How did life begin? (NOTE: I accidentally forgot to post a poll on the duplicate thread so ignore that one).
Well, the actual origins of life have nothing to do with evolution really, but everything after life (mysteriously, I’ll admit) appeared has been a product of naturalistic evolution.
Can you explain the difference between “naturalistic evolution” and “theistic evolution”?
Naturalistic evolution is evolution without God wihile theistic evolution is one with God.
I voted “Naturalistic Evolution”, but I want it to be clear that biological evolution as commonly understood cannot by definition be the origin of life, since it only applies to living organisms. Still, I suspect that life arose gradually by some processes that could be called evolution in a broad definition.
Theisitic evolution is related to intelligent design. The theory is that some higher being, like God or a Pak Protector or the Soro, observed existing lifeforms and gave their genes an occasional nudge in the direction he wanted them to go.
Abiogenesis. In other words, “Other.”
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only kicks in when there’s life to work with.
It wanted to.
The potential for being alive is and always was intrinsic to the underpinnings (laws of physics). The manifestation we are familiar with (carbon-based, DNA-RNA replication technique, etc) is probably not the only possible version. For that matter it’s probably not the only extant version.
Other.
Evolution is irrelevant to the origin of life.
This is my vote. Life began through some as yet mysterious process which was probably roughly analogous to evolution.
This poll reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms. The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of life; it’s the origin of species. There is, at present, no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis.
Title needs to be changed then.
This may be true, but I imagine that this is what the OP meant when he referred to “naturalistic evolution”.
And evolution need not be confined to life. One can create evolving algorithms in software, for instance. Evolution at heart is simply a theory that points out that things which by random chance end up as being able to stay around will naturally stay around. And of course “life” is itself a fairly hairy concept. We are just walking chemical reactions of high complexity. The earliest forms of things that eventually became life would be nothing more than self-perpetuating chemical reactions, but that’s not really all that much different from our current state.
True enough. But the fact that the Curtis misunderstands something so basic makes it unlikely that he’s going to be able to engage in an intelligent discussion on the topic. It’s as if he started talking a thread on, say, American history asking whether Abraham Lincoln’s ownership of a slave-worked plantation made the Emancipation Proclamation hypocritical.
One more vote for Other: Naturalistic abiogenesis.
I don’t know. I wasn’t there when it happened.
Other, because, as explained above, abiogenesis is not evolution.
Well, when a mommy life and a daddy life love each other very much…
I voted “naturalistic” but I meant abiogenesis.
What’s with all these badly worded polls?
No idea. But I know it wasn’t evolution.