Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[Mister Agenda]

(Today 16:42)Harris Wrote:
(Today 05:46)Esquilax Wrote: (Today 03:56)Harris Wrote: If abiogenesis is not the base of evolution, then how you justify the evolution in the first place.


We don't know. And that's it.

Very interestng, there is no foundation yet there is a big theory with so may intricate details. More interestengly everyone seems to be happy with this theory without even knowing this theory at its root level.

The foundation of the modern synthesis is the multiple lines of evidence supporting common descent modified by the interaction of natural variations with natural selection, which is what evolution is.

What's very interesting is how the fact that evolution is not and never was founded on abiogenesis is completely incapable of penetrating your invincible ignorance.

You are saying evolution is not based on spontaneous appearance of life.

That is correct.

But that has not solved the question.

It's an invalid question.

Without the first appearance of life, evolution is not possible. No matter life appeared spontaneously or otherwise evolution starts only after life came into existence.

That's what we've been trying to tell you.

It’s a very simple thing to understand.

Really? It's been like pulling teeth with you.

So the question remains, if no one know how life came into existence in first place and no one knows how that life form looked like then how comes there is a theory that is explaining how that life evolved from that unknown life form?

Because you don't need to know what the first life form looked like to understand how life thereafter diversified, which is the only thing evolution claims to explain.

(Today 13:19)Harris Wrote: Abiogenesis and evolution are not separate things, they are deeply interconnected with each other. Tell me if there was no first cell then would evolution (in which you believe) ever happened and do you think you and me were corresponding with each other here?

If there was no first cell, we wouldn't be standing here even if there IS a God.

You don’t know whether God has created life in form of cell or in form of something else.

Right, I don't, and have said so repeatedly, as have others. Glad you finally get that much.

Secondly, your answer is the confirmation that abiogenesis and evolution are not separate thing; they are rather deeply interconnected with each other. No life, no evolution.

Maybe it's the words that are confusing you. In one sense, abiogenesis is the scientific study of how life began. In another it is a (without) bio (life) genesis (beginning). Abiogenesis as a science studying the natural origin of life does not have to be true for evolution to be true. But life had to begin somehow for evolution to operate...and life had to begin somehow for creationism or Intelligent Design to be true, as well.

(Today 13:19)Harris Wrote: Further, what makes you believe that life started from the first living cell. Maybe life has started in absolutely different way.

It doesn't matter how it started, evolution is something that happens to populations of reproducing organisms over time.

Apart from technical definitions of evolution, tell me what the mechanism of evolution is. Perhaps you believe in it as an unguided and mindless process, which took advantage from chance and luck to perform its activities.

How many times are you going to ask for the explanation for the mechanisms of evolution only to dismiss it? You're going to get essentially the same answer every time: natural selection acting on variations in organsims over generations.

However the first reproducing organisms came into being, evolution comes into play afterwards.

Thank you for this confirmation.

I would take this as a good sign, were it not for my confidence in your ability to misunderstand the implications of simple ideas.