Do you believe it is at least possible?
Please explain either way.
Please explain either way.
quote:That's not really something evolution tries to cover. What you are referring to is abiogenesis. As far as I know abiogenesis theories are not as concrete or as supported as evolution.
I think we have observed evolution so no real problem there. The whole "all life came from an amoeba that popped into existence because facts and reasons in this scientific paper" is unbelievable. Well, of course it's believable to most people, just not me. Is it possible? In another worldview, not mine.
quote:
The whole "all life came from an amoeba that popped into existence because facts and reasons in this scientific paper" is unbelievable.
quote:
That depends. By evolution, do you mean the process by which a species can change, or do you mean the full theory of it as an explanation that all observable life originated from a single common ancestor and proceeded to evolve into multiple species guided only by random chance to get to the species we observe today and in the fossil record?
quote:
When people talk about "evolution", a variety of ideas are thrown out and treated as if it's one coherent theory. The third sentence in the summary on the evolution wikipedia page says "All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), which lived approximately 3.5-3.8 billion years ago."
But you say that's not really something evolution tries to cover. Let's start with what evolution is and then we can discuss if it's possible.
quote:not necessarily, because one could be true without the other being true. one is a natural process, the other a theory based on the extrapolation of that process.
The process by which a species changes and the theory that describes how all life shares a common ancestor is one and the same.
quote:
You would have to establish where the process of change breaks down and becomes impossible in order to draw that line.
quote:quote:
You would have to establish where the process of change breaks down and becomes impossible in order to draw that line.
How do you figure? He's not the one making that claim.
quote:i never made the claim that evolution stops or breaks down at some point. i claimed that the process of evolution being a true and natural process does no necessitate a single common ancestor. you could just as easily have several original ancestors and not have to claim evolution breaks down at some point. hence, evolution the process and evolution the origin claim are not one in the same.quote:quote:
You would have to establish where the process of change breaks down and becomes impossible in order to draw that line.
How do you figure? He's not the one making that claim.
He's making a scientific claim: at some point in the process, evolution stops somehow and someway. There is no evidence of this in biology, and the idea of single descent is well demonstrated in the genetics and structure of life across the spectrum. So if making that claim, it's not out of bounds to ask for a hypothesis as to where, when, and why evolution breaks down.
quote:
i never made the claim that evolution stops or breaks down at some point. i claimed that the process of evolution being a true and natural process does no necessitate a single common ancestor. you could just as easily have several original ancestors and not have to claim evolution breaks down at some point. hence, evolution the process and evolution the origin claim are not one in the same.
quote:You won't see humans evolve into anything new. That won't be for a long, long time. There is no selective pressure on humans currently and our genes have become more intermingled over the last century.
I am looking forward to what humans evolve to or any other living being that we see today or even the last several thousand years.
quote:in this scenario, i am suggesting that multiple abiogenesis(es) could have occurred independently and then evolved through natural processes to what we have today and it would not interrupt the natural process of evolution as we understand it. hence, evolution the process and the common ancestor piece are two separate pieces because you could have one without the other having to be true. i'm not even arguing that i hold that position to be true, just using it as an illustration to explain to mr. watson why the two are not one in the same and clarification is necessary in discussions on which point we are talking about.quote:
i never made the claim that evolution stops or breaks down at some point. i claimed that the process of evolution being a true and natural process does no necessitate a single common ancestor. you could just as easily have several original ancestors and not have to claim evolution breaks down at some point. hence, evolution the process and evolution the origin claim are not one in the same.
In this scenario, are you suggesting multiple abiogenesis(es) occurred independently or that something (God, aliens, whatever) created multiple original ancestors which then evolved through natural processes to what we have today?
What are the different philosophical or religious implications of this versus a common ancestor?
quote:He put a great deal of effort into being called a doctor for you to come along and call him mister. Show some respect to our "expert" in 17th century American Puritanism.
mr. watson
quote:agreed, but that first part is abiogenesis not evolution, we already chastised Martin for mixing the two. and so my argument still stands, the natural process of evolution being true is not dependent on there being only a single common ancestor. Evolution works just as well with two, or three, or twenty original ancestors. The likelihood of that being what actually occurred has precisely zero bearing on the truthfulness of my statement. if you look back, i never even tried to argue that i believed that to be the case, purely that on a hypothetical level, if it was true, the process of evolution does not break down, hence they are separate things.
Its possible. You'd have to determine how to establish multiple independent creations of life, and the evidence we have on a genetic and structural level argues for a single ancestor.
quote:if we're arguing on the basis of current evidence, they are one and the same.
so back to my question, are we discussing the theory of the single common ancestor evolution, or the natural process still occurring today evolution?
quote:so your position is that one could not scientifically dissent from one without simultaneously dissenting from the other?quote:if we're arguing on the basis of current evidence, they are one and the same.
so back to my question, are we discussing the theory of the single common ancestor evolution, or the natural process still occurring today evolution?