EvC Forum: Re-Theory of Evolution

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Re-Theory of Evolution

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 1 of 60 (456486)
02-18-2008 10:10 AM

In http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution? I was ask for and I gave my opinion on the ToE.

quote:
My definition: http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?

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:

http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?

Granny Magda writes:

ICANT,
I think that part of the problem here is that you are talking about evolution in a more general sense of the word,

It is preached on this site there is only one type of evolution.
If you disagree please check: http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is 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.

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?

In http://EvC Forum: Evolution by Definition -->EvC Forum: Evolution by Definition Phat asked:

Phat writes:

Does evolution have a narrow definition or a broad definition?

For this topic I would like to take the Definition of evolution given by Catholic Scientist here:
http://EvC Forum: Evolution by Definition -->EvC Forum: Evolution by Definition

quote:
In the vaguest sense, evolution is just change over time.

I will be presenting evidence to affirm that everything from singularity to present day is evolution and is taught as such.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
	Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-18-2008 11:04 AM	ICANT has replied
	Message 6 by Rahvin, posted 02-18-2008 1:21 PM	ICANT has replied
	Message 8 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2008 5:42 PM	ICANT has replied
	Message 27 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 3:27 AM	ICANT has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 3 of 60 (456504)
02-18-2008 11:52 AM

Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
02-18-2008 11:04 AM

Re-Simple

Hi Admin,

Admin writes:

I'll promote this thread if you really want because I'm sure some useful clarifications and explanations will be contributed, but this is all really very simple and shouldn't need to be explained.

If it is so simple why is there so much controversy over the word evolution?

I would like to see the three questions I asked discussed.
As to where you can put it that you won't be giving all of us time outs I have no idea.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-18-2008 11:04 AM		Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 4 by Admin, posted 02-18-2008 12:19 PM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 1:33 AM	ICANT has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 7 of 60 (456535)
02-18-2008 5:28 PM

Reply to: Message 6 by Rahvin
02-18-2008 1:21 PM

Re-Evolution

Hi Rahvin,

In my OP I stated:

quote:
It is preached on this site there is only one type of evolution.

Percy tells me in Message 2

quote:
No it isn't.

DrJones stated in: http://< !--UB EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?< !--UE-->

DrJones writes:

So why is it called the Theory of Evolution then?

Because it describes evolution in biological organisms.

abiogenesis is a kind of evolution.

No its not.

The expanding universe is a kind of evolution.

No its not.

Cars have evolved.
Airplanes have evolved.

No they haven't.

Rahvin writes:

we will automatically assume you are referring to biological evolution.

This is the point I have been trying to make. We assume.

I have no problem with biological evolution as you will find the definition I agreed to at: http://< !--UB EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?< !--UE-->

My problem appears when it is stated this way.
The Theory of Evolution = biological evolution, as if biological evolution is the only type of evolution.

Rahvin writes:

This site is specifically targetted at the Creation vs Evolution debate - that meaning biological evolution.

I just searched the FAQ and RULES and I find no mention that the Evolution in the names means biological evolution.

Rahvin writes:

You can refer to any process of gradual change by using the broader definition of the word "evolution," but that does not, in any way mean that what you discuss has anything remotely to do with the biological Theory of Evolution.

I have no problem with the statement: the biological Theory of Evolution.
I have no problem with the statement The Theory of Biological Evolution.

I just have a big problem when you say Theory of Evolution = biological evolution.

I think all creationist have a problem with this statement, because there are so many things that evolve.

Rahvin writes:

if abiogenesis were compeltely false, the Theory of Evolution would remain accurate.

The Theory of Evolution would be accurate even though The Theory of Abiogenesis Evolution would be False.

I assume you just defined The Theory of Evolution as biological evolution.

Rahvin writes:

You're approaching this in the former sense, where abiogenesis are mutually dependant. They are not. The relationship between evolution and abiogenesis is more like the latter logical expression, where either one or both can be true and each has no bearing on the other.

Abiogenesis is dependent only upon the process that brought life into being.
Biological Evolution is totally dependent upon abiogenesis taking place which it did. Biological evolution as I have agreed to earlier in this message has and is taking place.

Rahvin writes:

In the broadest sense of the word, ICANT, this is true. It is not true when dealing specifically with the Theory of Evolution, which makes very specific statements about a narrowly defined subject.

I am glad that you agree that evolution has a broad meaning.

Then you make the statement The Theory of Evolution makes very specific statements about a narrowly defined subject.

I will assume you have reverted back to the meaning of The Theory of Evolution being biological evolution.

Rahvin writes:

Your word games are irrelevant, ICANT. Nobody with intelligence or even basic education on the subject here or elsewhere claims that the Theory of Evolution speaks to cosmology, physics, or anything else unrelated to biology.

I am not the one playing word games.

You again state The Theory of Evolution can only refer to biology.

Six times you state The Theory of Evolution = Biological Evolution.

In my OP I asked the question: 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 is this Forum named Biological Evolution instead of ToE?

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 6 by Rahvin, posted 02-18-2008 1:21 PM		Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 9 by Modulous, posted 02-18-2008 5:59 PM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 10 by Rahvin, posted 02-18-2008 6:36 PM	ICANT has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 12 of 60 (456547)
02-18-2008 7:04 PM

Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
02-18-2008 5:42 PM

Re: A different tack

Thanks RAZD,

RAZD writes:

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?

Welcome to the club.

RAZD writes:

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.

Yes and since about 80% of the people in the US have some type of belief in God it causes a big problem.

But by limiting the Theory of Evolution to only cover Biological Evolution is where the problem shows itself.

The confusing part of my statement to you is that I was hinting at a little deception on the part of Evolutionist. If they can put everything under the umbrella of The Theory of Evolution and mean The Theory of Biological Evolution they can claim evolution to be proven. Even though they are only refering to Biological Evolution the man in the street doesn't know that. So he believes Evolutionist are saying all things that evolve are proved, which to most would include abiogenesis as life coming from non life.

RAZD writes:

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.

RAZD I don't think you have to get rid of the E-Word. I think if you will refer to The Theory of Biological Evolution that would solve the problem you have with the E-Word.

The problem arises when you say The Theory of Evolution and then only talk about Biological Evolution.

Because as you pointed out there are many types of evolution and when you say ToE creationist think you are including everything that evolves.

You forgot a couple

I think the stars are a part of the universe.
I think plant life is part of the diversity of life.
I did leave out all things that man makes.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 8 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2008 5:42 PM		RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 13 by subbie, posted 02-18-2008 7:15 PM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 15 by bluescat48, posted 02-18-2008 8:04 PM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 16 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2008 9:09 PM	ICANT has replied
	Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2008 6:48 PM	ICANT has replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 18 of 60 (456573)
02-18-2008 9:22 PM

Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
02-18-2008 9:09 PM

Re: A different tack

Thanks RAZD,

RAZD writes:

Biological evolution involves biological processes, and these do not, can not apply to stars.

So why can't it be refered to as what it is? The Theory of Biological Evolution.

End of problem.

God Bless,

This message is a reply to:
	Message 16 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2008 9:09 PM		RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2008 10:33 PM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 1:50 AM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 30 by bluegenes, posted 02-19-2008 9:08 AM	ICANT has replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 20 of 60 (456583)
02-18-2008 10:41 PM

Reply to: Message 17 by Minnemooseus
02-18-2008 9:21 PM

Re: A different tack

Thanks Moose,

I will now share something I found while I was on my time out.

The Process of Speciation

Evolution and Its Many Forms
Today we continue a three-lecture sequence on biological, or organic, evolution. Evolution is a unifying theme of this course, and the concept of evolution is relevant to many of our topics.

The word "evolution" does not apply exclusively to biological evolution. The universe and our solar system have developed out of the explosion of matter that began our known universe. Chemical elements have evolved from simpler matter. Life has evolved from non-life, and complex organisms from simpler forms. Languages, religions, and political systems all evolve. Hence, evolution is an appropriate theme for a course on global change.

The University of Michigan cover all these things in a lecture continuing a three lecture series on biological, or organic, evolution.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-18-2008 9:21 PM		Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 25 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 2:28 AM		ICANT has replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 21 of 60 (456587)
02-18-2008 11:21 PM

Re-Darwin

In http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?

Where Admin gave my deserved time out he said:

quote:
When you return, if you'd like to continue participating in this thread then you're just going to have to accept that the creation/evolution debate is about the theory that Darwin introduced in his book.

I had 24 hours I could not post so I thought I would read a little and while doing so I found the Orgin of Species. When I got to the conclusions I was a little supprised to find:

DARWIN ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES

Page 488 Chap. XIII Conclusion
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited,
Page 490 Chap. XIV Conclusion
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

It seems Darwin included the origin of life in his evolutionary process.
It was Creator breathed into one or more forms.

So Darwin's theory of biological evolution included the orgin of life.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
	Message 22 by DrJones*, posted 02-18-2008 11:42 PM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 26 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 2:45 AM	ICANT has replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 31 of 60 (456710)
02-19-2008 4:59 PM

Reply to: Message 25 by Jaderis
02-19-2008 2:28 AM

Re: A different tack

Hi Jaderli,

jaderis writes:

The reason why they worded the paragraph you quoted the way they did was to tie biological evolution in to the theme of global change.

I would tend to think it was because they had just studied the Big Bang, and solar system, just a little earlier in the semester. They were then being reminded that evolution had many forms. You can see the class schedule
Here

Jaderis writes:

Was this supposed to prove something?

Only that higher education teaches other theories of evolution than biological.

Or are you saying that they are not telling the truth?

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 25 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 2:28 AM		Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 46 by Jaderis, posted 02-22-2008 11:05 PM		ICANT has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 33 of 60 (456735)
02-19-2008 7:55 PM

Reply to: Message 26 by Jaderis
02-19-2008 2:45 AM

Re: Re-Darwin

Hi Jaderis,

Jaderis writes:

Darwin's (or anyone else's) views on how the original form(s) of life came to be are not a part of the ToE. They were not a part of it 150 years ago and they are not a part of it now.

I didn't write the book, I didn't interpet the book, I did read where:

Darwin put down a lot of information. From that information he drew his conclusions which included that God had breathed life into one or more forms.

As far as Darwin was concerned the beginning of life was a part of his Theory of Evolution.

I can understand why an evolutionist would not want to have to deal with the origin of life as part of the Theory of Biological Evolution since it is not known.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 26 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 2:45 AM		Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 47 by Jaderis, posted 02-22-2008 11:24 PM		ICANT has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 34 of 60 (456737)
02-19-2008 8:01 PM

Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
02-19-2008 6:48 PM

Re: A different tack

Hi Dr.

Dr Adequate writes:

Perhaps creationists could help alleviate this confusion by not constantly lying to the "man in the street" about what evolution is and pretending that the theory of evolution includes abiogenesis.

Are you saying Darwin was a creationist?

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2008 6:48 PM		Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 36 by DrJones*, posted 02-19-2008 8:44 PM	ICANT has replied
	Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2008 1:20 PM	ICANT has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 35 of 60 (456738)
02-19-2008 8:09 PM

Reply to: Message 30 by bluegenes
02-19-2008 9:08 AM

Re: A different tack

Hi bluegenes,

bluegenes writes:

ICANT writes:

So why can't it be refered to as what it is? The Theory of Biological Evolution.
End of problem.

It can be called that, and that is strictly accurate,

If it is strictly accurate, why not use it then.

If brevity is needed use RAZD's ToBE.

God Bless,

This message is a reply to:
	Message 30 by bluegenes, posted 02-19-2008 9:08 AM		bluegenes has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 37 of 60 (456748)
02-19-2008 9:47 PM

Reply to: Message 36 by DrJones*
02-19-2008 8:44 PM

Re: A different tack

Hi Dr,

DrJones writes:

Wether he was or not is irrelevant. Darwin's religious views don't have any bearing on the modern Theory of Evolution.

That may be your opinion but I was told in:

http://EvC Forum: What is evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is evolution?

Admin writes:

When you return, if you'd like to continue participating in this thread then you're just going to have to accept that the creation/evolution debate is about the theory that Darwin introduced in his book.

Since Darwin's conclusions was part of his book it becomes a part of the theory he introduced.

Conclusions are what you arrive at after examining all the evidence I think, but I could be wrong.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 36 by DrJones*, posted 02-19-2008 8:44 PM		DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 38 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2008 10:00 PM		ICANT has replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 39 of 60 (456763)
02-19-2008 10:54 PM

Reply to: Message 38 by Minnemooseus
02-19-2008 10:00 PM

Re: Off-topic in your own topic?

Hi Moose,

Its OK by me to shut it down.

I was ready to do that when I introduced the information from Darwin's Book and the University of Michigan.

The University of Michigan teaches other kinds of evolution.

Darwin's book included his conclusions for the origin of life.

The people here holding that Theory of Evolution = Biological Evolution will never accept anything else.

They are as bad about something like that as the YEC's are about some of their belief's.

I am satisfied and from now on when someone says ToE I will ask which particular type of evolution they are referring to.

If other creationist will do this it will help keep the confusion to a minimum.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 38 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2008 10:00 PM		Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 40 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2008 11:16 PM	ICANT has replied
	Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-23-2008 1:28 PM	ICANT has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.6

Normal Thread Display

Message 41 of 60 (456769)
02-20-2008 12:02 AM

Reply to: Message 40 by Minnemooseus
02-19-2008 11:16 PM

Re: Closing

Hi Moose,

I can not accept that, "theory of evolution" = "theory of biological evolution".

That is not a fact.

It may be a fact that almost all evolutionist on this site accept.

So all I have to do is look around and see if I am in Rome and if I am do as the Romans do.

I would be willing to accept that, "theory of evolution" = "theory of biological evolution".

Provided there is nothing else that has evolved that "The Theory of Evolution" applies to.

Since that cannot happen I will have to make sure what topic is being discussed and act accordingly.

So we might as well put this baby to bed.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 40 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2008 11:16 PM		Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 42 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-20-2008 12:55 AM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 43 by Meddle, posted 02-20-2008 3:09 AM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 44 by Percy, posted 02-20-2008 8:54 AM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 45 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2008 9:48 PM	ICANT has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	dwise1, kjsimons, Omnivorous, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0