And yet various evolutionists publish papers that invoke chemistry on how they think life began - even though the chemistry they propose in naïve in relation to the topic they so carelessly promote.
Sorry Prode, but if you are not a biologist, what makes you think that you know what biologists don’t know?
Thinking that you know more about a subject that you haven’t studied, than people who have spent years mastering it, is just presumptive arrogance. Learn some humility, man.
What is really interesting is that there are, apparently, no biologists or even Evolutionary scholars on this forum so the pseudo scientists take the floor. What I have read would have been swiftly answered and put down on the now Defunct Biblical Discussion forum. That being said, my theistic Evolution was virtually unheard of and therefore dismissed as without support or verification
I wonder whether any one else can actually define the Evolutionary process or TOE?
(Apologies if I have read this wrong)
While there are a lot like me who dabble, there are multiple posters here who are Ph. D level scholars, university level teachers and researchers. A few on this particular thread are @glipsnort, @pevaquark, and @DennisVenema. I may have missed someone, if so my apologies
My employers will be surprised to learn that I’m not a biologist.
Ditto. They also might wonder why I teach evolution classes.
I only teach one class session per year, but it’s on evolution. (And it’s on YouTube – 397 views for this year’s talk. I’m a star.)
Why do I have the song “video killed the radio star” running through my head?
I think you misunderstood Richard. He was simply saying that he doesn’t read the forum but likes to write on it.
An interesting assessment there, Richard, given that we have on this forum scientists who worked on the Human Genome Project, biology professors, and even the editor of one of the foremost peer-reviewed academic journals in cell biology.
What about you? What are your qualifications to assess who is a biologist or an evolutionary scholar and who isn’t?
Hopefully by the time you get to this response you will realize you were mistaken.
Also we have all kinds around here. This forum welcomes all opinions, unlike others, and it is not always easy to identify a person’s position based on a few lines of a comment.
Link? Can’t find
(with my name misspelled on the slide, which just sits there for 3 minutes)
I said that I might be mistaken, and it appears that I am, so well and good. However, I have not seen the evidence, but that may be because I have not read every single posting. I note that no one volunteered the definitions, but perhaps they considered it beneath them. My own qualifications are dated but I did study Biology up to Collegic level I have tried to keep abrest of modern theory, but have despaired at the Popular assumptions encouraged by the BBC and David Attenborough, who appears to have got more radical as he has aged.
Please accept my apologies for any unintended insults
Sure thing, Richard. It does point out that when we have been around awhile, we tend to get familiar with the frequent flyers and that leads to assumptions that are not really fair to the newcomers. On the other hand, we tend not to tout creditials too much but rather ask that the arguments themselves be adequate, avoiding appeals to authority unlike some places on the internet. Still it is helpful to know when an argument is backed with a foundation of knowledge.
In any case, that is to say thank you for giving a little personal background on yourself, and we look forward to getting know you better. For myself, I studied biology as an undergrad, and am a semi-retired M.D. in family practice. I like to think the shape of my knowledge is wide but regretfully shallow.
Perhaps we should use the profile function of the forum software more to get to know one another. It is actually hard to find even if filled out.
When I first read your question I wasn’t certain what you were actually looking for. Definitions can sometimes depend on the person giving them, but I like to go to Wikipedia.
If you are looking for something more book length try these. I enjoyed both.
I prefer a personal answer which demonstrates their understanding. Wiki is notoriously popular and not reliable
Perhaps I should put my own cards on the table.
The Process of Evolution (As I understand it) is the process of change by which an organism deviates from the parent and this deviation becomes the future norm.
TOE is the extrapolation which tries to get from single cell to human via other organisms using the process of Evolution.
A little simplistic but hopefully clear enough
We had a long and involved discussion about the definition of evolution a while back that had some illuminating bits. Feel free to re-ignite any of the discussion there if you would find it helpful:
It looks like a discussion of the term “micro” and" Macro" (Evolution) which, were not prevalent when I was studying. I have tended to stick to the process (micro?) and TOE (macro?) The presupposition that anything can be achieved over time is (IMHO) a fallacy. There is a definite limit to the scope of change using the process of Evolution.(again IMHO)