In this topic I would like to discuss:
Why is it that makes no difference how a question is worded if it includes the word evolution it can only mean biological evolution?
Why the process from singularity until today is not evolution Or why it is evolution?
Why abiogenesis is not evolution or why it is evolution?
Let's take a different tack to try to avoid all the different uses of the word "evolution" so that we can see what we are talking about.
quote:
The Theory of Evolution is a change over time where all living things came from a pea sized universe that expanded into what we see and what we do not see today. The Big Band Theory tries to explain what happened in the material universe from T=O+ until present. The Theory of Abiogenesis tries to explain how life came into being on a lifeless planet. Once this life appeared the Theory of Biogenesis tries to explain how all living lifeforms extinct and living today came from this first or many life cells.
It seems 2 people realized where I was coming from with my definition.
http://
EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->
EvC Forum: What is evolution?
RAZD writes:
This is the "kitchen sink" conflation of every possible meaning of evolution. I'll make no other comments at this time, other than note the OP request:
The different events you have included here are
(1) The "evolution" of the universe at the beginning, via the "big bang" hypothesis.
(2) The "evolution" of life from chemical precursors.
(3) The "evolution" of the diversity of life since the beginning.
You forgot a couple -- the evolution of stars, as they form, mature, and expire, and the evolution of forms from one to another, fetal evolution as the organism develops, flower evolution as the flower forms a bud, opens, expires. Evolution of designs and they make incremental and other changes (tv, computers etc).
This is what I called the "kitchen sink" conflation, because what you are lumping together all the different fields that explain how things came to be the way they are. Each of these involve change over time.
What I see it doing is placing {all scientific study of how all things work and came to be} under the umbrella of "evolution" -- and place it in opposition to creation. I find this is the way most creationists think of "evolutionism" - even incorporating a world philosophy that rejects belief.
It is preached on this site there is only one type of evolution.
The reason this is a fact is because a part of biogenesis, biological evolution can be proven and some of the processes have been agreed to by creationist. Myself included.
I'm confused by this. Why does the level of evidence have anything to do with which version of evolution is discussed when discussing biological change?
There are many types of evolution -- that is not disputed -- the question is which one you are talking about at any one time, and being careful not to equivocate from one to another. This is the main reason I'm trying to move away from using the "E" word.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
™ Version 4.2
