Is it evolution or just adaptation?

I find the search for knowledge, even for the wrong reason, a worthy cause. As far as adaption vs. evolution goes, the word "semantics" comes to mind. The beliefs of the child are determined by the parent through teaching and example.

"Scientists at the Scripps Research Center in La Jolla, Calif., have created a self-replicating molecule that they say has the ability to "evolve and compete to win or lose." Mr. Duncan, if the statement is accurate, I believe the operative words are "compete and win." Sounds like survival of the fittest to me and if so, evolution or adaptation, it's all just the one and the same, merely a matter of semantics. GGpap

Dan Duncan, since when did evolutionary biology become a religion and since when did it become disproved? I'm sorry but you're an uneducated god-soaked idiot and you don't know what you're talking about.

Thank God for "god-soaked" individuals. Calling people uneducated and an idiot is a reflection of bobxxxx's spiritual voidness & a complete lack of understanding. You go Dan Duncan.

Well written Dan Duncan...But the fact of the matter remains children are taught right and wrong facts from the day they are born, or should I say, are supposed to be taught...We can believe in our God, teach His ways and live as we are to live without having to worry about evolution or no evolution...The point is moot since we are all here now...Teaching a child evolution in school will have no lasting effect if that child knows from the onset that the premise behind the idea we all came from a "Big Bang" is wrong then they will not have a problem...Everyone was taught that evolution was the only way when I was young but did it keep me from understanding the truth of the matter?...No it most assuredly did not....God will allow these people to say whatever they choose but for those who have a close relationship with God Jesus Christ will teach as well as bring understanding to the children that no matter what the scientist say we all have faith strong enough to believe in the truth...God is the Creator of All...

Since when do the definitions for "adaption" and "evolution" read the same? Have you read your dictionary today? The definition of a religion is a set of beliefs that attempt to answer several questions such as, "Where did I come from?', "What will happen to me when I die?", etc. I believe that both religion and evolution attempt to answer these questions do they not bob? One major difference (aside from the obvious) between the two is that evolution is tax payer supported. Our children are indoctrinated daily in the "truths" of evolution. How can we as parents stand against a tide of evolutionary teaching? I realize as christian134 wrote that it is our parental responsibility to counteract this evloutionary immersion but the thoughts of our children cannot come away unblemished by such indoctrination. Hitler said in effect that if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe it. This is where we have arrived today. Years of tax supported evolutionary teaching have produced the likes of Dr. Hugh Ross who teaches that evolution and the biblical account of creation are completely compatable via the "Gap Theory". So very sad!

constitutionnow, and how are adaption and evolution different within the context of this LTE?

A creation without a creator; now that takes some kind of faith.
Evolution is an unproven theory that requires great faith. The reason it is believed so strongly is that it they are wrong, they might actually be accountable for their actions to a creator.

Patricia, adaption has never produced an empirically proven case of "Macroevolution", that is, change of species. Evolutionists regularly hand out examples of "Microevolution" or change within species which is empirically proven and present it as "evidence" of the other types of evolution. Biophysicist Miichael Behe, (by no means a Christian), in his book "Darwin's Black Box" wrote that, "with the opening of the black box of the cell through the last 40 years of research in molecular and cell biology, there are now numerous examples of complex molecular machines that absolutely break down the theory of natural selection as an all-encompassing explanation of living systems". Evolution has never been empirically proven while adaption is both observable and thus provable.

Creator and evolution aren't mutally exclusive. Evolution is a fact and there are theories to explain this fact. The fact is gene alleles (the example mentioned doesn't have genes so it isn't true evolution) within a population shift with time-that's it!!! It is now a genetic theory not a theory of forms that Darwin theorized (I should mention Darwin is a historic footnote and many of his ideas were wrong however natural selection made it through-although the definition of natural selection proposed by Darwin is now different as it deals primarily with fit as reproductive success). Doesn't say anything about how life originated nor does it make the leap this process explain the life history of earth-those are theories (like the Out of Africa theory for man which is still countered by other theories). Human reason makes the case. The distinction of micro or macro evolution are just differences in time scale-remember it is a continuum. Everyone is indoctrinated-I learned of evolution in 70s and never questioned it. Now I've experienced God. After study of both I'm convinced both are real. God evolved man-man evolved God. Which came first the chicken or the egg. hee,hee,hee.

I don't have a problem with teaching evolution is school. Remember "Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution". A quote from Theodosius Dobzhansky who was a pioneer of the Modern Synthesis of Evolution (and defined evolution as a shift in gene alleles within a population over time) and considered himself a devout eastern orthodox and spoke of God often. Secularist hate this fact as other renown scientists like Francis Collins a devout evangelical, etc, etc, etc. etc. Gould makes an excellent argument with Non-overlapping Majesteria but that just pi$$es off the secularist. Gould and Dawkins went round and round. By far Gould outclasses Dawkins as a scientist and author. Dawkins loves non-peer reviewed books that he can expound his opinions (not scientific study he only published about a dozen peer papers). Most of his evolution ideas are now passe or deemed untestable so not even a hypothesis. Twenty years from now Gould will still be considered a giant of evolution theory and Dawkins who???? More of an Isaac Asimov.

Evolution has been proven. What's laughable is that when people can't understand a concept, they think a mythical character is responsible for its creation instead instead of logic.

Bizarro, you've just commited an evolutionary faux pas! "Evolution is a fact and there are THEORIES to explain this fact." Isn't that an oxymoronic statement? Webster's defines theory as "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption". The real FACT of the matter is that both evolution and creation are empirically unprovable because there were no witnesses (other than God Himself) to the earth's beginning. Both require faith at some juncture.

Bizarro, here's another quote for you: Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, a noted evolutionist who wrote the introduction to the 1971 edition of Origin of the Species, said, "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory,is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation, both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

"a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption". First Constitution "theory" has numerous meaning related to science, math or just in general. A hypothesis and theory aren't the same thing as your definition proposes. Constitution the origin of life isn't evolution-that would be abiogenesis or another theory. The other is a poor quote because you never "prove" theories you can only use the scientific method to provide "evidence to support". According to the United States National Academy of Sciences: Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Belief isn't necessarily knowledge. Your beliefs can be wrong. Whether you "believe" in evolution is pointless. You either recognize evolution as a defined and testable biological scientific fact or you don't. Proving evolution doesn't disprove God nor does God disprove evolution. Thus far all the evidence supports evolution, BUT that doesn't mean it won't. Science is a process so the theory will continue to be tested and molded with evidence. Evidence may present that counters the theory but the fact of evolution remains. You ever note how Einstein's "theory" of relativity is a theory but people speak of Newton's "law" of gravity. Einstein addressed gravity much more succinctly (bend in space-time) but it still isn't called a law. Nomenclature in science can be confusing.

has every here forgotten one key word? Theory.....Darwin's THEORY of evolution. not proven, not fact, THEORY....go look up the meaning of THEORY

You don't have faith in evolution. Now I would agree that people put their faith in science or in God. I prefer the later than the former. Science will change-God won't.

Gravity is a fact don't you think. Now there are theories to explain this fact as mass attraction or a bend in space time. Evolution is fact described since the ancient greeks and even a mention in the bible (although it doesn't use the word evolution it describes the principal). Now if a scientific principal or observation disturbs your faith then your faith is pitifully weak and if you believe evolution somehow negates or disproves Christianity you're an idiot. Evolution would argue the contrary that religions are evolved memes selected upon by natural selection-ironically a proposal espoused by Dawkins.

Your usage of words such as theory, evidence to support and comrehensive explanation are very telling Bizarro. Could it be that tou MUST stop short of uttering the words empirical fact in order to remain intellectually honest? The fact is that there are so many ever growing evidences of a young earth that the THEORY of evolution is beginning to crumble at its base. There are evidences such as poly-stata fossils, the second law of thermodynamics, and irreducible complexity that lends the young earth argument much more credence than the theory of evolution.You say that science is a theory that will continue to be molded as evidence is revealed. Why then, when evidence is presented from scholars within their own ranks that points to intelligent design, does the evolutionary society degrade that scholar and proverbially send him to his room? Could it be that the scientific community cannot endure scrutiny from the lowly uneducated masses?

Actually evolution only goes back to the last universal common ancestors which is millions of years after life first appeared on earth if you want to be scientifically accurate. So the origin of life can be abiogenesis, implantation from already existent life or life was created here-by aliens, God, gods, etc. Intelligent design isn't science-the courts have rules so and scientist have shot down all the premises-Dawkins does do a great job with this subject. I didn't say science is a theory, if I gave the impression my mistake. Irreducible complexity is an idiotic argument like the argument with the eye for example-I can give a number of articles that discusses the evolution of the eye. The mechanisms are similar in human to jelly fish (some have eyes on their tentacles) with similar genes, etc. The scientific community welcomes all ideas but it is a peer review process and Behe's ideas would have to hold up to scrutiny-they don't. I do agree the biological scientist do have a huge scientist-layperson divide (people like Dawkins just make it bigger). I note the physicist do a much better job in explaining and appealing to the "lowly uneducated masses". Kudos to them.

I also agree some secular scientists create false arguments based on their beliefs and opinions rather than scientific authority (like Dawkins) and some tend to degrade counter posits (a little megalomania). A form of elitism. Trying to make the arguments that faiths and science are mutually exclusive are intellectually dishonest-just opinion or belief. Personally I don't understand Christians dislike of a biological observation no different from studying ecology nor Secularist penchant to trump faith with science. Bothe are unrelated and neither here nor there.

Science and Christianity must be inexorably intertwined in the mind of the Christian in order to explain the origins of the universe and the creation of man. Personally, I find it much less of an intellectual jump to believe that God created life than to believe that over billions of years, rain, rocks and space dust created a primordial soup from which all life emerged.

I agree with your last posit entirely constitutionnow. What is even more bizarre is the faith or belief that not only did this happen once (against all biological evidence that life doesn't spontainously arise just this one time rare exception) but it happened elsewhere in the universe (because we would be arrogant to assume life wouldn't exist elsewhere-say what???) and that just like earthly life an "intelligent" creature evolved with capacity to ponder life, the universe and they also developed a means to explore it as Sagan believed. I find the logic of intelligent life elsewhere the same as their being a supreme God (because we would be arrogant to assume otherwise LOL). We haven't explored the universe so we wouldn't be able to exclude God or life elsewhere is the logic of that.

I like Family Guy's theory of how the universe started. You should google it. It manages to include God and the Big Bang theory. Hilarious!

The problem I have with secularism it has no basis for morality or law. Our laws and morals reflect Christianity. Those in Iran Islam. If we try to marry or molest a 14 year we go to prison, but in Iran it O.K. (as noted recently in article in paper) and you are a righteous dude. Now secularist morals are at the capricious whim of what the feel or believe on a personal level so they might rationalize pedophilia as O.K. as a muslim would. If they assume the morals of Christianity then they are hypocrites who apparently buy into this myth mumbo jumbo more than they even realize (of course their retort is we believe so because of logic or reason which isn't an argument) because logic and reason dictate humans are just another animal on the face of earth nothing special so killing a human isn't a crime (because it isn't a crime for lion to kill another lion or eat a lamb). Why is it a crime-because God said thou shalt not murder. There dang sure isn't a biological reason for killing to be a crime-it is natural. Even a genetic tendency for violent and criminal behaviors. Morality didn't evolve in a vacuum. We are animals only through the Grace of God can he teach us to be human.

Of course it is inevitable that atheist would evolve just like religions evolved but given atheist have such a minor presence in the world population one would assume this mutation or variation isn't very successful as far as natural selection goes. Well I'm forgetting who I am. Back to Biz. Evilutionist will be thrown into Gehenna. Secularist are mutants but more like a cancer. hee,hee,hee. My Bad.

There is no gene that is specific to crime; therefore, criminal behavior is not an inherent trait. We are influenced by those who teach us and our environment. It is because of this that we adapt; man is, and always will be, physiologically the same. Evolution represents a significant change, such as the landscape after an earthquake or the ebb and flow of the natural tidal movement on our shores. Adaptaion is a response to an alteration or adjustment to one's surrounding. On a social context, one can see adaptation to cultural changes brought about by a war or the adjustment to a new governmental administration that enacts change in our laws. Darwin never said anything about the "survival of the fittest;" he did say species of plants and animals develop through natural selection of variations that increase the organism's ability to survive and reproduce. Evolution does not mean humans are descended from amoebas or primates; it does infer that humans have evolved from a neanderthal-like physiology to what we are today, but also that human adaptation to new environments also played an important role.

It is only the argument between religion and science that creates an issue because there is truth in the idea of evolution, adaptation, and creation.

Actually mable scientist are making associations of gene alleles with schizophrenia, political voting attitude, and violent-aggressive behaviors. This is also spurring articles like: "My genes made me do it? The implications of behavioural genetics for responsibility and blame" and "Risky individuals and the politics of genetic research into aggressiveness and violence." or "Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility." Still these are tendencies and do not indicate a person has no ability to control said behavior-we still have a free will. Cancer isn't a genetic disease just mutations of normal genes or controls but there are alleles that associate with specific tendencies-inherited mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer for instance. The same is probably true of behavioral tendencies. Now will this hold up in a court of law-reasonable doubt would argue to the contrary.