What is Evolution? (Darwin, creation, bible, Adam)

[kmkemp]

Originally Posted by Aasimar

Can you answer the OP?

I don't believe evolution to be false, so why would I try to define something that people that share my belief would try to take shots at? Why would anyone, for that matter? Nonetheless, creation vs. evolution is a false dichotomy. =(

[matthew.william]

Originally Posted by Aasimar

I've been rolling in and out of the Evolution Vs. Creation forum a bit recently, and I figured I'd throw this thread in here. Though it's in the debate forum, it's not really intended to be a debate. This is mainly for people who haven't studied Evolution or are adamantly against it.

The question is this:

What is Charles Darwins Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and what is Evolution Theory today?

I know it sounds simple, but I see a lot of crazy errors and radical claims, people addressing areas that are completely outside the realm of evolution and claiming that it's a part of evolution, so in your own words, what is it, and what is it meant to explain?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory meant to explain the vast variety of life on earth through the means of mutation and success of individual species based on their environment. As for what it means today, I don't really understand what you mean...

~matthew.william~

[Aasimar]

Originally Posted by kmkemp

I don't believe evolution to be false, so why would I try to define something that people that share my belief would try to take shots at? Why would anyone, for that matter? Nonetheless, creation vs. evolution is a false dichotomy. =(

I would agree with you that it is a false dichotomy, it is quite easy to reconcile belief in a higher power with evolution, especially considering evolution doesn't even address the origin of life. I just wonder why it is so many people see them as a direct conflict.

[Aasimar]

Originally Posted by matthew.william

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory meant to explain the vast variety of life on earth through the means of mutation and success of individual species based on their environment. As for what it means today, I don't really understand what you mean...

~matthew.william~

Well Evolution has advanced in that last 150 years or so, with the introduction of genetics and just through shear study. The post was mainly to determine what people think it is. You'd be quite amazed what people think "Evolution" means. Just today I was talking with a YEC at work and he was CONVINCED that Evolution described matter coming out of nothing. I was astonished.

I also found out his mother is an avid follower of Kent Hovind, which made me a bit sad

[matthew.william]

Originally Posted by Aasimar

Well Evolution has advanced in that last 150 years or so, with the introduction of genetics and just through shear study. The post was mainly to determine what people think it is. You'd be quite amazed what people think "Evolution" means. Just today I was talking with a YEC at work and he was CONVINCED that Evolution described matter coming out of nothing. I was astonished.

I also found out his mother is an avid follower of Kent Hovind, which made me a bit sad

Anything related to Kent Hovind is a bit sad, Aasimar.

~matthew.william~

[Somkid]

Originally Posted by kmkemp

That's a nice false dichotomy you have there.

Don't tell me show me, correct me and I will admit my error.

[kmkemp]

Originally Posted by Somkid

Don't tell me show me, correct me and I will admit my error.

Ummm, there is nothing to shown. It is blatantly self-evident that creationism and evolution can overlap.

[Aasimar]

Originally Posted by Somkid

Don't tell me show me, correct me and I will admit my error.

Evolution does no cover the origin of life, only it's diversity and complexity.

ergo.. Magic God could have made life

Evolution took care of the rest.

I dont' think this is the case, but that's how they can overlap easily

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Aasimar

Evolution does no cover the origin of life, only it's diversity and complexity.

Depending, of course, on how one defines 'evolution' and 'life', the paradigm may very well apply. So, for example, we read in Wiki's Origin of life:

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

Here life itself is seen as the unintended consequence of stochastic variation.

[painted wolf]

Darwins Theory (at least most of it)... decent with modification is the central tennant of modern Evolution.

It isn't the whole story however. Darwin knew that children don't look like parents and that over time these changes can change a species through natrual selection. He didn't know how parents gave traits to thier offspring.

There were a lot of hypothesis on how that happened. It wasn't untill a Monk Gregor Mendel did his experiments with plants that the first solid ideas about inheritance were formed. Still Mendel didn't have the whole answer... he didn't know about genes or DNA

With each year more and more information buids up...

Modern evolution may have stared with Darwin but other than the ideas of decent with modification and natural selection, little of his origional theory remains today.
Which is why its so funny that creationists/IDers attack Darwin so much.

They don't attack Lammark who not only founded the modern naming system of species but also believed that species changed over time... Lammark was a predicesor of Darwin.

They don't attack Alfred Wallace who also published (at the same time) a thoery of Evolution very similer to Darwins.

They don't attack Crick and Watson for thier discovery of DNA and its contribution to Evolution.

Modern Evolution is more about genetics, inheritance and population dynamics than Darwin could ever have imagined...
Poor old Darwin.

here is basic info on modern Evolution:
Modern evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wa:do