Originally posted by MexicoYou need to me more exact.
O.k. as I said before I'm not here to defend evolutionary theory in anyway, but if you want a definition of what I mean by it:
Evolution is the process of life changing, over periods of time which vary dependent on the life form in question, due to environmental factors, and a bunch of other circumstances which I'm not going to get into because I'm trying ...[text shortened]... There is some controversy over the various mechanisms driving it, and the implications of it.
1. The process normally called 'evolution' can apply to non-living things too, including virus' and computer programs.
2. There is a distinct difference between:
A: Evolution is happening today.
B: Evolution is the explanation for life as we know it, and all life evolved from single cellular or simpler organisms.
Many people will accept A, as it is indisputable by definition. ie any organism having an offspring with a different genetic makeup from itself results in the organisms species having evolved by definition.
Originally posted by MexicoNow wait, are you saying each thing is changing due to the reasons
O.k. as I said before I'm not here to defend evolutionary theory in anyway, but if you want a definition of what I mean by it:
Evolution is the process of life changing, over periods of time which vary dependent on the life form in question, due to environmental factors, and a bunch of other circumstances which I'm not going to get into because I'm trying ...[text shortened]... st do it to each others work. Poking holes without an alternative, and that bugs me too.....
you have given from microscopic bacteria to trees and so on? That
can be true and still mean more than a few things, I can say I
completely agree with that statement and still disagree with what
someone else says when they too say they completely agree with that
statement! It depends how much change we can agree has occurred
over time, I can say I agree that tree can change, microscopic bacteria
can change, but disagree that those changes can do anything other
than give us a larger variety of trees or microscopic bacteria nothing
more. We see variety of life, but that does not mean with the seeing
of that evidence we know how the process of evolution as we agree
with started. We can agree about the process and disagree with how
much credit we can give it for the life we see today.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree his details are not very well defined.
You need to me more exact.
1. The process normally called 'evolution' can apply to non-living things too, including virus' and computer programs.
2. There is a distinct difference between:
A: Evolution is happening today.
B: Evolution is the explanation for life as we know it, and all life evolved from single cellular or simpler organisms.
Many peo ...[text shortened]... ent genetic makeup from itself results in the organisms species having evolved by definition.
Kelly
edit:
I can say I accept A and not B but agree with what he said.
Originally posted by KellyJayA: Evolution is happening today.
I agree his details are not very well defined.
Kelly
edit:
I can say I accept A and not B but agree with what he said.
B: Evolution is the explanation for life as we know it, and all life evolved from single cellular or simpler organisms.
Then I think the question being posed is 'do you have another theory, other than the theory of evolution by natural selection, that explains life as we know it, and that is scientific enough to be taught in science classes?'
I may expand this post when I get to a powerpoint to plug the laptop back in!
--- Penguin.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayHow broad is your "give us a larger variety of" theory?
Now wait, are you saying each thing is changing due to the reasons
you have given from microscopic bacteria to trees and so on? That
can be true and still mean more than a few things, I can say I
completely agree with that statement and still disagree with what
someone else says when they too say they completely agree with that
statement! It depends ho ...[text shortened]... the process and disagree with how
much credit we can give it for the life we see today.
Kelly
Can the 1st dog give us all the dogs
Can the 1st primate give us all the primates
Can the 1st mammal give us all the mammals
Can the 1st tetrapod give us all the tetrapods
Can the 1st vertebrate give us all the vertebrates
Can the 1st chordate give us all the chordates
Can the first multi cellular life give us all multi cellular life
??
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinSorry I quoted the wrong person......
A: Evolution is happening today.
B: Evolution is the explanation for life as we know it, and all life evolved from single cellular or simpler organisms.
Then I think the question being posed is 'do you have another theory, other than the theory of evolution by natural selection, that explains life as we know it, and that is scientific enough to b ...[text shortened]...
I may expand this post when I get to a powerpoint to plug the laptop back in!
--- Penguin.
It's reasonably well documented that over time one species can change subtlety and given enough time can form a separate species..... Which if your reiterate over and over will give the massive changes in external morphology we see today.... These transitions aren't instant. they occur subtly over time... What I think your problem is, is that you can't quite get your head around the timescales we're referring to. LUCA probably existed 3 - 4 Billion years (If I remember correctly) ago which is a difficult timescale to deal with granted. 4 billion years is a long time for billions of subtle changes to occur.... And since its an exponential effect.... Well you get the Idea.
But again here you are turning it around to the defense of evolution and evading my question.
'
Is there a valid scientific alternative?
If so what is it?
If not what in hell is the justification for the debate around teaching these "Competing" theories in Science classes?.....
Originally posted by timebombtedCould everyone please stop defending evolution, if you read the first post thats not the point of this thread...... sorry but if everyone keeps going for aggressive defense they get more small arguments going and evade the major question.....
How broad is your "give us a larger variety of" theory?
Can the 1st dog give us all the dogs
Can the 1st primate give us all the primates
Can the 1st mammal give us all the mammals
Can the 1st tetrapod give us all the tetrapods
Can the 1st vertebrate give us all the vertebrates
Can the 1st chordate give us all the chordates
Can the first multi cellular life give us all multi cellular life
??
Originally posted by serigadoWell argued timebombted........ Sorry for giving out I just don't want my question sidestepped and this turned into yet another defense of evolution..... As to my patients, I'd quite like to be made a saint actually, the Irony would be quite amusing.... First Atheist saint..... Hahahah...
Mexico, are you trying to get yourself canonized? You have the patience of a saint, I must admit...
There's some really good creationist stuff backed up by scientific evidence to support their claims. It's really well elaborated.
I've heard they have some good science but never actually seen any...
Originally posted by timebombtedCan the first cell give us all the cellular life...
How broad is your "give us a larger variety of" theory?
Can the 1st dog give us all the dogs
Can the 1st primate give us all the primates
Can the 1st mammal give us all the mammals
Can the 1st tetrapod give us all the tetrapods
Can the 1st vertebrate give us all the vertebrates
Can the 1st chordate give us all the chordates
Can the first multi cellular life give us all multi cellular life
??
Can the first DNA give us all the DNA based life...
Originally posted by timebombtedYou believe that is less likely than non-living material becoming
How broad is your "give us a larger variety of" theory?
Can the 1st dog give us all the dogs
Can the 1st primate give us all the primates
Can the 1st mammal give us all the mammals
Can the 1st tetrapod give us all the tetrapods
Can the 1st vertebrate give us all the vertebrates
Can the 1st chordate give us all the chordates
Can the first multi cellular life give us all multi cellular life
??
alive with no plan, purpose, or design guiding the process and then
getting:
the non-living dirt give us all the dogs
the non-living dirt give us all the primates
the non-living dirt give us all the mammals
the non-living dirt give us all the tetrapods
the non-living dirt give us all the vertebrates
the non-living dirt give us all the chordates
the non-living dirt give us all the multi cellular life
Just asking
Kelly
Originally posted by MexicoDefine evolution please and this time say what you mean! Not some
Please please please stop defending evolution here, you just give them something else to play semantics with..... Which isn't the point of the thread.....
high level statement that can be twisted to mean anything anyone
wants it to.
Kelly