Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 23 of 215 (651757)
02-09-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by shadow71
02-09-2012 7:54 PM


If the statement read as follows:
any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact."
then I think it is correct.
The thing is, we're not even willing to give it the status of theory, because theory is a pretty strong statement. It means that it satisfies all evidence and is so compelling that we grant it the tentative status of "best explanation we've come up with yet."
So basically, what that statement says is, "{Explanations about} life's origins should be considered as as close to fact as we can get, not fact."
How can an organism evolve
unless it has an orgin of life?
The point is, life can evolve regardless of what its origins are. It could have been poofed into existence by God, it could have evolved from non-life, it could have been planted by aliens, etc. Once it got started, though, it has evolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by shadow71, posted 02-09-2012 7:54 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 2:29 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 56 of 215 (652308)
02-13-2012 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by shadow71
02-10-2012 2:29 PM


It is speculation not fact or close to fact.
I agree, but that is not what the word "theory" means. Theory means "tentatively accepted as true" or in other words, "as close to fact as we can get."
It may be that the way it has evolved may not be as random as evolutionist assume.
First of all, science doesn't assume evolution is very random at all. There is a bit of randomness in exactly what mutations a particular offspring has, but that randomness is overwhelmed by the non-random aspect of natural selection, and the sheer numbers of offspring and mutations that occur in every generation.
The only time randomness really takes a driver's seat is when a small population gets cut off from a larger one, or there is a bottleneck due to most of a species dying. In that case, the Founder effect comes into play and the randomness of exactly what variations are left can dictate a bit of how evolution can proceed.
Secondly, we have a very robust theory (notice the word) on how evolution works based on mounds and heaps and mountains of evidence. For it to be drastically different than we've discovered would essentially negate our entire understanding of how our senses and mind react to the physical world. It would be akin to finding out that despite the fact that our computers work, we're actually entirely wrong about electricity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by shadow71, posted 02-10-2012 2:29 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024