Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Woahhs

OK, if you want to split hairs, I will modify my statement to "If you find an organism ON EARTH that does not have nucleic acids as its genetic material, then evolution is false." Better?


392 posted on 11/29/2004 11:02:50 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies ]


To: stremba
"If you find an organism ON EARTH that does not have nucleic acids as its genetic material, then evolution is false." Better?

Actually, if such a creature were found, it would only argue for multiple beginnings of life, rather than a singular beginning.

[A "singular" common ancestor is actually an argument for Biblical Creationism, which unfortunatly religious people reject because it then acknowleges the evil "E" word]

Also, certianly an argument could be made that extreemly early life split into two major forms and the common early ancestor is no longer in evidence.

395 posted on 11/29/2004 11:08:41 AM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies ]

To: stremba
OK, if you want to split hairs, I will modify my statement to "If you find an organism ON EARTH that does not have nucleic acids as its genetic material, then evolution is false." Better?

No, it's not. Your test of falsifiability is not credible.

401 posted on 11/29/2004 11:13:46 AM PST by Woahhs (America is an idea, not an address.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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