Chuck writes:
I don't think they SHOULD be different.
But they just are.
Chuck writes:
I think ORIGINS should be incorporated with the theory.
But evolution would remain unchanged however life first arose.
Chuck writes:
My point is regardless of evolution being true or not it avoids one of the most important questions.
It doesn't answer that question. But that isn't the same as avoiding it. The question you want an answer to is being actively researched as we write.
Chuck writes:
How did it all start?
We don't really know. Yet.
Chuck writes:
What evolved from what?
All present and past life evolved from this first instance of life. That is the theory of common ancestry in a nutshell.
Chuck writes:
Could it have evolved or was it already created like the Bible says?
We know life evolved. What we don't know is how it originated.
Chuck writes:
Origins is important.
It is important in the wider sense. But it doesn't really affect the ToE too much. Whether sparked into existence by a divine being or the natural consequence of chemical soupit makes no real difference to the evidence for common ancestry and descent with modification.
Chuck writes:
It shouldn't be swept under the rug and labled another theory.
It isn't being swept anywhere. Origins of life is a topic of active research.
Chuck writes:
It is because it hampers the TOE.
How? Be specific.
™ Version 4.2
