I will assume that we have descended from a common ancestor that we share with apes, but what is the origin of all life forms? Where did the original ancestors come from?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It's difficult to define life. There is no universally accepted definition. I define life as an open system of less entropy than its environment, which must consume outside energy tomaintain itself. It must reproduce. It must react to changes in the environment.
Our first common ancestor was not alive. It was an evolving biopolymer.
The TOE does not deal with the origin of life at all. The TOE deals with the origin of species and is a biological theory.I will assume that we have descended from a common ancestor that we share with apes, but what is the origin of all life forms? Where did the original ancestors come from?
Certainly not. It is a branch of...abiogenesis. From Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :Abiogenesis is a branch of evolutionary science.
From Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life :Wiki said:In natural science, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.
Evolutionary science is a branch of biology, hence the science of evolutionary biology. From Evolutionary biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :Talkorigins said:biogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth.
From Introduction to Evolutionary Biology :Wiki said:Evolutionary biology is a sub-field of biology concerned with the origin of species from a common descent and descent of species, as well as their change, multiplication and diversity over time. Someone who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist. To philosopher Kim Sterelny, "the development of evolutionary biology since 1858 is one of the great intellectual achievements of science".
It doesn’t matter how many times people like creationists try to change the scientific definition of the ToE, they still deceive people by telling porkies. Their lies won't change the ToE. Their lies won't change abiogenesis.Talkorigins said:Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.
Abiogenesis is completely dependant on chemicals. Not on the ToE.Abiogenesis is absolutely dependent on evolutionary science..
Exactly. It doesn't matter how life originated, it won't change the ToE at all. The reason is that the ToE is not related to the origin of life. The explanation of how life originated will not change the Theory of Evolution at all. Even if The Pink Unicorn breathed fire to create the first life, the Theory of Evolution will stay exactly the same.The theory of evolution does not go away if we can't explain how life originated,.....
Our evolutionary history will never be complete, seeing that we use evidence available and the fact that we will never get all the evidence from every day of the last more than 4 billion years.... but the story of our evolutionary history will never be complete without it.
No, they show their ignorance about what the ToE is and also their ignorance about what science is. It reflects badly on them, not on the ToE. It reflects badly on their knowledge of science, not on the ToE. It reflects badly on their method of spreading lies and deceiving people about the ToE. It reflects badly on the fact that they don't realize that there is no clear border on where life begins. It is a grey area. For example, Is a prion alive or not? It does show some characteristics that can be included both into the ToE and into abiogenesis. The grey area.... Creationists are quite right to include abiogenesis when criticising the theory of evolution.
I will assume that we have descended from a common ancestor that we share with apes, but what is the origin of all life forms? Where did the original ancestors come from?
Nobody has ever found any scientific evidence that contradicts it.
Did it evolve randomly or systematically?
Why are some people so passionate about this distinction?
No, I don't think I know so much about evolution, as I'm not a biologist. I evaluate the evidence I obtain through my occupation.Why are people that think they know a lot about evolution so passionate about this distinction?
No, thats evolution. Common ancestor deals with evolution, not abiogenesis.As soon as the first phylogenetic tree was constructed, the next obvious question was, "what was the common ancestor to us all?". THAT is abiogenesis.
When anything passes on it's genes, it is evolution, not abiogenesis.Every journal, every scientific conference on evolutionary science includes abiogenesis.
The moment it deals with these two things, it is evolution, not abiogenesis.Pick one of the models of abiogenesis, read its proposed mechanism. They are all about natural selection and heritable adaptation.
Here's a couple articles giving an introduction to a popular abiogenesis models called The RNA World. How is this not about evolution by natural selection?
All this means is that the time-span of evolution is extended to earlier than we thought in the past.
The moment any organism can pass on it's genes to the next generation, it becomes part of ToE. What happens before that, is not part of ToE.
No, that's where you make a big mistake. The fossil evidence shows the first cellular organisms. You can't deny evidence, whether you would like to or not. Unless you want to deny that those fossils exist.This is really another topic, but there are several pieces of hard scientific evidence that contradict it. Here is one.
Genome Biology | Full text | The tree of one percent
I don't submit this as evidence against the theory of evolution, ony as evidence that you don't really know what you're talking about as much as you think.
The evidence shows that it did happen. Whether it was random or non random or both. It happened, the idea is to figure out how it happened. It doesn't matter which words you choose to describe it with: it happened.there is definitive evidence that random and nonrandom genetic change occurrs. There is no evidence that anyting happened systematically.
The non-random mechanisms of evolutionary change have not been observed in prebiotic systems, except for that which would occur by one famous mathematicial model of chemical and hereditary epistasis.
Yes, I realized that you had a problem understanding very basic English.A language barrier is killing this dead. I'm sorry, but I'm going to stop debating with you, Mr. Krok.
abiogenesis is an evolutionary model. nothing more, nothing less. I explained why, and provided references to back up my claims. To simply contradict me without rebuttal of the evidence at this point is a non-argument.
The Theory of Evolution does not deal with the origin of life.