The Grand Theory of Life

ICANT, when Cavediver mentioned the word 'evolution', he used it as shorthand for 'the theory of evolution', he did not mean the actual process of evolution. How do I know this? The key is in the phrase "its own evidence". Theories need evidence, processes do not. Now that we know we're talking about the theory of evolution, Cavediver's second sentence should begin to make sense. The theory of evolution doesn't require abiogenesis: first life could have been engineered by God, aliens or time travelling scientists. Even if God engineered life, as long as he engineered it with the property of heredity built into it, and with the possibility of imperfect replication, the theory of evolution explains what would happen next. So the theory of evolution doesn't require and doesn't imply abiogenesis. Therefore your question is irrelevant, because it refers to the process of evolution, not the theory. Everybody would agree that for the process of evolution to take place you would first need a life form, but given that life exists, the theory of evolution doesn't care how it got there. I find it very strange that you ask this because it's hard to believe that you agree with this yourself. If abiogenesis were proven to be impossible, we would have to conclude that life must have originated in some other way, if only because of the simple fact that life exists. Your explanation would probably be the God of Genesis, I would perhaps theorize aliens, or simply acknowledge ignorance, but the facts are that (1) life exists, and (2) it can, and has evolved.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.