Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[coldwx]

I thought I pursued it by linking to another article by Theobald which discusses some of the criticisms. I admitted I was being lazy though because I had too much to do that day. Now, please restate your problem with the unity of life for me if you would. I do not understand how the multiple instances of abiogenesis relate to macroevolution or somehow disprove it. I think Theobald makes it clear that the subjects are different. As I said though, maybe I am misunderstanding your problem.

Sure. Consider this from the article's definition of scientific evidence (whic I find to be very good):

Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

The fundamental unity of life is not a risky prediction for macroevolution. A new form of life could be explained with no harm to evolution in several ways:

1. A second instance of abiogenesis
2. Evolution beyond what we've seen before
3. An instance of panspermia

I'm still hazy on why the conflation of origin and unity and how these examples weaken macroevolution. Even Theobald notes that nothing rules out multiple instances of abiogenesis but that they must have died out.