Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[Autodidact]

Unsurprisingly, another cowardly creationist runs before the truth.

 

[aequitas]

That's a correct definition of evolution, but not the Theory of Evolution (ToE). The ToE is not the same as evolution, in the same way as the Theory of Gravity is not the same thing as gravity. The theory is an explanation of the phenomenon. Do you know what ToE says? (I'm guessing no.)

So you're asking for Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution;
1. Variation: There is Variation in Every Population.
2. Competition: Organisms Compete for limited resources.
3. Offspring: Organisms produce more Offspring than can survive.
4. Genetics: Organisms pass Genetic traits on to their offspring.
5. Natural Selection: Those organisms with the Most Beneficial Traits
are more likely to Survive and Reproduce.

 

[aequitas]

Unsurprisingly, another cowardly creationist runs before the truth.

Are you referring to me?

 

[Autodidact]

So you're asking for Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution;
1. Variation: There is Variation in Every Population.
2. Competition: Organisms Compete for limited resources.
3. Offspring: Organisms produce more Offspring than can survive.
4. Genetics: Organisms pass Genetic traits on to their offspring.
5. Natural Selection: Those organisms with the Most Beneficial Traits
are more likely to Survive and Reproduce.

Well, we've progressed some beyond Darwin in the last 150 years, but O.K.
If you understand the ToE, why do you drag in things it has nothing to do with, such as abiogenesis?

What part of this scenario do you NOT believe happens?
Or, if you agree that all of this happens, why do you not believe it causes variations in populations over time?
Or, if you agree that it causes variations in populations over time, why does it not cause new species to come into existence?

Or, if you agree that it all happens, and causes variation in populations over time, resulting in new species, then what on earth is your gripe with ToE?

 

[Autodidact]

Are you referring to me?

Please accept my apology, and glad to see you back.

 

[Autodidact]

Some more questions for aequitas:

Do you believe that new species come into existence?
Do you believe that the book of Genesis is literally true?
How do you account for the tremendous variation in living species?

 

[aequitas]

One last thing on the whole "origins of life" isn't Evolution its Abiogenesis. It seems to me through researching this matter the last few days, the disconnection of Evolution from the origins of life has been a rather recent one. They are linked evolution needs Abiogenesis because evolution requires pre existing life to work.

Take evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins "The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing -is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it." thats him speaking on the sheer wonder of the emergence of life on Earth and the evolutionary process even he links it. Now Im not saying Abiogenesis is just Evolution in disguise but it is linked so to say its not part of it isn't exactly true.

Also J.B.S. Haldane, the British biochemist, seems to have been the first to appreciate that a reducing atmosphere, one with no free oxygen, was a requirement for the evolution of life from non-living organic matter. Also Cyril Ponnamperuma, co-authored a paper called Chemical evolution and the origin of life, and his affiliation was the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution, Chemistry Department, University of Maryland. so to disconnect Abiogenesis from evolution as two different theories is stupid when they clearly intertwine and need each other.

 

[themadhair]

It seems to me through researching this matter the last few days, the disconnection of Evolution from the origins of life has been a rather recent one.

You’re joking. Even when evolutionary hypotheses were being contemplated before Darwin (Lamark for example) the ideas where all predicated upon the pre-existence of life.

Take evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins…

You know the word ‘evolution’ has a meaning outside of science that is separate from the theory of evolution? If I said a phrase like “the gravity of the situation” am I necessarily referring to the theory of general relativity which says that the attractive force of matter is caused by matter’s interaction with the fabric of space-time causing it to bend?
The irony here is that if you had read the book that quote came from you would probably have understood this distinction (I’m assuming the book makes this clear – I haven’t read any of Dawkins’ books).

Also J.B.S. Haldane, the British biochemist, seems to have been the first to appreciate that a reducing atmosphere, one with no free oxygen, was a requirement for the evolution of life from non-living organic matter.

Same thing. The word evolution is a proper word that can be used in English parlance.

so to disconnect Abiogenesis from evolution as two different theories is stupid when they clearly intertwine and need each other.

Only if you are a creationist intent on making a conflation between the theory described by the word and the normal use of the word.

Evolution from evolution: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com :
n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.
2. 1. The process of developing.
   2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

If the above quotes had used the word ‘development’ instead of ‘evolution’ at the appropriate points you wouldn’t have been able to play this equivocation game.

 

[tumbleweed41]

One last thing on the whole "origins of life" isn't Evolution its Abiogenesis. It seems to me through researching this matter the last few days, the disconnection of Evolution from the origins of life has been a rather recent one.
They are linked evolution needs Abiogenesis because evolution requires pre existing life to work.

The ToE applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

so to disconnect Abiogenesis from evolution as two different theories is stupid when they clearly intertwine and need each other.

One could make a similar argument for creation. Creation of life by a creator is in itself abiogenises. What happened beyond that creation, whether it be evolution or the biblical stories of mans life span decreasing from 900 yrs to less than a hundred, has nothing to do with the with the actual creation or origin of life itself.

Abiogenises is a fact, it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. The theories explaining where this life came from are many, and the theories do not effect the fact that evolution occurs. The ToE is a theory attempting to explain how the fact of evolution occurred.

 

[Autodidact]

Let's simplify this for aequitas:

Let's all assume, for the purpose of this thread, that life on earth started--the first simple organism--by God magically poofing it into existence. ToE explains the diversity of life since that point. Now, aequitas, what, if anything, do you have to say about ToE?

 

[Autodidact]

One last thing on the whole "origins of life" isn't Evolution its Abiogenesis. It seems to me through researching this matter the last few days,...

So you just started researching this matter the last few days, but feel that you're in a position to destroy the entire edifice of modern Biology? Good luck with that. Typical level of creationist arrogance, and confidence that ignorance defeats knowledge.

 

[Valjean]

Let's simplify this for aequitas:

Let's all assume, for the purpose of this thread, that life on earth started--the first simple organism--by God magically poofing it into existence. ToE explains the diversity of life since that point. Now, aequitas, what, if anything, do you have to say about ToE?

And why would God magically poofing something into existence be a more convincing "explanation" of origins than some actual, physical mechanism anyway?
Creationists citing magic as a more reasonable explanation than mechanics has always amazed me.

 

[painted wolf]

One last thing on the whole "origins of life" isn't Evolution its Abiogenesis. It seems to me through researching this matter the last few days, the disconnection of Evolution from the origins of life has been a rather recent one. They are linked evolution needs Abiogenesis because evolution requires pre existing life to work.

Linked... but not co-dependent. And as others have pointed out, evolutionary thought has long be decoupled from the origins of life. Evolution would happen no matter how life started.

Intertwining and being co-dependent are two very different things. Each stands up as a field of study on it's own. Evolutionary biologists are often interested in the origin of life, but the study of evolution in living organisms does not depend on knowing where the first life form came from.
The study of where life came from does not require looking into what happens after it's here.
They are closely related sister-studies.

Often the people researching abiogenesis are Chemists, physicists and a smattering of geneticists and evolutionary biologists... A very interesting group of people and quite needed to tackle such a broad question.
Abiogenesis is, at it's core, a question of chemistry.

wa:do

 

[Jose Fly]

Aequitas,

Perhaps you missed the post, but you were asked a couple of specific questions...

1) How are you defining "genetic information"?

2) How are you measuring "genetic information"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Another thing that's problematic in these discussions is that it so often seems the creationist assumes that when we say "evolution does not address the origins of life", it's some sort of attempt to avoid discussing abiogenesis. At least from my perspective, that's not the case at all. I'd be more than happy to discuss current data and thinking on the origins of life. Pointing out that it's a seperate subject than evolutionary theory is nothing more than a clarification.