The Grand Theory of Life

Hello Arphy,Long time since last I got to respond to one of your well thought out posts. Evolution really only is defined as "descent with modification". It doesn't really say anything about starting conditions, or complexity. Most Creationists nowadays will agree with this concept of evolution, so it's funny how they pretend to oppose it. They really should be talking about "abiogenesists" when they take their highly inclusive swipes at "evolutionists". You'll notice how many creos on this site lump the two together, and more often than not, it's the origins part that bothers them, not the change in populations of living things. Contrary to Creationists, evolutionary scientists are not simply insisting something to make it fit their "explanation" as to how life began. Most books I've read on the subject of evolution, including those by Richard Dawkins, spend very little time talking about naturalistic origins. This is because we still know very little of how life began (although there are many suggestions as to how it might have happened).
The reason scientists tell us that life started off simple is because that's what the evidence is telling them. The fossil record indicates that life remained very simple for a long period of time, before the first complex multi-cellular life-forms appeared. These early creatures are all of a more primitive nature than their modern counterparts.
Evidence in DNA agrees with a simple origin as well, showing how all living things have DNA in common, and building a nice phylogenetic tree that fits nicely with the fossil evidence, as well as the geographical distribution of lifeforms.While a Creator certainly could have created these similarities in DNA for no reason at all, in order to create the illusion that all life on earth shares a common origin, this is not a parsimonious explanation for the evidence. And not a testable scientific one at that.*Respectfully,-Meldinoor*I intend to get around responding to slevesque on the CMI great debate thread tonight. I've been busy for the last few weeks, so I've been unable to participate. The content of this post will be used in the argument I put forth, so start sharpening up your rebuttal.

Hi Arphy,From wikipedia:

quote:

---

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations

---

From dictionary.com

quote:

---

change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift

---

From biology.about.com

quote:

---

Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable.

---

My understanding of evolution is that at its most basic level, it is only about changes in the gene pool of populations. It doesn't need to be from simple to complex, and it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
I therefore disagree with Briterican on this point, but in a way he's right, and I'll be getting to that in a moment.Our understanding about how life originated, or of its simple beginnings, does not stem directly from the theory of evolution. The TOE does not predict that life must begin at a certain level of complexity. Indeed, it would function equally well in a world where life was created 6000 years ago.That being said, how do we know that life started out simple? Well, one line of evidence is of course the fossil record. We find fossils of bacteria in sediments that are way older than any rocks containing more complex organisms. Fossil Record of BacteriaNow what I think Briterican may have meant when he answered yes to your question about evolution necessarily going from simple and complex and from a common ancestor, is that in light of evolution, that is exactly what the evidence tells us.This is because of homologies in DNA which allows us to trace the common ancestry of all living things (it's tricky with bacteria, but works well for more complex creatures). Since even those lineages of life which have the least in common with each-other can be traced down to a common ancestor, that ancestor would probably have had only the traits that are shared by all living things. There are some things that all living things have in common, but if you strip out everything else, you have a very simple organism (by today's standards). So in light of the TOE, this evidence strongly suggests a simple beginning.We can discuss the validity of dating methods in the Great Debate thread, and we can also discuss ancestry and the genetic evidence we have. Since this thread is about unifying evolution and the origin of life, I merely want to show why the two are currently separate. Scientists rely on evidence, not the theory of evolution by itself, to arrive to their conclusion that life must have been simple at the beginning.Personally, I doubt we will ever know how life began. Even if we are able to synthesize it in the lab, we will still not know whether life formed by a completely different process or whether the life we created is at all similar to the precursors of natural life. I think there are many possibilities, including a direct intervention by a designer (although this explanation does seem a bit superfluous).Finally, one last comment on your post: Science can ONLY deal with naturalistic explanations. There is no way to test for another explanation. While a scientist may accept the possibility that a supernatural Agent created life, he would not be doing science if he was satisfied with that explanation. Many evolutionists are theists (perhaps more than you think) who might gladly entertain the notion of a supernatural origin. However, if said person is a scientist who is studying the origin of life, the moment he puts on his lab coat he has to begin thinking in terms of testability and fact.So while it is true that science seeks a naturalistic answer, it doesn't mean scientists are dogmatically ruling out the existence of the supernatural. Even if life could not have come about by natural processes alone, scientists will keep looking for a natural explanation. Because the moment we invoke the supernatural to explain anything, we give up the hope of learning and seal off one avenue of future discoveries.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Since you're the one proposing flood geology, you should be the one explaining why rabbits aren't found in pre-cambrian rock. The rest of us "evolutionists" have already given our explanation, i.e. there were no rabbits.Respectfully,-Meldinoor