Moved this external link here:
- http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838 - An article on chemical evolution by the intelligent design community
The very first link about a scientific concept shouldn't come from ID, a position that has not much widespread scientific acceptance. If further links from the mainstream scientific community are added first, and in such numbers that reflect the balance of views on evolution amongst scientists, I would not object to this link being restored. As it is, it isn't very NPOV to leave it in the article as ID is very much a minority position. --Lexor|Talk 05:57, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't like them, either, but I added it because I thought it was a good article. (And because I hoped it would get some similarly good articles from the mainstream views added.) - Omegatron 06:27, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Alright, it's not the first link now... --Emuroms 20:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I fail to see what relevence anything coming from the Intelligent Design community (especially an article rife with misinformation) could possibly have to this page.
because chemical evolution is a term they invented. non-living matter does not "evolve" and no one claims it would. they however insist on that this is what serious scientists state (due to their lack of intelligence) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The concepts are clearly different, so there should be two articles. As it stands, this article is really just a disambiguation page with no underlying articles, so the discussion is moot. I do not have the expertise to contribute any more at this stage. DCDuring 04:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree this should be done. All information about chemical evolution is covered by Abiogenesis already. --Sulai (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Comment(s)||Press [show] to view -->|
|==Toward Greater Uniformity of the Term "Evolution"==
Evolution could be defined in a way that allows it to be used fairly uniformly across fields of knowledge. This would allow for clarity and useful cross-fertilization across disciplines. To do so would require that the core definition start with the most general use of the term in the mother discipline of the term, which is biology.
Principles: 1. "Evolution" refers to changes in a population over time, not to chenge within an individual over time. 2. Identifiable individuals (molecules in this case) need to replicate in some way strongly influenced by the composition of the "ancestor" individual. 3. Variation needs to take place in the replication process. 4. Some kind of "natural" selection process needs to occur to alter the characteristics of the population.
Not every use of the term evolution fits with this. I am not entirely sure that all parts of what is studied in chemical evolution involves replication. Some of it must involve the emergence of the conditions for chemical replicators to emerge.Would it be unreasonable to indicate in some way that uses of the term "evolution" that do not conform with this definition are not "real" evolution ? Humbly suggested, DCDuring 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Last edited at 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)