Evolution/Religion (Origins of Life) [Was: Can we calm down in this section please?]

[Apollo20]

Cuddles:

Religion is not a theory.

Civilized Worm:

I am certainly not the only scientist who believes that the theory of evolution totally fails to explain the origin of life. That hardly makes me a pseudoscientist.

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.

[T.A.M.]

Where does the Theory of Evolution actually try to tackle the origin of life???

TAM:)

[rwguinn]

Cuddles:

Religion is not a theory.

Civilized Worm:

I am certainly not the only scientist who believes that the theory of evolution totally fails to explain the origin of life. That hardly makes me a pseudoscientist.
Just as NIST had its charter to investigate the cause of collapse, not the actual collapse and post-collapse of the towers, Evolution does NOT, repeat, does NOT even attempt to address origins of life. It does address what happens to that life, once formed, over eons of environmental changes and other factors...
Why misrepresent stuff when you should know better? Do you not feel any duty to squelch fuzzy thinking?

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.

[Apollo20]

TAM:

What does the theory of evolution cover? I would say worms, fish, ammonites, stromatolites, all the way to prokaryotic and eukarotic cells?

My son has the Usborne Young Scientist's Guide to Evolution. It is a very good book. The first section is "Creation Myths and Religion"; the second section is "Darwin's Theory"; the third section is "The Chemical Code of Life"; then we have a section "What are Species"; next we have "The Origin of Life" followed by "The Fossil Record".

Perhaps you should write to the authors and complain about a book on "Evolution" having a section on the origin of life....

[T.A.M.]

We are talking strictly about the theory.

Of course, an individual authoring of biological subjects around this topic will likely include theories on the origin of life.

Now if you want to get into what "Evolutionists" promote, then I would say that they do try to address the origins of life, often in terms of some form of electomagnetic stimulus to the Hydrocarbon/Protein soup.

TAM:)

[Spins]

The "origin of life" is essentially how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life, biological evolution does not depend on understanding how life began. Evolution is the understanding of what happened once life appeared, from the common ancestor or ancestral gene pool onwards.

The origin of life is a very interesting topic and nobody truly knows how it began, for example recently there was a discovery of inorganic dust with life-like qualities...

http://physorg.com/news105869123.html

[rwguinn]

We are talking strictly about the theory.

Of course, an individual authoring of biological subjects around this topic will likely include theories on the origin of life.

Now if you want to get into what "Evolutionists" promote, then I would say that they do try to address the origins of life, often in terms of some form of electomagnetic stimulus to the Hydrocarbon/Protein soup.

TAM:)
Absorootly!
One must separate the "Theory" (supported by scientific observation and correlation) as opposed to "Theorists" who may be looney as the day is long.
We see much of the latter in regard to 9/11 (or 11/9)

[Apollo20]

Spins:

You claim that: "Evolution is the understanding of what happened once life appeared". Well, this requires a definition of "life"... and this necessitates a consideration of the origin of life.

[T.A.M.]

No it doesn't. The study of the stars, Astonomy, didn't NEED a theory on how the universe began in order to study the stars themselves. Observations of how the stars behave, how they move, how they glow, how long, etc, does not REQUIRE the big bang. Granted it helps us speculate, but it is not REQUIRED.

Like wise, the observations of the fossil record, the observations of closely linked species, the examination of DNA similarities does not REQUIRE a theory on the origin of life, in order to prove that the "Theory of Evolution" is the MOST LIKELY answer to how living beings evolved on earth.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

TAM:

What does the theory of evolution cover? I would say worms, fish, ammonites, stromatolites, all the way to prokaryotic and eukarotic cells?

My son has the Usborne Young Scientist's Guide to Evolution. It is a very good book. The first section is "Creation Myths and Religion"; the second section is "Darwin's Theory"; the third section is "The Chemical Code of Life"; then we have a section "What are Species"; next we have "The Origin of Life" followed by "The Fossil Record".

Perhaps you should write to the authors and complain about a book on "Evolution" having a section on the origin of life....
Can we drop the theory of evolution bs please. There is another forum if you guys want to get into a debate about evolution.

[~enigma~]

No it doesn't. The study of the stars, Astonomy, didn't NEED a theory on how the universe began in order to study the stars themselves. Observations of how the stars behave, how they move, how they glow, how long, etc, does not REQUIRE the big bang. Granted it helps us speculate, but it is not REQUIRED.

Like wise, the observations of the fossil record, the observations of closely linked species, the examination of DNA similarities does not REQUIRE a theory on the origin of life, in order to prove that the "Theory of Evolution" is the MOST LIKELY answer to how living beings evolved on earth.

TAM:)
Please guys pay attention to the new rules. Evolution belongs in a different forum.

[T.A.M.]

ok...I am done with it...I was merely trying to clarify...makes no odds to me as I am a firm believer in the theory. As to the origin of life, the jury is still out, and so am I.

TAM:)

[Spins]

Well, this requires a definition of "life"... and this necessitates a consideration of the origin of life.These are incredibly difficult questions to answer scientifically, especially that last one, all we can do is speculate about life's origin at the moment.

On the other hand I'm perfectly comfortable with the theory of evolution, in fact you can see it happen, for example I thought this was an interesting observation...

As the weather gets hotter so the sheep are getting smaller (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1522223.ece)

Anyways I'd better stop talking about evolution before ~enigma~ sends me to the sin bin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_bin).

[rwguinn]

Can we drop the theory of evolution bs please. There is another forum if you guys want to get into a debate about evolution.

Actually, the discussion is appropriate here.
It shows how people who should know better, who are involved in science, and who know the scientific method as it pertains to their field, can-and do- forget all about it when professing expertise in other fields.
They "assume", from "the popular press", or from people with axes to grind, or from the totally misinformed, or liars out to make a buck, that "this is the troof" about _______ (insert favorite misrepresented theory here)--simply because one cannot read everything there is.It is difficult enough keeping up with one field, however narrow it may bee--and something as diverse as evolution, too? Not sure it can be done...
This is why we are posting in the CT forum, right? To counter the misinformed, folks with axes to grind, liars, etc?

[~enigma~]

Actually, the discussion is appropriate here.

According to the new rules, no it isn't, not in this thread.

[rwguinn]

According to the new rules, no it isn't, not in this thread.
Yawssa massa.

[~enigma~]

Yawssa massa.
:)

[Spins]

Posts must be on topic to the thread subject. On this Forum thread drift is expected but must follow from the discussion.

No rules broken I'm afraid, I believe we merely experienced a little thread drift ... may I suggest letting the mods do their job. ;)

Taxi for ~enigma~ please. :p

[Civilized Worm]

Cuddles:

Religion is not a theory.

Civilized Worm:

I am certainly not the only scientist who believes that the theory of evolution totally fails to explain the origin of life. That hardly makes me a pseudoscientist.


We've already explained to you how the theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain the origin so stop with the strawmen. I have already stated that I don't consider you a pseudoscientist. Nevertheless you do endorse pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.


Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.


So? Newton lived in the 17th century, and given how ahead of his time he was in other respects I think we can forgive him for the alchemy. You on the other hand should know better.

[~enigma~]

No rules broken I'm afraid, I believe we merely experienced a little thread drift ... may I suggest letting the mods do their job. ;)

Taxi for ~enigma~ please. :p
Oh it drifted and it appeared that this thread was going to take a swerve into evolution land. That according to rule 11 is just as bad as cat pictures and recepies.

[jmercer]

This derail was indeed in opposition to Rule 11 under the new Membership Agreement; I have accordingly split it off into Science if you wish to continue pursuing it.

[Civilized Worm]

I doubt Greening is prepared to follow us in here.

[Apollo20]

Civilized Worm:

Wrong!

Actually I can understand why Newton was fascinated by alchemy.... Alchemy is one of the most misunderstood branches of science and one that most people are totally ignorant of! Why? Because it has always been arcane knowledge intended only for initiates...

[rwguinn]

I doubt Greening is prepared to follow us in here.

Randi's million is still safe. Or did you forget to turn you precog on?:D

[Cuddles]

Actually I can understand why Newton was fascinated by alchemy.... Alchemy is one of the most misunderstood branches of science and one that most people are totally ignorant of! Why? Because it has always been arcane knowledge intended only for initiates...

Actually, alchemy isn't really misunderstood at all. It's one of the biggest branches of science and has made huge differences to almost every part of our lives. Of course, we call it chemistry these days.

[JoeEllison]

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.
So he was a one in a million genius... and dead wrong. So, if HE could be wrong, what does that say about you? :D

[Dumbledore]

I think the main confusion that comes in with evolution and the origins of life is that virtually any book you read that deals with evolution will deal with the origins of life. Evolution itself alone does not deal with the origins of life. But any book you read about evolution will talk about the origins of life, I think these two subjects are coupled together to give a more complete understanding of the overall subject of life. When I took biology the origins of life had its own beginning chapter, evolution was not introduced till several chapters latter. The are separate subjects, but they are also complementary in understand life in general.:)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think the main confusion that comes in with evolution and the origins of life is that virtually any book you read that deals with evolution will deal with the origins of life. Evolution itself alone does not deal with the origins of life. But any book you read about evolution will talk about the origins of life,

<<SNIP>>



Actually Darwin's The Origin Of Species contains nothing about Abiogenesis.

:cool:

[Ladewig]

TAM:

What does the theory of evolution cover? I would say worms, fish, ammonites, stromatolites, all the way to prokaryotic and eukarotic cells?

My son has the Usborne Young Scientist's Guide to Evolution. It is a very good book. The first section is "Creation Myths and Religion"; the second section is "Darwin's Theory"; the third section is "The Chemical Code of Life"; then we have a section "What are Species"; next we have "The Origin of Life" followed by "The Fossil Record".

Perhaps you should write to the authors and complain about a book on "Evolution" having a section on the origin of life....

Doesn't that logic lead to the conclusion that religion is part of evolution because there is a chapter on religion in a book on evolution?

[Ladewig]

This derail was indeed in opposition to Rule 11 under the new Membership Agreement; I have accordingly split it off into Science if you wish to continue pursuing it.


Is there an easy way to find the original thread if one is looking at the split from a thread?

ETA: nevermind. the search function was easier than I expected it to be.

[Civilized Worm]

Civilized Worm:

Wrong!

Actually I can understand why Newton was fascinated by alchemy.... Alchemy is one of the most misunderstood branches of science and one that most people are totally ignorant of! Why? Because it has always been arcane knowledge intended only for initiates...


Wow, you've just surpassed yourself!

[qayak]

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.

:D :D :D

At first I thought you were serious!

[becomingagodo]

Einstein theory of gravity doesn't explain quantum mechanics:jaw-dropp
Einstein was wrong, and gravity does not exist. Also on topic how can animals move, doesn't the arrow paradox disprove motion. The animal has to travel half it's length and then another half e.t.c. to get to the final point, this is logically impossible. So we don't move.

Isaac Newton is generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, yet he believed in and studied alchemy.
Oh yeah, Newton was proved wrong by Einstein. So he is wrong. Plus their is alot of critizism of Newton. He was also gay, I'm assuming you have something against gays being a creationist.