Hyacinth Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I came across this in a Classical Conversations Challenge guide, and it struck me as something to explore a bit further. Q: What does the Theory of Evolution state? A: The Theory of Evolution states that life began as chance combination of nonliving chemicals. I realize the Theory of Evolution is about much more, but is this an accurate statement as to one of the suppostions or conclusions? If it's possible to answer with a simple yes, that'd be great :). If a no is more appropriate, can you suggest a more accurate (albeit simple so as to serve the point of a catechism) answer to that question? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelia Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I think a more accurate statement is "life most likely began as a chance combination of nonliving chemicals." No one was there, so no one has been able to say definitively. It might not have been chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefgazer Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 No, the bolded statement refers to abiogenesis, which is not the same as evolution. Evolution refers to change after life has already been formed, or change over time. Abiogenesis refers to the creation of life from non-living matter. I came across this in a Classical Conversations Challenge guide, and it struck me as something to explore a bit further. Q: What does the Theory of Evolution state? A: The Theory of Evolution states that life began as chance combination of nonliving chemicals. I realize the Theory of Evolution is about much more, but is this an accurate statement as to one of the suppostions or conclusions? If it's possible to answer with a simple yes, that'd be great :). If a no is more appropriate, can you suggest a more accurate (albeit simple so as to serve the point of a catechism) answer to that question? Thanks. 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 The theory of evolution does not touch on the subject of abiogenesis. That is, it's about how we got the diversity of life we have today, not where all that life originally came from. With that said, we've actually made self-replicating proteins in a lab, exactly as we think life probably started on Earth. This is a pretty exciting time to be alive isn't it? 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Nope. This is false. "Evolution is the change in allele frequency (inheritable traits) in a population over time. The theory of evolution is how we explain this observation via mechanisms like selection and genetic drift. It accounts for the diversity of life. The theory does not purport to explain the origin of life. "https://twitter.com/EvolutionQA/status/576278990790389761 (That's a good twitter account to follow btw to learn little snippets about evolution.) 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Reefgazer, et. al. is right. Evolution doesn't make any claims about abiogenesis (origins of life). Evolution 101, a lovely resource, explains, Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. I think a more accurate statement is "life most likely began as a chance combination of nonliving chemicals." No one was there, so no one has been able to say definitively. It might not have been chance. This is Ken Ham's contribution to science, and I'm afraid it is really, really poorly conceived. Evidence does not require eyewitnesses. Indeed, evidence is valuable precisely because eyewitness testimony is not. Also, it is not actually necessary. A silly [albeit not so flattering] illustration of just how bizarre this argument is can be seen on DarkMatter2525's youtube video, 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saddlemomma Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Here is a site that will break down definitions for you: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Definitions.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slache Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 It's been my experience that materials from a creation standpoint tend to misrepresent evolution, and many will leave truth out because that truth could be used to support evolution. I'm not suggesting that anything is wrong with CC materials, but it's a theme I've seen occurring way to often. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Really, this reads like someone is trying to throw up a strawman argument so that they can poke holes in it. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.