Question about evolution.

[_Tarski]

If it means Darwin's original ideas as presented in The Origin of Species, then it already has been falsified. While Darwin's basic framework formed the basis of modern biological thought, he got a lot of details wrong.

True. Also, many evolutionists seem to think evolution explains the origin of life."

No Kevin. That's a confusion of anti-evolutionists. It is the anti-evolutionists that are by far the most misinformed on this. I can't count the number of times that anti-evolution diatribes descend to the God of the gaps argument about ultimate origins. They always start up with misguided and thermodynamically naïve probability arguments about combining molecules into proteins etc. Of course, they demand absolute proof before they will even entertain a plausible theory on this and offer no theory of their own beyond "God done it".

Name one evolutionary proponent that make the confusion you say.

Evolution is a fact and natural selection is the detialed theory of the mechanism of evolution. It is one of the most successful and well supported theories in the history of science.

The origin of life as such is something for which there also exist scientific theories but these theories are all tentative even if plausible. Some are quite detailed theories at a molecular level. For a fun overview for the layperson see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
especially the second half of the video).
There exist some support for some aspects of some of these theories of biogenesis and they at least have what no religious/creationist theory has offered so far: explanitory power concerning the primal origin of biological complexity.

[_dartagnan]

No Kevin. That's a confusion of anti-evolutionists.

No, it is a fact. Many evolutionists (not necessarily scientists, but evolution proponents) really do believe evolution answers that question. This is why so many people erroneously think evolution disproves theism and they use it to club religions.

You think everything is a freakin conspiracy.

I'm not making this up. Just do a google search for the phrase "origin of life" and the word evolution and see what you get.

The last time I saw this confusion was when a liberal columnist was attacking Palin's position on evolution, and referred to it as "the origin of life." To the liberal dismay, Palin supports evolution and believes it should be taught as science and that creationism should not be included in the school curriculum.

There exist some support for some aspects of some of these theories of biogenesis and they at least have what no religious/creationist theory has offered so far: explanitory power concerning the primal origin of biological complexity.

You're way off the reservation if you think biogenesis has any serious evidence supporting it. Most scientists don't have nearly the amount of faith it in that you do. It is just a wild theory at this point, driven mainly by a need to disprove God as its proponents worship at the altar of materialism in vain.

The best argument that explains the most about our life and universe is that from fine-tuning. The evidence is becoming more and more voluminous that we are not here by accident. One of the best books detailing the evidences for this is Universes by John Leslie.

[_Tarski]

No Kevin. That's a confusion of anti-evolutionists.

No, it is a fact.

No. It is certainly not a fact Kevin. What I said is true.

I think I have had more exposure to the people and arguments in this debate than you Kevin. CDK007 prefaces quite a few of his videos with a reminder about the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. Why? Because he has debated the creationists for years. They just keep coming back to the confusion just like I said.

[_bcspace]

Also, many evolutionists seem to think evolution explains the origin of life.

Not if the evolutionist also postulates a spirit or soul.

[_EAllusion]

Evolution almost certainly is important to understanding the origin of life, if by that you mean the transition from prebiotic chemistry to biotic chemistry. The trick is that "life" is a fuzzy thing to define when looked at in sufficient detail. Self-replicating chemicals that change with time, shaped by evolutionary forces, may not be described as alive, even though evolutionary forces are at work in shaping their development into something more aptly described as alive. Getting to the point of a self-replicating chemical? Not so much. It's really quibbling at the level of abiogenic theory. Evolutionary theory proper is an explanation for the diversity of life, as is taught by basic courses on the subject throughout the world. As was established a while ago, Kevin gets a lot of his information on evolutionary theory, not from a scientific education, but from what creationist sources say about it, so I have no idea why he feels confident to pontificate on what them there evilolutionists be sayin'.

[_Sethbag]

I was hard at work finishing up making my electric guitar these past several evenings, and I spent a lot of time listening to Dawkins on Youtube, with some Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris thrown in for good measure, along with a couple of talks and interviews by Bart Ehrman on his views on the Bible.

I heard Dawkins say, in a couple of different interviews, when he was asked to define what he meant that "life" had come about at some point, that he looks at the appearance of "life" as the appearance of the mechanism of inheritance. That may well be a fairly narrow view of "life" by some people's standards, but when seen in terms of the emergence of life that was able, by evolution, to become what we have today, I think he was right on. Inheritance is critical to life in terms of its part in self-replication, but is absolutely crucial for evolution.