2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead"Yet none of these could have pre-existed when early molecules first competed in a pre-biotic soup. This makes it hard to model how life started or how these latter attributes evolved.
Which bit of that quote do you think supports your claim, because I cant see it.
Starting from this underlying paradox, the book explains not only how early competition began on a far simpler basis. It suggests that paradoxes for all the transformations could be solved if this early competition had not ceased, but had continued expanding down the ages, from the pre-biotic soup to modern humans.
Citing the molcular evidence, the basic equations, and an easy to follow descriptive logic The Big Bang of Evolution offers a simple but viable model for how some of the most important events in the history of life must have unfolded."
Evolution literally means UNFOLD.
The book therefore is promising to teach us how the history of life unfolded or evolved.
That there is a difficulty in doing so is the underlying problem. That he is going to show us how, is the promise.
Originally posted by jaywillWhere does it say that evolutionary theory should explain the origin of life?
"Lamarck was the first to formulate the scientific theory of the natural ORIGIN of all organisms, including man, and at the same time to draw the ULTIMATE inferences from this theory: firstly, the doctrine of the ORIGIN of the most ancient organisms through SPONTANEOUS GENERATION; and secondly, the descent of Man from the Mammal most closely resemblin Man -- the Ape,"
[ - Ernst Haeckel, Evolution of Man, 1903, Vol I, p. 85]
My emphasis
Notice that he says "to draw the ULTIMATE inferences from this theory".
In other words the Theory of Evolution should not explain the origin of these organisms but the fact that they had an origin or facts about their origin may be inferred from the Theory.
Originally posted by jaywillWell this one is suggesting that the first organisms (ok, they did not know about self replicating chemicals back then)was through Spontaneous Generation, not through Evolution by Natural Selection. So lamark did not think Evolution by Natural Selection could account for the appearance of the first replicators.
[b]"Lamarck was the first to formulate the scientific theory of the natural ORIGIN of all organisms, including man, and at the same time to draw the ULTIMATE inferences from this theory: firstly, the doctrine of the ORIGIN of the most ancient organisms through SPONTANEOUS GENERATION; and secondly, the descent of Man from the Mammal most closely resemblin Man ...[text shortened]... -- the Ape,"
[ - Ernst Haeckel, Evolution of Man, 1903, Vol I, p. 85]
My emphasis[/b]
And I don't think any of your other quotes supports your assertion either.
--- Penguin.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's not how I read it at all.
Where does it say that evolutionary theory should explain the origin of life?
Notice that he says "to draw the ULTIMATE [b]inferences from this theory".
In other words the Theory of Evolution should not explain the origin of these organisms but the fact that they had an origin or facts about their origin may be inferred from the Theory.[/b]
Look again:
"the doctrine of the ORIGIN of the most ancient organisms through SPONTANEOUS GENERATION;"
My emphasis.
The MOST ancient organisms would include the FIRST organisms, them being the MOST ancient. Right?
And if there is further doubt "SPANTANEOUS GENERATION" is spelled out for you.
In other words:
BEFORE SG - no life;
AFTER SG - life.
Originally posted by jaywillQuote the whole challenge please:
The challenge:
[b]"So Jaywill (or anyone else), any luck finding a quote from an evolutionist claiming that they believed the theory could account for the origin of life ?"[/b]
So Jaywill (or anyone else), any luck finding a quote from an evolutionist claiming that they believed the theory could account for the origin of life (the first chemical self-replicators)?
I wonder why you cut out the italicised bit?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinI think your objections and those of whitehead prove exactly my point. Of latter times Evolutionists like to distance themselves from extending the scope of the theory over the problem of the origin of life.
Well this one is suggesting that the first organisms (ok, they did not know about self replicating chemicals back then)was through Spontaneous Generation, not through Evolution by Natural Selection. So lamark did not think Evolution by Natural Selection could account for the appearance of the first replicators.
And I don't think any of your other quotes supports your assertion either.
--- Penguin.
And Hoyle said if it cannot include this initial set up of life the theory lacks a proper foundation.
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinNothing sneaky going on Penguin. It must be a technicality.
Quote the whole challenge please:
[b]So Jaywill (or anyone else), any luck finding a quote from an evolutionist claiming that they believed the theory could account for the origin of life (the first chemical self-replicators)?
I wonder why you cut out the italicised bit?
--- Penguin.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillThis may be news to you Jaywill but Spontaneous Generation is very different to Evolution by Natural Selection.
"the doctrine of the ORIGIN of the most ancient organisms through SPONTANEOUS GENERATION;"
My emphasis.
And if there is further doubt "SPANTANEOUS GENERATION" is spelled out for you.
In other words:
BEFORE SG - no life;
AFTER SG - life.[/b]
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinWith as much cleverness you might also insist the Natural Selection is not Evolution and that they are different.
This may be news to you Jaywill but Spontaneous Generation is very different to Evolution by Natural Selection.
--- Penguin.
The initial set up of life would be thought up by many of today's Evolutionists as "pre-biotic" evolution - honing in and sharpening their definitions.
In the minds of some proponents of the Evolution it started before life's origin. The mechanism they refer to at that stage is Spontaneous Generation. After the initial set up of life they refer to natural selection.
Is "Pre-Biotic Evolution" a valid scientific term of not?
Are you saying that you disbelieve that there is such a thing?
"Turn Coat! Whose side are you on anyway?"
Originally posted by jaywillOk, I'll accept that. I took it to mean "scientists in the field of evolutionary biology" but I realize that it could have meant "anyone who believes that evolution took place".
The challenge was to find Evolutionists who taught Evolution should cover origins.
And Hoyle said if it cannot include this initial set up of life the theory lacks a proper foundation.
No he did not. At no point in your quote does he suggest that the Theory of Evolution should explain the origin of life. He said if the origin is not known he didn't say if the origin is not explained by
I also think that you are reading the word 'foundation' in the wrong sense.
Originally posted by jaywillYes they are different.
With as much cleverness you might also insist the Natural Selection is not Evolution and that they are different.
The initial set up of life would be thought up by many of today's Evolutionists as "pre-biotic" evolution - honing in and sharpening their definitions.
It is believed that life came from "pre-biotic" evolution. That doesnt mean that prebiotic evolution came from pre-prebiotic evolution.
In the minds of some proponents of the Evolution it started before life's origin. The mechanism they refer to at that stage is Spontaneous Generation. After the initial set up of life they refer to natural selection.
No, Spontaneous Generation as the words imply is spontaneous not via evolution!
Natural selection could take place in pre-prebiotic evolution so it is not unique to life forms.