Login

Join for Free!
118345 members


Help with argument

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Help with argument

Postby qixlux » Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:07 am

Please help us resolve this argument:

What percentage of biologists would you say believe that the theory of evolution can be used to explain the origin of life? Also, what percentage of biologists would you say believe that the theory of evolution can be used to explain the origins of the universe? I realize that the definition of the above terms ("biologist" etc.), aren't well-defined here, but that's part of the fun :)
qixlux
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:59 am

Postby JackBean » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:36 am

biologists do not believe it explains either of it, because it's something totally different. But 100% creationists believe it should explain both and use it as argument to disprove the theory of evolution ;)
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Help with argument

Postby qixlux » Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:17 pm

A bit of background: I was arguing with a retired geology professor who's position was that most "biologists" equate evolution with origin of life (and even origin of the universe). It was later pointed out to me that he used to hold several seminars for high school biology teachers and that he was probably including such under the umbrella of "biologists."

My position was that the vast majority of biologists (and I was not at the time thinking of American biology teachers or all those people who might have gotten a BS in biology but were no longer involved in the field) are well aware of the difference.

He pointed out that he knew many more biologists than me - which I couldn't refute.
qixlux
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:59 am


Postby Darby » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:04 pm

You do need evolutionary processes to discuss the molecular evolutionary processes leading to life (and that's what the question specifies: "used to explain"), but they don't apply to the physics of the early universe.
Last edited by Darby on Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Darby
Viper
Viper
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby BOADI » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:11 pm

name of the gas produced by an aeroplane
BOADI
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:24 pm

Re: Help with argument

Postby skeptic » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:35 am

Answer to question number 1. Pretty much all of them
To question 2. Pretty much zero.

The origin of life, when and if ever, we work it out, is unlikely to be some simple one off chemical process. It is likely to be complex and include some form of natural selection of the precursors to life. I think most biologists, if not all, should be aware of this. It is not biological evolution in the classic sense, but it is still a form of evolution by natural selection.
skeptic
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:44 am
Location: New Zealand


Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests