Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
6 posts • Page 1 of 1
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
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
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
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.
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.
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.
6 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests