Imagine that.
Us trying to define a field of study as such is like Neitzsche trying to define his proverbial river. We're always learning more, so the definitions are bound to change over time. If they didn't, than that would be the problem, I think.
One aspect of evolution nobody has yet talked about.
"The development of human breasts is necessitated by evolution. Evolution clearly knows what it's doing."
cicerone imposter wrote:One aspect of evolution nobody has yet talked about.
"The development of human breasts is necessitated by evolution. Evolution clearly knows what it's doing."
Why do males have nipples since they do not bear children?
We'd look funny anyway, with blank chests.
I will be addressing PART 2 of this thread later on tonight...
Namely - "Who wants to know what the subject of Evolution really teaches? "
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:I will be addressing PART 2 of this thread later on tonight...
Oh boy!
I can't wait! Hey everyone, Bib's gonna address PART 2 of this tonight (I wonder what happened to PART 1?). Oh man I'm so excited, I hope there's nothing good on TV or I might miss it. I'd better make sure the VCR is warmed up for recording. Sheesh, it's supposed to snow tonight, what if the roads are slick and I don't get home in time. I guess I'll have to leave my tennis match early just to make sure... oh no, what if the power goes out and my computer goes off, I'll have to buy a generator this afternoon...
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:Namely - "Who wants to know what the subject of Evolution really teaches? "
Bib, you're the perfect allegory for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow... which doesn't really exist.
Hey Ein, the leprechaun is about to escape again.
Part 2 will be started "later tonight". What is the time zone for Mount Olympus? :wink:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:Einherjar's evolution definition, seems to be some sort of "loop" - unfortunately he wasn't too happy with BoGoWo's dissection of it, but anyhow, let's move on...
Einherjar's evolution definition loop, which ebrown and Ros agree with (apparently), goes as follows:
2. The genetic makeup differs between the individuals.
3. This results in differences in behavior and physical makeup between the individuals.
4. Individuals with some (beneficial) genetically determined characteristics will as a result of these characteristics successfully bring up more offspring than individuals without them. (And individuals with other (harmful) genetically determined characteristics will successfully bring up less offspring)
5. Genes are passed on to offspring, and as a result genes with beneficial effects will be more common in this generation than in the generation which preceded it. (If it were not for mutations)
6. Mutations randomly create new genetic code in the new generation, not passed along by the preceding generation.
So, according to those who accept this "loop" as the definition of evolution, then flowing from #6 to #2 is the cause of how the "genetic makeup differs between the individuals." ?
Is this a fair summation of your evolution definition loop?
Sort of. In the absence of mutations natural selection would over time result in a genetically homogenous population. Most genetic variation is inherrited from the parent generation, but for each generation some random mutations occur, and add to the mix.
The mystery is killing me! HELP.
BIBQuote:"Who wants to know what the subject of Evolution really teaches? "
Actually, this should say
"Who wants to know(what I think) the subject of Evolution reaqlly teaches (us)?"
Lets not be presumptuous, we all learn every day, and no one has a lock on anything here.
Ros: LOL - there must be a touch of Irish humour in ya :wink:
You missed PART1? That was when you decided that abiogenesis was "irrelevant." You'll not get away with that...there'll be a price to pay! :wink: (Remember Noah's Ark?)
PART2 is coming right up....................
Noah's ark? Another bible fiction...
Moving on then, let's talk about:
"Who wants to know what the subject of Evolution really teaches?"
It's now time to get down to actual published material that evolutionists have made over the years. Let's start at the beginning...there will be LOTS of quotes.
LIFE FROM NON-LIFE - What evolutionists have stated.
Evolutionists have come up with various proposals as to how life may have evolved from non-living chemicals. However, this is not happening now, and they have been utterly unable to synthesize life in the laboratory, so all such ideas are outside the scope of science.
In this area, everything is speculation, and evolutionists are forced to assume that some imaginary primitive replicating molecule evolved by some unknown process in an imaginary primeval soup under assumed electrical phenomena in a non-existent ancient atmosphere. The quotes below illustrate the chaotic and controversial character of this subject.
QUOTE#1
“New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63 (November 1982), pp. 1328-1330.
p. 1328
“Recent photochemical calculations by atmospheric researchers at Langley were presented at an international scientific conference last fall. They state that, at the time complex organic molecules (the precursors of living systems) were first formed from atmospheric gases the earth’s atmosphere was not composed primarily of methane, ammonia and hydrogen as was previously supposed. Instead it was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor, all resulting from volcanic activity.”
LIFE FROM NON-LIFE - What evolutionists have stated.
“New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63 (November 1982), pp. 1328-1330.
QUOTE#2
p. 1329
“Ultraviolet radiation on the earth from the young sun may have been up to 100,000 times greater than today.”
QUOTE#3
p. 1329
“In the case of our calculated oxygen levels, one bit of evidence from the early geological record supports our conclusion. It was puzzling, but the geologists know from their analyses of the oldest known rocks that the oxygen level of the early atmosphere had to be much higher than previously calculated. Analyses of these rocks, estimated to be more than 3.5 billion years old, found oxidized iron in amounts that called for atmospheric oxygen levels to be at least 110 times greater and perhaps up to one billion times greater than otherwise accepted.”
LIFE FROM NON-LIFE - What evolutionists have stated.
“New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63 (November 1982), pp. 1328-1330.
QUOTE#4
p. 1329
“How could life have formed and evolved in such a hostile environment? According to our calculations, there was virtually no ozone in the early atmosphere to protect against ultraviolet radiation levels that were much greater than they are today. It clearly should have affected the evolution of life on earth.”
The quotations continue, but from another source...
LIFE FROM NON-LIFE - What evolutionists have stated.
QUOTE#5
“Smaller Planets Began with Oxidized Atmosphere,” New Scientist (July 10, 1980), p. 112.
“Although biologists concerned with the origin of life often quote an early atmosphere consisting of reduced gases, this stems as much from ignorance of recent advances as from active opposition to them. This important conclusion is reached by Ann Henderson-Sellers, of Liverpool University, and A. Benlow and Jack Meadows of Leicester University, after a study of how the composition of the atmosphere of the Earth and other planets may have influenced surface temperatures since the planets formed.
“ The more we have learnt about Venus and Mars the harder it is to explain how all three planets—two of them apparently lifeless—could have converted primeval reducing atmospheres into the oxidized atmospheres seen today.”
p. 112
“The time has come, it seems, to accept as the new orthodoxy the idea of early oxidized atmospheres on all three terrestrial planets, and the biological primers which still tell of life on Earth starting out from a methane/ammonia atmosphere energized by electric storms and solar ultraviolet need to be rewritten.”
Following on in this theme...
LIFE FROM NON-LIFE - What evolutionists have stated.
QUOTE#6
“Oldest Plants Breathe Chaos into Life Theory,” London Daily Telegraph (June 2, 1990).
“The oldest plant life ever found has been discovered in the Western Australian outback. Resembling seaweed, it grew about 1,100 million years ago, compared with an age of 540 million years for the previously oldest-known plant.
“This discovery has thrown into confusion the history of how the earth’s atmosphere evolved. Until the Cambrian Age began around 550 million years ago, the atmosphere was believed to have been without oxygen, a state in which only the most primitive single-celled creatures could exist.
“Dr. Chris Hill of the Natural History Museum in London, said yesterday: ‘It appears from this new evidence that the build-up of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere was a far longer process than we had previously thought.
“For such plants to have existed so long before the Cambrian Age, oxygen must have taken hundreds of millions of years to cover the planet.”
And one FINAL quotation for this section...
LIFE FROM NON-LIFE - What evolutionists have stated.
QUOTE#7
Professor Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life; More Questions than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4 (1988), pp. 348-349. (Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University, West Germany).
p. 348
“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
p. 348
“Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationships in modern cells came into existence.”
p. 349
“It appears that the field has now reached a stage of stalemate, a stage in which hypothetical arguments often dominate over facts based on experimentation or observation.”
What is your point?
Scientists have overwhelming evidence that modern species evolved from earlier species. They have accepted this process as fact.
Scientists are still discussing about the exact process that started life. The details of this process are not as clear as evolution.
Murkiness about the beginning of life does not make evolution any less certain.
So are you going to get to your point?
