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.

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

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

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.

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.

quatsla, scientists certainly haven't 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 don't evolve, organism populations do.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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


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







Grace and peace

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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

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

---

I thought this was a good question, as it's common to confuse these two different kind of biological change. I'm giving a longer answer, in case anyone is interested. If you aren't, don't read it!

Evolution is change that happens from generation to generation, mostly because of changes in the genes. So if a group of cells in a pond included 20% that could escape tiny predators better than the other cells, then in the next generation there might be 40% of these guys. Then in later generations it would more and more. Then, pretty soon, some other useful change would take over, and then another and another.

So, over millions of years, a cell did indeed evolve into some kind of soft squishy aquatic animal, then into something with a spinal cord and a backbone, like a fish. From there it evolved into an amphibian (salamander, frog), then reptiles (lizards, dinosaurs, birds), then mammals. One group of mammals were the primates, which evolved to include lots of different primates--lemurs, langurs, monkeys and apes. From among the "great apes" (chimps, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas) evolved one ape that is human (maybe two if you include neandertals). On an evolutionary time scale (millions of years), the other apes are our first cousins.

Embryology, as Capuchin says, is the equally amazing process by which a single cell divides into lots of smaller cells, then forms layers of cells that fold and "differentiate" into different kinds of tissues and organs, like bone, skin, nerves, brain, blood vessels and blood. This happens in every generation in each individual that is formed when an egg and sperm fuse. It happens in all animals and all plants, too.

In contrast, evolution is change that happens over many generations in whole populations of animals or plants (or other organisms). Some evolutionary change can occur in just a year or two, like changes in beak size in small populations of finches on tiny islands. In big populations, significant evolutionary change tends to take a lot longer, maybe 10,000 years or more. After a mass extinction, when millions of species die out (we have had 5 major mass extinctions on Earth so far), it takes about 5 million years for evolutionary processes to repopulate the Earth with the millions more new species to replace the ones that went extinct.

How does evolution explain the formation of dna, a cell let alone the step by step process of going from a single cell organism to a human being, or a snake etc..?

Where is the proof?? That is what I'm asking.

If a chemical has no way of reproducing it self how can "evolution" act on it?

If so how did that chemical get the ability to reproduce?




Grace and Peace

Are you talking about how life came from non-life? Evolution doesn't claim to provide an answer.

Mutation of dna sequencing an the like

Hmmmm, is evolution Fact or Theory?

Both. "Fact" and "Theory" are not atonyms in science.