Most of the evolution theory research and conclusions are based on earthly examples, yet these are presented akin to constants of nature.

Although evolution is predominantly limited to life and life forms on this planet, they are in fact subject to universal impacts, as is the earth. Thus, I tend to see the determinations a narrow investigation, and that these are not universal concepts but specifically focused syndromes applicable only to earth. that there is no life on the moon, our closest neighbor, and the given premise this is due to the lack of water - appears a contradiction with the premise of adaptation, which fosters speciation: adaptation is not the prevailing over adverse conditions only on earth - but most all adverse conditions.

If evolution is not a universal constant - and only applicable where there is water - than there is no reality to the premise of adaptation.

excon

Hello Joseph:

I ain't no scientist, but it seems to me that if you think evolution just involves life, then you miss a whole lot of evolving going on in the Universe.

Of course, that might be called astronomy.

excon

IamJoseph

hello excon, and thanks for your response.

No, I don't see evolution limited to life, but see changes to inanimate and universal entities. That is why I have a problem with Evolution - it is presented as an earthly syndrome effecting only life form species. If it is generic to all things universally, it fails by the evidence; if it is a specific syndrome only for earth - it becomes too focused to be a genral theory.

IamJ

Capuchin

Any "evolution" going on in the formation of planets etc is not the same kind of evolution as the theory of evolution. That is limited to life where members of the species create other members of the species passing on some kind of genetic material.

From all the evidence we have, evolution is the only way that life could become something other than RNA strands in a pool. There may well be another way, but we have no evidence of it because all life we see comes from that single process.

There is no reason why evolutionary processes could not be followed on an alien world.

quatsla

Evolution is definitely not confined only to Earth. Scientists have shown that there was life on Mars at some point in time and it has just decomposed to the full extent and the planet has become a lifeless planet in our solar system. So Mars evolved into what I think our planet will become eventually in the far future.

Capuchin

quatsla, scientists certainly havent shown that there was life on mars at some point. Do you have a source for your claim? Also your wording "Mars evolved into.." is misleading. Planets dont evolve, organism populations do.

michealb

The claim that there is life on mars comes from a meteorite that they found in the artic. The meteorite was from mars and showed microscopic tubes believed to be caused by life. It has been ruled as a good indicator that at one point in time mars may have had life, but since the meteorite has been on the earth it is considered tainted and so that is why nasa has had a big interest in mars lately.
Life on Mars: Possible Evidence

Evolution though is a universal concept. The reason it doesn't apply to the moon is because there is no life on the moon. Evolution explains how a single cell becomes a person or a blue whale not how a single cell come into existence.

inthebox

How does evolution explain how a single cell become a person?


I thought that was embryology. Fertilization, cell division etc...







Grace and peace

albear

i think he means from a single cell through the eras to ape and then man, (evolution)

Capuchin

yes, evolution explains how we evolved from single celled organisms into the complex organisms we are today. Not how a fetus grows...