Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[McBell]

So, you are saying you have no problem with the idea that an intelligent designer got the ball rolling?

I honestly could care less one way or the other.

You only want to discuss how life evolved?

That is what evolution is about, how things evolved, why they evolved, etc.
Evolution is not the least little bit concerned with how life started.
Evolution is concerned with the why and how there are so many different species on the Earth.

If so, tell me, before life 'evolved' to what it is now, HOW DID IT START?

I do not know.
And honestly, I could care less.

Let's talk abiogenins! Surely that is the at the root of the theory. YOU DO NOT KNOW! So how can you say that intelligent design has nothing to do with it? HOW!?

:slap:
Please pay attention.

I said that ID has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Valjean]

Evolution's not a random roll of the die. It's guided -- not by a celestial magicial but by the selective pressure of adaptation.

 

[Atruthseeker]

Ok, guys fire away! Where do you want to start? (Also, what isn't there to understand about evolution that I appently don't understand?) And by the way, some of my previous post were windups, I admit, so sorry about that. Some people can't tell when I'm joking...But just one more thing before you start, and this time I am serious, I'd just like to know why so many people who believe in evolution are so against ID or creationism, (as can be seen by many posts and remarks) as it seems to me that those two things attempt to explain the origins of life, whereas evolution only tries to explain how things moved on from that point onwards. (I know, they are two seperate things)

However, if so many evolutionists don't care about how life got started (abiogenesis), then why mock creationism or ID, as if it's the same as believing in the toothfairy etc? Seeing that scientists can't explain what happened at the start, isn't it fair game to allow such theories as put forward by creationists.

You see, and I tink this has been pointed out before, it's about world views. A creationist will look a cell and see a complex structure with it's many functions which indicate design, where as a non-creationist (call it what you will) will look at the same cell and will see something that came about by random mutations over a very long time.

 

[Half Asleep]

However, if so many evolutionists don't care about how life got started (abiogenesis), then why mock creationism or ID, as if it's the same as believing in the toothfairy etc? Seeing that scientists can't explain what happened at the start, isn't it fair game to allow such theories as put forward by creationists.

"I don't know" is better than a wrong answer.

 

[Atruthseeker]

"I don't know" is better than a wrong answer.

Who are you talking about? Creationists or evolutionists?

 

[Krok]

Ok, guys fire away! Where do you want to start? (Also, what isn't there to understand about evolution that I appently don't understand?)

Read some real scientific material on evolution, not pseudo-scientific ramble from DI or CRI or AiG.

And by the way, some of my previous post were windups, I admit, so sorry about that. Some people can't tell when I'm joking...But just one more thing before you start, and this time I am serious, I'd just like to know why so many people who believe in evolution are so against ID or creationism, (as can be seen by many posts and remarks)

As to why we are against ID, look at the Wedge Document, they put it in black and white for all to see: they don't intend to do science, but intend to let things sound sciency to get their religion taught as science in schools. What do I have against creationism? Where to start? They do not follow the scientific method, don't publish in peer-reviewed journals, they lie about everything, they reject well-proved scientific tools like dating methods because it doesn't fit into their agenda, they lie to and mislead people who are not well-educated in science, they pretend to have scientific qualifications, etc.

as it seems to me that those two things attempt to explain the origins of life, whereas evolution only tries to explain how things moved on from that point onwards. (I know, they are two seperate things)

Goddidit is not an explanation, it is a statement.

However, if so many evolutionists don't care about how life got started (abiogenesis), then why mock creationism or ID, as if it's the same as believing in the toothfairy etc? Seeing that scientists can't explain what happened at the start, isn't it fair game to allow such theories as put forward by creationists.

Oh, ' evolutionists' do care about how life started. That's why quite a few theories trying to explain abiogenesis were developed, lots and lots of real scientists (Biologists, Chemists, Physicists) are doing experimental work in hundreds of laboratories all over the world, lots and lots of real scientists are diving to the deepest parts of the ocean to try and get some information, lots and lots of real scientists are climbing up to the highest mountain peaks to get some information, lots and lots of real scientists are studying other planets, moons, suns and the rest of the universe to get more information. All of them are attempting to find an evidence-based explanation. That is definitely not the same as believing in toothfairys or saying Goddidit. Goddidit is also not a theory nor an explanation: it is a statement.

You see, and I tink this has been pointed out before, it's about world views. A creationist will look a cell and see a complex structure with it's many functions which indicate design, where as a non-creationist (call it what you will) will look at the same cell and will see something that came about by random mutations over a very long time.

No, it is not about world views. It is about evidence. Evidence is something you detect in nature. Creationists don't know what it means, but evidence is a very important part of doing science. It is not a worldview, it is reality.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question asked in the OP:
'When someone says Evolution, what do they mean? When someone says Theory of Evolution (ToE) they do not mean Evolution? Etc? What do you think?

This is the prelude to an attempt to explain the Theory of Evolution and Evolution and the differences and what is meant. I first need to know what you think it means as I universally (100%) only seen Creationist thinking it is something it isn't.

Ga Briel'

 

[Atruthseeker]

This is the prelude to an attempt to explain the Theory of Evolution and Evolution and the differences and what is meant. I first need to know what you think it means as I universally (100%) only seen Creationist thinking it is something it isn't.

Ga Briel'

Ok, is this it? The theory of Evolution is the theory of how life evolved, and evolution is how it actually evolved.

 

[Atruthseeker]

Oh, ' evolutionists' do care about how life started. That's why quite a few theories trying to explain abiogenesis were developed, lots and lots of real scientists (Biologists, Chemists, Physicists) are doing experimental work in hundreds of laboratories all over the world...

That's strange cos these comments seem to disagree with you...

Evolution is not the least little bit concerned with how life started.

Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution.

I wonder why creationists cannot get it through their thick skulls that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis?

 

[Krok]

That's strange cos these comments seem to disagree with you...

That is where you and other Creationists get confused.

There are scientists, you know, people like biologists, palaeontologists, geologists, physicists, biochemists, etc, who tend to agree that in their different fields of expertise, the evidence converge and indicate that the most likely cause for the different species is biological evolution.Therefore they accept the Theory of Evolution, which has nothing to do with the chemical process of how first life started. That means that

'Evolution is not the least little bit concerned with how life started',
'Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution, and 'I wonder why creationists cannot get it through their thick skulls that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis?'

are all perfectly true.

So, the lesson Creationists have to learn, is: Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different things. Abiogenesis deals with the chemical process of how life started and Evolution deals with the biological process of how life continued. It indicates a severe lack of knowledge when you discuss Abiogenesis as part of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Atruthseeker]

That is where you and other Creationists get confused.

There are scientists, you know, people like biologists, palaeontologists, geologists, physicists, biochemists, etc, who tend to agree that in their different fields of expertise, the evidence converge and indicate that the most likely cause for the different species is biological evolution.Therefore they accept the Theory of Evolution, which has nothing to do with the chemical process of how first life started. That means that

'Evolution is not the least little bit concerned with how life started',
'Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution, and 'I wonder why creationists cannot get it through their thick skulls that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis?'

are all perfectly true.

So, the lesson Creationists have to learn, is: Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different things. Abiogenesis deals with the chemical process of how life started and Evolution deals with the biological process of how life continued. It indicates a severe lack of knowledge when you discuss Abiogenesis as part of the Theory of Evolution.

Again, I'd like to refer you to your previous statement:

Oh, ' evolutionists' do care about how life started.

And I do know the difference between the two, you plum.

 

[Kerr]

So, you are saying you have no problem with the idea that an intelligent designer got the ball rolling? You only want to discuss how life evolved? If so, tell me, before life 'evolved' to what it is now, HOW DID IT START? Let's talk abiogenins! Surely that is the at the root of the theory. YOU DO NOT KNOW! So how can you say that intelligent design has nothing to do with it? HOW!?

Why are you mixing up two different topics?

 

[Kerr]

Ok, guys fire away! Where do you want to start? (Also, what isn't there to understand about evolution that I appently don't understand?) And by the way, some of my previous post were windups, I admit, so sorry about that. Some people can't tell when I'm joking...But just one more thing before you start, and this time I am serious, I'd just like to know why so many people who believe in evolution are so against ID or creationism, (as can be seen by many posts and remarks) as it seems to me that those two things attempt to explain the origins of life, whereas evolution only tries to explain how things moved on from that point onwards. (I know, they are two seperate things)

However, if so many evolutionists don't care about how life got started (abiogenesis), then why mock creationism or ID, as if it's the same as believing in the toothfairy etc? Seeing that scientists can't explain what happened at the start, isn't it fair game to allow such theories as put forward by creationists.

Creationism does not just say how life started. It also talks about why life looks the way it does, and in doing so it contradict evolution. In which case the theory with most solid foundation is the one that is most likely to be true, which happens to be the ToE.

You see, and I tink this has been pointed out before, it's about world views. A creationist will look a cell and see a complex structure with it's many functions which indicate design, where as a non-creationist (call it what you will) will look at the same cell and will see something that came about by random mutations over a very long time.

Not really, to say that we see something that just came to be because of random mutations over a long time is as much of a correct statement as to say that in order to prove evolution you would have to find a crockoduck.

 

[Super Saiya Jinn]

So what you are saying is that Evolution is a closed book not open to critisism or questioning. Cos, it's funny, even Dawkins himself said no one know how life got started, and that includes you, so really, you can not claim a monopoly on how life started. Sorry.

There is a Theory called Abiogenesis, but this is by no means been proven as of yet. Although one of the supposed building blocks of life (Amino Acids) have been found from the debri of a passing comet, which could be looked upon as the first step to proving Abiogenesis as a reality, and completely opens the spectrum to there being life else where in our Universe.

 

[McBell]

Again, I'd like to refer you to your previous statement:
And I do know the difference between the two, you plum.

Obviously not.
Evolution could care less.

Evolutionists (your term, not mine) are the people who support the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution is the process that Evolutionists (again, your term, not mine) support.

Now if you are unable or unwilling to see the difference, that is on you.

 

[Super Saiya Jinn]

I would say the Theory of Evolution is the Theory that explains how the life on Earth became so Diverse, Evolution on it's own is not a Scientific Theory and is a word used for something that changes shape or structure and could be attributed to a number of different things. Businesses Evolve, relationships too. The reason Darwin called it Evolution is because he was making the point that life does the same thing.

 

[Krok]

Again, I'd like to refer you to your previous statement:
And I do know the difference between the two, you plum.

Then you would also realise that I put the term 'evolusionists' in inverted commas. Scientists accepted the Theory of Evolution as the best way to explain the variety of biological life, but they do not accept the term 'evolutionists'. They prefered being called scientists.

These same scientists do care a lot about how life started. Thats why they do all the experiments and things I described in a previous post.They still don't confuse Evolution and Abiogenesis.

 

[Atruthseeker]

Creationism does not just say how life started. It also talks about why life looks the way it does, and in doing so it contradict evolution.

Does it?

 

[Atruthseeker]

Obviously not.
Evolution could care less.

Evolutionists (your term, not mine) are the people who support the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution is the process that Evolutionists (again, your term, not mine) support.

Now if you are unable or unwilling to see the difference, that is on you.

This what i wrote in a previous post: The theory of Evolution is the theory of how life evolved, and evolution is how it actually evolved. Pretty much the same. Oh, and 'evolutionists' is not my term but the dictionary's definition of guys like you. "An evolutionist is someone who accepts the scientific theory that all living things evolved from a few simple life forms."(Google dictionary)

 

[Atruthseeker]

Then you would also realise that I put the term 'evolusionists' in inverted commas. Scientists accepted the Theory of Evolution as the best way to explain the variety of biological life, but they do not accept the term 'evolutionists'. They prefered being called scientists.

ev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion⋅ist

   /ˌɛv

əˈlu

ʃə

nɪst or, especially Brit., ˌi

və-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Show IPA–noun 1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology. 2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
–adjective Also, ev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion⋅is⋅tic. 3. of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists. 4. believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.

 

[Atruthseeker]

These same scientists do care a lot about how life started. Thats why they do all the experiments and things I described in a previous post.They still don't confuse Evolution and Abiogenesis.

Why don't they save some time and accept that Godditit!:biglaugh: