Evolution Vs. Creationism

[painted wolf]

Well a dog is still a dog, are you going to argue that its not?

Not at all... but at some point a Dog was also something like a Fox....

And go back far enough and it was something like a Weasel....

But in no way does evolution suggest that a dog will become a cat.... just that there is a shared ancestry for both groups. Much like my cousin is not a "Jones" even though my cousin may share an ancestor with them.

Evolution doesn't produce something totally new out of the blue.

wa:do

 

[Gloone]

Of course it was; that's a big piece of how Darwin figured out natural selection; by carefully observing artificial selection.

Here's the thing, Gloone. You know next to nothing about this subject. You can't defeat knowledge with ignorance. The only way to prevail is to actually understand what you're talking about. So I repeat my offer; do you want to learn about ToE, or do you prefer to remain ignorant and confused?

Oh, and plants are living things.

Plants are only alive because the natural environment allows them to be through photosynthesis. I can throw a plant in my closet and consider it as good as dead. Nothing else would actually be living without them.
So I take you agree abiogenesis plays a bigger part in your ToE than you had originally expected.

 

[LuisDantas]

Plants are only alive because the natural environment allows them to be through photosynthesis. I can throw a plant in my closet and consider it as good as dead. Nothing else would actually be living without them.
So I take you agree abiogenesis plays a bigger part in your ToE than you had originally expected.

No living being can survive without nourishment. No argument there. They are still living beings, so I don't see your point.

As for abiogenesis, well, it is certainly compatible with the ToE but stil a completely unrelated matter. It is, after all, just a speculation about how life first originated. The ToE doesn't dwell on that. It never had a need to take a stand about how life itself came to be, because it only talks about how specific lifeforms.

 

[Gloone]

No living being can survive without nourishment. No argument there. They are still living beings, so I don't see your point.

Well to me a there is a big difference between a living "thing" and a living "being".

As for abiogenesis, well, it is certainly compatible with the ToE but stil a completely unrelated matter.

Natural environments and abiogenesis is not a unrelated matter. They are inseparable.

It is, after all, just a speculation about how life first originated. The ToE doesn't dwell on that. It never had a need to take a stand about how life itself came to be, because it only talks about how specific lifeforms.

So ToE specifically deals with the present. Not the past?

 

[LuisDantas]

Well to me a there is a big difference between a living "thing" and a living "being".

And what would that be?

Natural environments and abiogenesis is not a unrelated matter. They are inseparable.

Maybe so, maybe not. Abiogenesis, however, is quite separated from the ToE.

So ToE specifically deals with the present. Not the past?

With the past as well, of course. But not with the question of how life itself came to be. It has no need to.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Plants are only alive because the natural environment allows them to be through photosynthesis. I can throw a plant in my closet and consider it as good as dead.

Or...

My cat is only alive because the natural environment allows them to be through respiration of atmospheric oxygen and digestion of organic flesh. I can throw my cat in an empty cooler and it is as good as dead.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Plants are only alive because the natural environment allows them to be through photosynthesis. I can throw a plant in my closet and consider it as good as dead. Nothing else would actually be living without them.
So I take you agree abiogenesis plays a bigger part in your ToE than you had originally expected.

Actually no one here says that abiogenesis didn't occur. If they did then they shouldn't have because so far there is no data suggest it did or didn't. Evolution is not about abiogenesis. As far as plants and no light, I agree with you 99%. But there's always the "possibility" to discover something in nature that goes against what you originally knew.

case in point:
Cave flora

At the site they show a banana plant that is attempting to grow inside a cave in total darkness.

 

[Autodidact]

Plants are only alive because the natural environment allows them to be through photosynthesis. I can throw a plant in my closet and consider it as good as dead. Nothing else would actually be living without them.

O.K., so you agree that plants are living things?

So I take you agree abiogenesis plays a bigger part in your ToE than you had originally expected.

It plays no role whatsoever.

 

[Sunstone]

Whoot!!!! I so hope someone will use the word "macroevolution™" in this thread. I adore it when people use big, impressive science words!!!! It makes me feel like they know something!!!!

 

[Autodidact]

Gloone: You now have a chance to establish your credibility here at RF. Let's see how you did. You said:

I see no similarities in something like a animal that I would consider to be living opposed to a plant, virus or bacteria. - They are non-living.

and

I don't know, care to provide some proof for their existence?

By now, you have been shown that plants exist and are living things. You could admit your error, whether of knowledge or expression, retract your statement, and establish your credibility hereafter. Or you could refuse to admit your error, dig in your heels, and lose any credibility you might ever hope to have here. It's up to you.

Well to me a there is a big difference between a living "thing" and a living "being".

Of course, but that's not what you said, it it? You said they are non-living. You were mistaken. No big deal; people make mistakes all the time. The question is, when they are shown their mistake, how do they respond?

Natural environments and abiogenesis is not a unrelated matter. They are inseparable.
So ToE specifically deals with the present. Not the past?

ToE is about how we get the diversity of life on earth, from the earliest single-celled organisms up to the present. It is not about how the first living thing came into existence.

You might find a basic biology class or book helpful. I like Evolution, The Triumph of an Idea, Carl Zimmer.

 

[Gloone]

I was trying to get a debate going. Get over it!

 

[Autodidact]

I was trying to get a debate going. Get over it!

O.K. you failed the credibility challenge.

 

[Gloone]

According to who.

 

[Autodidact]

According to who.

Well, let's ask the people in this thread what effect it had on your credibility.

Participants:
What effect did this whole "Plants are not living" conversation have on your impression of Gloone's credibility here at RF?

 

[Gloone]

Well I said I see no similarities and I can't think of any examples that anyone gave so.....what do you want me to say... sorry for talking bad about plants?

 

[Autodidact]

Well I said I see no similarities and I can't think of any examples that anyone gave so.....what do you want me to say... sorry for talking bad about plants?

I don't care what you say. However, if I were you, and learned that something I had posted was inaccurate, I would say so, admit my error, and thank the other posters for the information. But then, I do care about my credibility.

 

[Gloone]

Sorry AUTODIDACT I did not think I was causing any plants harm with my statements.

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry AUTODIDACT I did not think I was causing any plants harm with my statements.

You're not. The only thing you harmed was your own credibility.

 

[England my lionheart]

Thread closed pending review