Quote by Greomer
But i think you are wrong at this one. Because, you see, if you believe in the theory of evolution as a theory about how
life changes over time why does it not apply to the first man and the birth of life and only to the men and beings after
him? if you take a certain piece of material as granted then you can say that this piece evolved as time passed from one
stage to the other. Does this exceed the definition you gave? :\
I believe Darwin said that men come from monkeys. In the same way, couldn't it explain how monkeys come from
something else and then that something else from something else and it goes on? That's the actual problem of
evolution. It doesn't stop at the examination of the adaptation of living beings to their environment. Because if
it would, it would have been called Adaptation, not evolution. (a personal opinion ^_^')
And i would also like to ask about the biologists that see it the way you said. Do you believe every biologist sees it
just as an adaptation? Because some experiments some biologists make show otherwise, which means there is always another
side to the coin. :\
Thanks. Evolution does not apply to the origins of Life simply because nowhere inside the theory does it try to explain
how life first began. Let me give the simpler wikipedia description of evolution.
"In biology, evolution is the change in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits, from generation
to generation. The information used by the organism to produce these traits is stored on a molecule known as DNA, and is
divided up into smaller units known as genes to make it easier to measure and talk about changes in it. During
reproduction, these genes are copied and passed on to the offspring. Random changes in these genes can produce new or
altered traits, resulting in differences between organisms. Evolution occurs when these different traits become more
common or rarer within a population."
Since evolutionary theory does not deal with the origins of life it would be nonsense to talk about how evolution
explains that life began from non-life. So in a way yes it does exceed the strict biological definition of
evolution.
Darwin postulates that humans had previously evolved from an ape-like creature. Yes evolution explains that apes
probably evolved from monkeys, monkeys from other animals etc. However in the way biologists tend to use the word
evolution that's where it stops. Like I said evolution explains change not origin.
Evolution itself comes from a word that means "unfolding" or "opening" so I suspect that it was
selected because of the relation it has to growth, change, and progress because that is what it deals with. True it has
to do with adaptation but it also has to do with a species improving over time to better survive. The other definitions
of evolution fit well with this "any process of formation or growth; development" or "a process of
gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions." I think
the word evolution fits quite well with the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution. To use the word adaptation does not
fit quite as well.
Evolution deals with how traits are transfered, how variation occurs within a species, the mechanisms by which a species
evolves, and of course natural selection. It pretty much stops there. In the usual sense of the Theory the origin of
life do not appear in it. That falls under the purview of abiogenesis which is a completely different subject matter.
Yes I believe that any biologist worth their salt sees evolution only as a process by which species change over time. It
would be a misuse of the word and the theory to say that evolution explains how life first began. That my friends goes
under abiogenesis which tries to explain how life began from non-life. Let me give you the wikipedia synopsis of
it.
"Abiogenesis is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is
primarily used to refer to hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea or in the
vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but
self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for
scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or
replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point
at which it would become a theory."
I believe this is a bit unnecessary but I'll say it anyways. The Theory of Evolution has an amazingly strong body
of evidence to support it and even after a number of years heatedly trying to disprove it no one has been able to do so.
Not because biologists are dogmatic in their beliefs (otherwise no one would have started believing in evolution to
begin with), but rather because the evidence supporting it is much too strong to ignore.
The creator of this thread uses a definition of evolution that is at the very least a misinterpretation of what it
really means. This is a common misconception that lots of people use. I do not believe even Darwin himself mentioned
anything about primordial soup or anything in "The Origin of the Species." Although I could be wrong since I
haven't read it in a while. However, Darwin does suggest in 1871 that it could be possible that life began in a
"warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so]
that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes." But this is almost a
decade after he first published his ideas on life.
boojitsu uses the Miller-Urey Experiment and relates it to evolution. This cannot be done because they are part of two
different subjects within science. It would be like me comparing Judaism with Christianity and saying that they are the
same religion. To be sure they are two very similar religions with Christianity arising from Judaism, but in the end
they are two completely different religions that believe in different things.
That's all I have to say for now hope that helps.
