Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
573 online now:
frako, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 570 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,902 Year: 21,938/19,786 Month: 501/1,834 Week: 1/500 Day: 1/96 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Grand Theory of Life
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 76 of 77 (540921)
12-30-2009 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Peg
12-29-2009 7:03 PM

I have tried to do that multiple times and you keep ignoring it.


In message 4 you just made the claim that if life cannot originate by 'chance' then that puts evolution into doubt. You don't explain how.

In message 7 you are just arguing that evolution only occurs within a kind/species.

In message 43 you argue that the natural origins of life has been falsified and that theories can be falsified.

Message 44 is irrelevant.

In Message 54 you continue to argue that the origin of life is either falsified or a 'theory in crisis'.

In message 56 you ask how a population of 'bacteria' could suddenly burst into multi-cellular life.

In message 60 you continue the theme of Cambrian explosion discussion.

In message 63 you ask two questions but don't make any argument.

In message 64 you seem to be discussing the issue that evolution isn't at a constant rate.

In message 66 you claim that a non-natural origin of life would prove life to have been created and you say that if this occurred understanding common ancestry would be a thing of the past. You don't explain how or why.

In message 72 you are just talking about viruses.

In message 73 you claim you have have defended the position that falsifying a natural origin for life would cause major problems for evolution.

Did I miss anything? I'm afraid I am still unsure what the defence is. If you think you have put forward a defence 'multiple times' then I'm confused as to what it is. Could you sort through it all and explain it to me as if I were a child?

You havnt really explained how the theory might have to be reviewed though, you've just continued on the vein that 'it would still be true'

I think my point is that very little would have to be reviewed. Why would it? That's what you haven't explained. You have stated it, but not explained how.

So when you say that, what exactly do you mean? In what way would it still be true? Is it still true that humans are related to monkeys, and that monkeys are related to what came before it, and so on an so on?

Yes, exactly.

A small part of natural history would need some changing (everything prior to and including the non-natural origin), but just like with the WWI example - the subsequent evolution would not be affected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 7:03 PM Peg has not yet responded

Junior Member (Idle past 2454 days)
Posts: 2
From: NSW, Australia
Joined: 02-22-2010

Message 77 of 77 (547818)
02-23-2010 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
12-29-2009 6:48 PM

Peg, where did viruses come from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 12-29-2009 6:48 PM Peg has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019