Evolution: Just A Reminder *sigh*

[Skwim]

.

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH FIRST CAUSE

IT . . . DOESN'T . . . CARE!

​

The science of biological evolution only concerns itself with change. How an organism changes from one form into another, whether the change is large or small.

" Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."
Source: Wikipedia

​

Note, there is no mention of first cause, be it the hand of a god, abiogenesis, panspermia, chance, or Santa's elves. So, if you want to appear at least moderately well informed don't bringing it up and waste anyone's time.

.

.

 

[shmogie]

.

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH FIRST CAUSE

IT . . . DOESN'T . . . CARE!

​

The science of biological evolution only concerns itself with change. How an organism changes from one form into another, be the change be large or small.

" Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."
Source: Wikipedia

​

Note, there is no mention of first cause, be it the hand of a god, abiogenesis, panspermia, chance, or Santa's elves. So, if you want to appear at least moderately well informed don't bringing it up and waste anyone's time.

.

.

Which began with the alleged precursor organism of all life. The evolution of chemicals i.e. changing characteristics, is not considered. The source of the information in the genes of every organism is irrelevant.

OK, you have avoided some unanswerable questions with this dodge.

It's all good though, you can set the rules however you choose.

Interesting that your rules determine who is "moderately well informed". Apparently someone is not moderately well informed when they ask an evolutionist why they believe in abiogenesis, or elves, as the source of the precursor organism.

This belief is sacrosanct, and cannot be questioned, got it.

 

[icehorse]

Apparently someone is not moderately well informed when they ask an evolutionist why they believe in abiogenesis, or elves, as the source of the precursor organism.

I would hazard a guess that abiogenesis is simply outside the domain of evolutionary biology. So you can ask, but why? You could also ask a plumber what they think about diesel engines.

 

[Father Heathen]

Which began with the alleged precursor organism of all life. The evolution of chemicals i.e. changing characteristics, is not considered. The source of the information in the genes of every organism is irrelevant.

OK, you have avoided some unanswerable questions with this dodge.

It's all good though, you can set the rules however you choose.

Interesting that your rules determine who is "moderately well informed". Apparently someone is not moderately well informed when they ask an evolutionist why they believe in abiogenesis, or elves, as the source of the precursor organism.

This belief is sacrosanct, and cannot be questioned, got it.

The theory of evolution and the concept of god are not mutually exclusive, likewise a literal interpretation of creation myths isn't a prerequisite for belief in god.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

OK, you have avoided some unanswerable questions with this dodge.

The theory of gravity does not deoend or concern itself with the big bang. They are two different things. No different that how Ohms Law is cincerned about amperage, wats, and volts, but how the electricity got there is utterly of no concern.

 

[wandering peacefully]

OK, you have avoided some unanswerable questions with this dodge.

It's not a dodge. It does avoid any questions not related to the changes in species. It only answers the question of changes. It never answers anything else. Got it?

 

[Valjean]

Which began with the alleged precursor organism of all life. The evolution of chemicals i.e. changing characteristics, is not considered. The source of the information in the genes of every organism is irrelevant.

OK, you have avoided some unanswerable questions with this dodge.

It's all good though, you can set the rules however you choose.

Interesting that your rules determine who is "moderately well informed". Apparently someone is not moderately well informed when they ask an evolutionist why they believe in abiogenesis, or elves, as the source of the precursor organism.

This belief is sacrosanct, and cannot be questioned, got it.

Everything is related to everything else. It's all a huge jigsaw puzzle, but it's too variable; the relationships too indirect to be workable, so we break knowledge into workable subspecialties.

A pastry chef may know flour, but his flour wouldn't exist if the Earth hadn't accreted from star-made heavy elements. But would anyone seriously argue that pastry cheffery (?) was a subset of theoretical physics, or that diverse pastries couldn't happen because relativity and atomic fusion weren't well understood?

Abiogenesis is far enough removed from genetics, ToE, medicine, botany, horse racing, &c to be considered a separate subcatergory of science.

 

[gnostic]

Which began with the alleged precursor organism of all life. The evolution of chemicals i.e. changing characteristics, is not considered. The source of the information in the genes of every organism is irrelevant.

OK, you have avoided some unanswerable questions with this dodge.

It's all good though, you can set the rules however you choose.

Interesting that your rules determine who is "moderately well informed". Apparently someone is not moderately well informed when they ask an evolutionist why they believe in abiogenesis, or elves, as the source of the precursor organism.

This belief is sacrosanct, and cannot be questioned, got it.

There is no set of rules, just the limitations or scope of what Evolution can and do cover, and what Evolution cannot and don’t cover (eg Abiogenesis).

Every subjects in science have scopes or limitations.

For instance, medical schools have specific subjects depending on what fields medical students wished to specialize. A medical student studying neurosurgery, wouldn’t need to learn anything about lung diseases, how to set broken bones or anything relating to dentistry.

And likewise, if you were studying dentistry, you wouldn’t need to need to know how to perform surgery on the brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, etc.

My points is that students there are biology is very broad branch, with many fields and sub fields, so student can rarely afford the time and money to study every single fields and subfields.

And it is the with medical school, because it take years to specialize in certain fields, and each fields are expensive.

And Abiogenesis is one area, where only specialists are researching.

Abiogenesis isn’t yet a legit science, because it is still a hypothesis undergoing testing and researches by advanced biochemist scientists, so Abiogenesis isn’t something taught to undergrad students, and students even seeking higher qualifications, Abiogenesis is rarely taught in most universities.

Abiogenesis is still a work-in-progress hypothesis. Until biochemists have finally figured out how life started, Abiogenesis remains area of research restricted to specialists.

Evolution, on the other hand, is scientific theory that are available to all biology students because it relate to any organisms that can reproduce and pass genetic traits to offspring, whether these be animals, plant life or microbe life.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would hazard a guess that abiogenesis is simply outside the domain of evolutionary biology. So you can ask, but why? You could also ask a plumber what they think about diesel engines.

Abiogenesis is just a chemistry/biology problem that has not yet been solved. I'm willing to bet 200 quatloos that it will be solved. Just going to take a big lab.

 

[osgart]

I see naturalism is closely associated with the evolution theory. So it at least leads back to the idea that organic matter comes from natural, unguided processes. It leads back to some form of information occuring naturally and thus producing the first cells.

People who try to challenge naturalism might want to stick to origin of life subjects instead of evolution.

If evolution is true then that refutes a lot of religions though. Creationists like to be certain that they know the origins of life on Earth. So the debate overlaps because of the contrary narratives of naturalism vs. creationism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which began with the alleged precursor organism of all life. The evolution of chemicals i.e. changing characteristics, is not considered. The source of the information in the genes of every organism is irrelevant.

OK, you have avoided some unanswerable questions with this dodge.

It's all good though, you can set the rules however you choose.

Interesting that your rules determine who is "moderately well informed". Apparently someone is not moderately well informed when they ask an evolutionist why they believe in abiogenesis, or elves, as the source of the precursor organism.

This belief is sacrosanct, and cannot be questioned, got it.

In the science of abiogenesis nor evolution consider the beginning of life a first cause.

 

[Neuropteron]

.

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH FIRST CAUSE

IT . . . DOESN'T . . . CARE!

​

The science of biological evolution only concerns itself with change. How an organism changes from one form into another, whether the change is large or small.

Isn’t the first cause a change?
Namely a change from nothing to something.

Is it scientific claiming to understand something without having an explanation for the source of it’s existence?

 

[Skwim]

Isn’t the first cause a change?
Namely a change from nothing to something.

The first cause, as used in the present context, refers to the appearance of the first life on Earth: What caused it? And as far as an issue of evolution, it's nonexistent.

Is it scientific claiming to understand something without having an explanation for the source of it’s existence?

No it isn't scientific to claim to understand something without having an explanation for the source of it’s existence. Of course neither is it scientific to claim to understand something with having an explanation for the source of it’s existence.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn’t the first cause a change?
Namely a change from nothing to something.

Is it scientific claiming to understand something without having an explanation for the source of it’s existence?

You have not been following the thread. Scientists do not claim to fully understand abiogenesis. We know that there was an "abiogenesis event" but that does not mean that scientists know what the source of that event was. It was most likely natural abiogenesis, but for the sake of argument it could have been ET or even magic. The point is that as far as evolution is concerned the source of the first life does not matter. Evolution deals with what happened to that life after it came into existence.

 

[Valjean]

I see naturalism is closely associated with the evolution theory. So it at least leads back to the idea that organic matter comes from natural, unguided processes. It leads back to some form of information occuring naturally and thus producing the first cells.

People who try to challenge naturalism might want to stick to origin of life subjects instead of evolution.

If evolution is true then that refutes a lot of religions though. Creationists like to be certain that they know the origins of life on Earth. So the debate overlaps because of the contrary narratives of naturalism vs. creationism.

But religion only asserts an agent. It says nothing of the mechanisms involved.
Science, on the other hand, only studies mechanism. It says nothing of agency.

 

[shunyadragon]

Isn’t the first cause a change?
Namely a change from nothing to something.

As far as science is concerned, no. What you may be referring to is the philosophical/theological absolute nothing. Science does not assume absolute nothing ever existed.Science goes by the predictability of theories and hypothesis without this assumption. The present limit of science is the evidence of the existence of the Quantum world, which has no known beginning.

Science does not nor cannot falsify whether our physical existence is eternal nor infinite.

Is it scientific claiming to understand something without having an explanation for the source of it’s existence?

The ultimate 'source?' of our physical existence is essentially beyond the limits of science. Science makes no assumptions that there was ever a beginning, ending or not of our physical existence. 'Understanding something' in science simply depends on the ability of science to make falsifiable and predictable theories and hypothesis, and nothing more. The rest is speculation and 'belief' in philosophy and theology.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... Ohms Law is cincerned about amperage, wats, and volts, ....

( amperage, resistance, and volts )

 

[Polymath257]

Which began with the alleged precursor organism of all life. The evolution of chemicals i.e. changing characteristics, is not considered. The source of the information in the genes of every organism is irrelevant.

Exactly. Good so far.

OK, you have avoided some unanswerable questions with this dodge.

More like we have focused on how species change over time. The question of origins is a *different* question.

And it is far from clear those questions are 'unanswerable'.

It's all good though, you can set the rules however you choose.

When studying geology, we don't have to study how the Earth formed. When studying biology, we don't have to study how life arose. When studying the sun, we don't have to study how it formed. Those are all *different* questions. That doesn't mean they aren't interesting. They are just a different subject.

Interesting that your rules determine who is "moderately well informed". Apparently someone is not moderately well informed when they ask an evolutionist why they believe in abiogenesis, or elves, as the source of the precursor organism.

This belief is sacrosanct, and cannot be questioned, got it.

Not at all. But if you are discussing evolution, then questions about abiogenesis, however interesting, are off topic.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn’t the first cause a change?
Namely a change from nothing to something.

So? Abiogenesis doesn't deal with any first causes. The atoms and simple molecules already existed by the time life got started. And that is a separate question from how species change (i.e, evolution).

Is it scientific claiming to understand something without having an explanation for the source of it’s existence?

Yes, in fact. It is common. We don't need to have understanding of *everything* in order to understand *some things*.

 

[osgart]

But religion only asserts an agent. It says nothing of the mechanisms involved.
Science, on the other hand, only studies mechanism. It says nothing of agency.

Both sides infer their positions from the evidence. So it's a philosophical debate.