the fossil record confirms that. No life to be found at one time.



Again not an assumption since the shared DNA of life appears to confirm this.


Not much of an assumption there. Since life has had billions of years to evolve it is not that big of a jump to realize that it would be more complex today than in the past.

These are still asumtions, (asumtions that we know are true).... The only point that I made was that evolution and abiogenesis are not completly independient Things....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again you used the Word "evolved" in your definition for evolution, that definition is cyrcular...... But anyway so what do mean by "evolved"?

I did not see an acknowledgement of your errors. And again, not circular, poor reading skills on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These are still asumtions, (asumtions that we know are true).... The only point that I made was that evolution and abiogenesis are not completly independient Things....

No, conclusions that are formed from evidence and logic are not assumptions. If you want to claim assumptions you take on a burden of proof. I do not see you supporting your claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

These are still asumtions, (asumtions that we know are true).... The only point that I made was that evolution and abiogenesis are not completly independient Things....

Evidently not.
You ask good questions. Evolution is for some the idea that all living things come about by mindless chemical processes automatically happening, one form merging into another, including the process, for example, of dinosaurs eventually producing birds from within the gene bank of the dinosaur and of course, from the dinosaur's genetic predecessors in the said evolutionary lineage. It's not like the said closest "relative" to homo sapiens figured they'd like to be different than what they were, and as a result they decided to evolve. Or that the first unicells decided to continue forming new cells and change.

 

[YoursTrue]

To use an analogy, you can't have chemistry without the chemical elements, but chemistry was a science centuries before we understood how the elements were made.

Also, in principle, abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. Evolution would still work if God had created the first procaryotic organisms about 3800 million years ago and had then left them to their own devices.

Apparently scientists believe that evolution started because of abiogenesis. Thinking about it, abiogenesis is not said to have happened with things not considered as living matter, is it? For instance, abiogenesis is not said to have occurred with the production of meteors, or water, is it? Isn't it spoken of only in connection with the emergence of living matter that can replicate itself or change on its own power to another life-form?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently scientists believe that evolution started because of abiogenesis. Thinking about it, abiogenesis is not said to have happened with things not considered as living matter, is it? For instance, abiogenesis is not said to have occurred with the production of meteors, or water, is it? Isn't it spoken of only in connection with the emergence of living matter that can replicate itself or change on its own power to another life-form?

Matter does not live. You are made up of inanimate matter.

Most of the plants that you eat were water and carbon within the last year. Animals that you eat ate plants and that puts them only one more year from being inanimate matter. Another objection without any substance.

 

[YoursTrue]

To use an analogy, you can't have chemistry without the chemical elements, but chemistry was a science centuries before we understood how the elements were made.

Also, in principle, abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. Evolution would still work if God had created the first procaryotic organisms about 3800 million years ago and had then left them to their own devices.

May I ask you a question, based on your post above? Do you have any knowledge of the beliefs of those who claim to believe in God while also believing in evolution, can you tell me how they view the relationship of God with life (or evolution)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

May I ask you a question, based on your post above? Do you have any knowledge of the beliefs of those who claim to believe in God while also believing in evolution, can you tell me how they view the relationship of God with life (or evolution)?

You could not find a better example than this:

Evolution: Library: Ken Miller: Reconciling Science and Faith

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you know that it happened and anything came from anywhere?
You'd actually need to demonstrate that with evidence. You know, like the evidence you keep wanting for evolution, while you blindly accept whatever the Bible says. Sorry, but I'm finding this quite bizarre.

So answer this: was the water on the earth or in the sky above the earth always there? Do you know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So answer this: was the water on the earth or in the sky above the earth always there? Do you know?

Another poorly worded question. What exactly do you mean?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The different religions do not offer the same thing as far as future life goes

Probably on the count of them being different religions.

The point is that most all religions make some promise regarding "afterlife". As in: dead isn't the end.
That was the point.

Interestingly, the first scrolls kept are said to have been penned by Moses and kept and treasured for well over 1500 years with additions.

I don't see what's interesting about that, other then the concensus among mainstream historians that Moses is a fictional character.

They do center in on God's relationship with certain particular men, then branching off to basically the 12 tribes of Israel, and then, of course, Jesus. And beyond. But the books recognized as true (or canonical) began with Moses and ended with John's Revelation.

That's just your religious belief.