Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Junior

The composition of the earth's primitive environment is often discussed in relation to how it might give rise to life. If one is going to insist upon unintelligent causes for such things, it only stands to reason that the whole progression from non-life to life falls within the purview of science. Why is this question suddenly considered beyond scientific consideration? Don't you think it is a tad disingenous to imply that science does not talk about abiogensis, or that it has "nothing to do with evolution?" I would consider it a remarkable evolution for substances to change from non-living to living, no matter what the cause.


360 posted on 12/05/2005 3:58:39 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies ]


To: Fester Chugabrew

But, you see, I wasn't talking about abiogenesis, nor was the posts to which I was referring. You brought that into the discussion later. I refuse to be sidetracked.


361 posted on 12/05/2005 4:02:28 PM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies ]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Why is this question suddenly considered beyond scientific consideration?"

It isn't. It's just outside of the theory of evolution.

"Don't you think it is a tad disingenous to imply that science does not talk about abiogensis, or that it has "nothing to do with evolution?"

Abiogenesis is a part of science, but it is not nor has it ever been part of the ToE.
362 posted on 12/05/2005 4:03:57 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies ]

To: Fester Chugabrew
The composition of the earth's primitive environment is often discussed in relation to how it might give rise to life. If one is going to insist upon unintelligent causes for such things, it only stands to reason that the whole progression from non-life to life falls within the purview of science. Why is this question suddenly considered beyond scientific consideration?

Hey Fester! Let me in on this abiogenesis thing.

You're talking about two concepts: Evolution and Abiogenesis. Now, I know this point has been repeatedly hashed and rehashed, but I'll do it again...because it is an important point, the understanding of which is essential to a better understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution Theory doesn't do abiogenesis. Some scientists do do abiogenesis research, but it's not the focus of research in Evolutionary Theory.

There are overwhelming numbers of scientists who do research directly related to Evolution Theory. Those who research abiogenesis do exist, but are quite fewer in numbers.

The reason for the apparent dichotomy lies in the fact that they are two distinctly different topics.

394 posted on 12/05/2005 5:00:14 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson