A study of how life started, not evolution:

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have said many times that there is no such thing as evolution. What you guys call evolution is adaptation and Darwin saw adaptation by natural selection. He did not say that was evolution in his book on origin of species. It was only at the very end that he purposed the possiblity that all species on earth may have evolved from one single cell common an ...[text shortened]... species (kind). Some call that micro-evolution. To me it is just a fancy name for adaptation.

Yes you say this constantly and you are wrong constantly.

You are far to childish and immature to give up on your favourite straw man fallacy.

Now go to bed with your night-light and comfort blanket and let the grown-up's talk.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes you say this constantly and you are wrong constantly.

You are far to childish and immature to give up on your favourite straw man fallacy.

Now go to bed with your night-light and comfort blanket and let the grown-up's talk.

Are you going to tell that fairy tale for grownups called the theory of evolution?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Are you going to tell that fairy tale for grownups called the theory of evolution?

When do you start thinking for yourself instead of mouthing the words of others?
I asked you if you thought origins of life is a different subject than evolution, do you believe that?

Originally posted by sonhouse
When do you start thinking for yourself instead of mouthing the words of others?
I asked you if you thought origins of life is a different subject than evolution, do you believe that?

If you believe in the real theory of evolution, the origin of life is part of it, since there is no evolution without life. If you only believe evolution is adaptation by natural selection, then the origin of life is not important and the orign of life would be a different subject. Does that clear it up for you, old timer?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you believe in the real theory of evolution, the origin of life is part of it, since there is no evolution without life. If you only believe evolution is adaptation by natural selection, then the origin of life is not important and the orign of life would be a different subject. Does that clear it up for you, old timer?

"The REAL theory of evolution" in your mind being the biblical version.

In the real world, Evolution is not the same science as origins.

The origin of life issue is no less important than evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you believe in the real theory of evolution, the origin of life is part of it, since there is no evolution without life. If you only believe evolution is adaptation by natural selection, then the origin of life is not important and the orign of life would be a different subject. Does that clear it up for you, old timer?

Of course if there is no life then there is no life to evolve...

But that doesn't mean that evolutionary theory needs to explain how life came to be any
more than someone studying literature needs to also include an explanation of the origins
of life and the universe in a study of Shakespeare's Tempest.

Evolution is a specific concept that applies to living organisms.

Thus it cannot by definition apply to whatever process created the first living organisms.

You have had this explained to you many many times now.

Your continued refusal to recognise this simple truth is a good measure of your childish
and petty refusal to enter into reasoned debate or to tell the truth.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Of course if there is no life then there is no life to evolve...

But that doesn't mean that evolutionary theory needs to explain how life came to be any
more than someone studying literature needs to also include an explanation of the origins
of life and the universe in a study of Shakespeare's Tempest.

Evolution is a specific concept that appl ...[text shortened]... asure of your childish
and petty refusal to enter into reasoned debate or to tell the truth.

Evolution is a specific concept that applies to living organisms.

Thus it cannot by definition apply to whatever process created the first living organisms.

You have had this explained to you many many times now.

Speaking scientist to scientist:

If the key explanatory principles of biological evolution are variation and selection, there needs to be good reason to reject the use of these principles of explaining what was going on in the primordial soup before there were objects that we normally consider as life forms. One good reason would be to define these principles to be principles of biological evolution only when they involve DNA.

But variation and selection would have been going on before there was DNA. Variability in, say, pH and temperature and the identity of chemicals in the primordial soup would resulted in a variety of substances, and the ones that most readily combined and proliferated would have been more likely to be the one's leading to things we would say were showing the characterisitcs of living organisms.

However, if the theoreticians of biological evolution were to set a boundary between the applications of chemical principles and the application of biological principles at the development of DNA-based specimens, I would not object.

Originally posted by JS357

Evolution is a specific concept that applies to living organisms.

Thus it cannot by definition apply to whatever process created the first living organisms.

You have had this explained to you many many times now.

Speaking scientist to scientist:

If the key explanatory principles of biological evolution are variation and selection, th ...[text shortened]... ication of biological principles at the development of DNA-based specimens, I would not object.

The key feature of evolution of a self replicating molecule/organism that passes on traits with variation to the next generation only exists in the presence of life as that is essentially what life is.

There are of course many selection effects that occur outside the bounds of evolutionary theory.

Quoting wiki the genetic definition of evolution I would say that there is a clearly delineated divide between before and after the formation of life. With biological evolution only applying to after the formation of the requisite chemicals/life forms.

Pools of non replicating molecules that do not produce offspring surely fail the basic criterion of heritability of traits required for evolution.

Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Evolution is generally defined as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next. This has been dubbed the standard genetic definition of evolution. Other definitions of evolution cover a much broader scale overarching multiple levels of biological organisation, from macroevolutionary phenomena that occur during species formation and divergence, to microevolutionary processes within individual organisms, cells, and biomolecules such as DNA and proteins.[12][13] Evolution also refers to Darwin's theory of natural selection, which is the only known mechanism that can lead to adaptations and is only one of multiple mechanisms of evolutionary change. Natural selection is a process that acts on the heritable characteristics of individuals that interact and reproduce to form lineages of biological populations. Genetic drift, gene flow, vicariance biogeography, and niche construction are examples of other evolutionary mechanisms.[14][15] Evolution leads to the following additional claims:

Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species.
All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).

According to Douglas Futuyma:

Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest proto-organism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.[16]

Evolutionary theory may also refer to cultural evolution.[13] Evolutionary science provides an overarching framework in biology for identifying relationships and providing a coherent understanding of otherwise disconnected natural observations.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The key feature of evolution of a self replicating molecule/organism that passes on traits with variation to the next generation only exists in the presence of life as that is essentially what life is.

There are of course many selection effects that occur outside the bounds of evolutionary theory.

Quoting wiki the genetic definition of evolution I ...[text shortened]... and providing a coherent understanding of otherwise disconnected natural observations.[/quote]

OK, this has been useful to me, thanks.

A. I. Oparin's view was "There is no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter. The complex combination of manifestations and properties so characteristic of life must have arisen in the process of the evolution of matter." (wikipedia)

The important point here (for me) is that a theoretically studyable and nameable process preceded and resulted in the first gene-based organisms; a process that involved simple chemicals in solution and suspension and on solid substrates, reacting to changes on pH, temperature, UV radiation, etc., to result in the first life -- yielding the first organisms that contained genes. This phase leading the eventual appearance of life on earth could be called the prebiotic phase, or a precursor to genetic evolution. Some could call it pregenetic evolution -- but this could be a contradiction in terms, if the term "evolution" is reserved for gene-mediated processes only.

From

http://library.thinkquest.org/28343/prebio.html

we have:

"The idea that life could only form from life caused many disturbances, particularly among the proponents of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution supports the idea that spontaneous changes led to more diverse and complex organisms. This would mean that as one gets closer to the source of life, organisms become simpler and finally becomes non-organic matter, the simpler form of matter. In short, the theory of evolution predicts that life "generated spontaneously" from non-organic matter. The differences between the findings of the experiments and the theory of evolution were not solved until the Russian scientist, A.I. Oparin proposed the prebiotic theory of evolution [emphasis added by JS].

Oparin proposed that life formed in a series of steps from non-organic matter. This theory is known as the theory of prebiotic evolution. Prebiotic evolution holds that life originated gradually from interaction between different chemicals in the Earth's atmosphere. These interactions led to the first amino acids, which then formed more complex molecules such as proteins and DNA. These molecules, in turn, combined to perform different functions and created the first proto-cell. One of the reasons that Oparin's theory remains sound, is that as a hypothesis, it could be proved wrong. This led to the first experiment that laid the foundation for Oparin's theory."

Originally posted by JS357
OK, this has been useful to me, thanks.

A. I. Oparin's view was "There is no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter. The complex combination of manifestations and properties so characteristic of life must have arisen in the process of the evolution of matter." (wikipedia)

The important point here (for me) is that a theoretic ...[text shortened]... ong. This led to the first experiment that laid the foundation for Oparin's theory."

Well we have in astronomy 'stellar evolution' but that doesn't mean it has anything to do
with or is part of biological evolutionary theory.

Evolution has become a popular word.

It is still the case that one requires a different theory describing different mechanisms for
dealing with the formation of the first living organism to the mechanisms of biological evolution
that apply once it has been formed. (which was the point I was making to RJHinds)


It should also be noted that very early and simple life forms are thought (as I understand it) to
be more strongly influenced by horizontal gene transfer (where organisms alter themselves or
get altered by grabbing or having inserted bits of DNA fro other organisms or get messed with by
random proteins they pick up.) than evolution by natural selection acting on variation of inherited
traits.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you believe in the real theory of evolution, the origin of life is part of it, since there is no evolution without life. If you only believe evolution is adaptation by natural selection, then the origin of life is not important and the orign of life would be a different subject. Does that clear it up for you, old timer?

completely wrong. evolution theory is not concerned with how life began, it is only concerned with how life changes over time. the theory of evolution doesn't care if life was created through abiogenesis, or if it was created by a god, or by several gods, or by aliens, or it just spontaneously popped into existence or through some completely unfathomed process.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
completely wrong. evolution theory is not concerned with how life began, it is only concerned with how life changes over time. the theory of evolution doesn't care if life was created through abiogenesis, or if it was created by a god, or by several gods, or by aliens, or it just spontaneously popped into existence or through some completely unfathomed process.

And further the theory of evolution can quite happily cope with a single common ancestor or multiple common ancestors.

Although presently the evidence suggests the former and not the latter.

Originally posted by sonhouse
"The REAL theory of evolution" in your mind being the biblical version.

In the real world, Evolution is not the same science as origins.

The origin of life issue is no less important than evolution.

That is were your thoughts have been corrupted by the devil. As I said, there can be no evolution without life. Therefore, the origin of life is extremely important to the theory of evolution. If God created life, then evolution is dead in the waters.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God!

Originally posted by googlefudge
Of course if there is no life then there is no life to evolve...

But that doesn't mean that evolutionary theory needs to explain how life came to be any
more than someone studying literature needs to also include an explanation of the origins
of life and the universe in a study of Shakespeare's Tempest.

Evolution is a specific concept that appl ...[text shortened]... asure of your childish
and petty refusal to enter into reasoned debate or to tell the truth.

Your mind has also been corrupted by the devil. So sorry!
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by googlefudge
The key feature of evolution of a self replicating molecule/organism that passes on traits with variation to the next generation only exists in the presence of life as that is essentially what life is.

There are of course many selection effects that occur outside the bounds of evolutionary theory.

Quoting wiki the genetic definition of evolution I ...[text shortened]... and providing a coherent understanding of otherwise disconnected natural observations.[/quote]

YOU WRITE:
Evolution also refers to Darwin's theory of natural selection, which is the only known mechanism that can lead to adaptations and is only one of multiple mechanisms of evolutionary change. Natural selection is a process that acts on the heritable characteristics of individuals that interact and reproduce to form lineages of biological populations.

THIS IS ADAPTATION, NOT EVOLUTION!

Your corrupted mind keeps confusing the two. God has allowed for adaptations in His DNA program for reproducing life and excluded evolution.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God!