I see a possible war occuring... (because right now it is just a really big fight...)

Other. Life has continued by evolution, and become more complex by evolution, but did not originate by evolution. It originated by random processes which caused the first proto-life which then evolved.

... which would be a proper definition of evolution.

Yes, but you can only really call it evolution after there is at least some proto-life.

Um... it is dangerous to use this word "random" and "chance" all over the place in these discussions: evolution is not a random process. One random element is introduced at the beginning: the occurrence and nature of a mutation. This random element is then immediately shaped and controlled by powerful governing forces, most importantly, natural selection.

Somehow those arguing against evolution take this one random input, and assuume that there must also be a random process and output as well. They then go on to apply this myth of "chance" to every other aspect of scientific study that contradicts their beliefs. Astrophysics, geology, climatology, physics, astronomy... And then they feel that they have the authority to label this all as indisputable scientific proof, which of course, they don't and it's not.

I'm sorry, I have just been embittered by the struggle of re-explaining the same things to hordes of deaf ears, one person at a time.

I say both. I think that God made us into the organic soup we have evidence of, and then waited until we became Adam and Eve.

Yeah I like that answer, because evolution is a fact and there are other worlds besides this.... *Resets universe*

Was there a veiled quote from the Dark Tower Series in that post? Or did you not mean to quote John 'Jake' Chambers?

I'm really glad you noticed. *Gives you present early.*

I believe in the theory of Panspermia: that life has existed throughout the universe before Earth even existed, and that Earth was seeded with life at one point.

However, I also believe that evolution occurred, and that without evolution, no creature on Earth or throughout the universe alive now could possibly exist.

I think life exists elsewhere too. However, I think the distances between worlds are too great for much contact between Terra and other worlds inhabitants, so for me that rules panspermia out.

I believe the seeds of life can be transferred to other planets by means of asteroids or comets. I mean, there is, after all an asteroid belt just beyond Mars.

But that is an assumption of the Theory of Evolution so it is an irrelevant distinction to make.

DO THE EVOLUTION!

AE for me.

Do not believe in evolution. Believe that evolution is true. If you believe in a scientific theory you are lost.

I prefer the term "accept" or "acknowledge" to "believe", given that evolution is a fact. Else you could I say I "believe" in "round Terra theory".

Oh, you know what I meant. I meant I agreed with the theory. God, forgive me for not being overly specific.

It is not God that you must seek forgiveness from...

and I'm sure I've made the same mistake... numerous times. I see why one would get upset with the word "believe" being used in scientific terms, but we know what he meant.

Believe me, God's the last person/thing/idea, I'd seek forgiveness from. I only said the g-word because it's a hard habit to break :p

Best stick with "I accept Evolutionary Theory and the Modern Synthesis because that is what the evidence tells us." Belief is incorrect terminology within science.

Though it is fun to answer "no" to creationists when they ask you if you believe in evolution.

As I've said, my views on evolution are complex. I agree in it prettty much entirely apart from the Man/Ape thing, but since I'm outnumbered 1000000 to 1 at that, I'll surrender that arguement for now.
Life definitely exists on other worlds- they've foudn stuff on mars for instance. Intellignet life is the tougher question. Although I personally think it must exist, and life less, equally and more intelligent than us is everywhere in the unvierse in great numbers. Distances may be too great for travel, but I have long been interested in the Panspermia theory. It is fully possible, but for me to present an argument on that now isn't going to happen because:
a) it's too late- 20 to 10, and I've yet to have tea/dinner.
b) I'd need to gather up some sources first, as my mind can be hazy- I tend to have several miscellaneous thoughts going on at once or close proximity yet not the ones I want to be thinking about.

Anyway, yeah evolution is fact (not gonna put forward my arguement now), yeah there's life far smarter than us elsewhere, yeah they're too faraway to reach us intentionally or don't want to reach us yet, yeah Panspermia is possible but probably wrong.

Holy freaking crap, could you be any more ignorant?

"Believe" can mean more than one thing, and I just happened to be using it as a synonym for "think". I was expressing an opinion, not acknowledging evolution as a religious belief, damn it.

Yeah, but splitting hairs is fun for the entire family!

Wrong, actually. They've found some marks in rocks that appeared to be indications of bacteria and amino acids that are necessary for (but do not definitively indicate) life.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on...odern_findings)

BM is the definition of non-ignorant.

Well, apparently not, since he made an idiotic mistake like that.

I was pointing out a use of language that can lead to confusion when discussing evolution and scientific thought. There is a veritable minefield of pitfalls when teaching the subject, so careful use of language is a must in order to connect with people in the right way, and convey your message effectively.

Language is our servant, not our master. Or at least it should be. Sometimes we have to be careful about what we say on these matters. A classic example is the common usage of the word "theory" and the scientific usage. This one misunderstanding (it has descended into pedantics now, as we have drummed it into everyone's skulls) is fuel for some very ignorant arguments.

I wasn't saying that you considered it a religious belief, merely suggesting a better way to express your statement. As I say, "belief" is incorrect terminology in the fields of science.

Well, as much as I appreciate the compulsive manner in which you pick apart other people's posts, I feel I must reiterate what I have just said. I did not mean I believed in the sense you are talking about. Once again, I meant that I accept the Theory of Evolution as something that actually occurred.

There. That clear enough for ya pal? Or would you like to perhaps have me translate it too, so that everyone can understand?

:nonono: No, you've made yourself quite clear.

You're so dense.

Now you're just name-calling, and discussion or debate isn't name calling. Senseless arguing is name calling. And this is all just a misunderstanding- believe can suggest religious belief/faith ,but also merely an opinion or viewpoint in discussion. It';s just a misunderstanding, let's all forget it and have an nice cup of tea.
Also nate, are you sure about that? I thought they'd found very primitive, slug-like or mollusc-like lifeforms on Mars. But since I can't actually find my source while you can, I'll assume yours is more reliable. I really could do with some reliable sources for this discussion.

They were shapes in a Martian rock that fell on Antarctica that could have been fossilised bacteria. I don't think they ever established whether they were fossils or ordinary mineralisationa.

*emerges from behind flame-proof shield*

Let's just forget this shall we?

OnT: All life that may have existed on Mars died a long time ago. What they want to know is whether there used to be life.

Read my last post. They looked like fossils but ended up being an artifact of the processing of samples.

Yes, I'm sure. If there had been anything beyond single-cell organism it would be big news and everyone would know.

You have a very questionable teacher then. Mine made sure to stamp that misunderstanding out of us the first day of the unit:|

And to Mojo, awesome reference. You made my day.

Yeah, but it starts getting stupid after a while.

Okay, wouldn't Theistic Evolutionism and Old Earth Creationism be the same thing, basically? What, are you going to say that the universe was created within the past century?

EDIT: Whoa, didn't realize there were 3 pages to this beast.

We, along with modern and prehistoric monkeys, hominids, non-hominid apes and simians such as lemurs, are all primates, and modern apes (humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons) are all grouped under the superfamily Hominoidea, which is named after the human groups in the old Linnaean taxonomy system. Me explaining

There is a new classification system out now, Cladistic Taxonomy. Basically, as well as classifying organisms, it also shows how they are related in evolutionary terms, to the best of our knowledge. So all the organisms in one clade are descended from a common ancestor, although on a diagram the common ancestor won't be on the point of the clade- it will be attached to it. It isn't a family tree, it still uses classifications ("taxa", singular: taxon), but it is useful to both see how organisms are related to each other and also organises them into distinct groups. We know how organisms are related using evidence from the fossil record, genetics, and other, more complicated methods.

However, this means that the term "reptile" is no longer scientifically appropriate in the classic sense, because now the clade reptillia* also includes birds and mammals, as they are descended from reptiles.

Wikipedia: Cladististics

This is a fantastic site for the ins and outs of evolution, and clears up alot of confusion and misconceptions, especially the "For teachers" section: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

*There isn't one, it is separated into such divisions as diapsids and anapsids, based on fundamental differences in skull structure. I used this term for convenience in explaining my point.

I knew the whol reptillia thing ages ago. I thought the stuff about reptiles being linked to birds and certain mammals was old knews?
Geez, you know so much about biology. And all the fancy words. You're both a walking thesaurus and walking science encyclopedia.

I am a Marine Biology student.

Heh, when it comes to this sorta thing, you could always rely on Bullet Magnet to set the record straight :p

They are different. Old Earth Creationists generally believe that God still created everything except humans at once (I think), and that evolution didn't happen, and that humans were created recently, but they accept Terra's age of 4.5 billion years. Theistic evolutionists believe God used evolution to create all life.