Replies

"So, are you saying we can observe and demonstrate the origins of life?

Why yes you can, if you try hard enough. Hypothysize, collect evidence and shoot for the theory.

" I'm talking about organic ooze becoming living organic ooze. Ooze that begins to devour the unsuccessful leftovers in the organic soup as it reproduces itself."

You financing?

"If such an idea (central to naturalism) can only be inferred but not tested then it is a mere belief."

Theories are not beliefs. They are not faith, nor are they religion.

Isn't religious doctrine merely another theory to the scientific mind? I see no reason why science not could consider both "life on Earth was created spontaneously out of primordial ooze" and "life on Earth was created by an intelligent being". The former statement is at most a hypothesis; there is nothing substantial to prove it. Even if one believes there is no substantial evidence to prove the latter, it doesn't make it less scientific to investigate the possibility - it's certainly favored by Occam's Razor.

"You financing?

Theories are not beliefs. They are not faith, nor are they religion."

Actually, asking about financing is an interesting question. Consider the evolutionary problem posed by the fox. Before any understanding of DNA foxes and fido had been placed in the same cluster of related beings based on taxonomic inferences. Simply put a fox and a dog (or wolf) are really, really similar ... so this seemed a logical inference.

BIG problem, it turns out that all canids EXCEPT the fox have 78 chromosomes ... the fox has 34.

I could well imagine the thought bubble above the scientist's head when he realized that for the first time: "What the ****?!"

Before I go on to discuss this further I'd like to answer the question about funding. Someone thought it important enough to preserve the "Family tree" of living things where foxes and wolves are concerned that they managed to find funding to compare the mitochondrial DNA of both. Turns out foxes are just similar enough (though still very dissimilar) to give the old family tree a chance. Everyone probably breathed a sigh of relief that day.

And if there is a theory that can be tested ... don't you think our government would fund it? I mean, Uncle Sam will fund ANYTHING (well, maybe not a proper border patrol, but that's besides the point). To borrow from the movie: "If you theorize it, they will fund."

Now back to evolution...

I've already mentioned Petawalski's Horse (I've never been too sure of my spelling of "Petawalski" though ... it's a Polish name and I'm not Polish). In historical times this kind of pony produced the domestic horse as one pair of its 66 chromosomes fused to become one larger chromosome pair in the domestic horse (which has 64). Now, the order of the genetic information was not changed so the P.H. is fully fertile with the D.H. (their fertile offspring just have 65C).

I mention this to support the idea that chromosomal fusions could, in theory, produce a vulpine (fox) from a canine (wolf). I'm sticking with genetic fusions rather that fissions or duplications because such tend to pose fewer problems with deformities or infertility. Now, scientist put the breaking off of vulpines at only 10 million or so years ago. That may seem like a long time but consider what had to happen during that time, there had to be (in the lineage of the fox) 22 successful fusions (or the equivalent). No problem? Well, yes a big problem (even for a question of micro-evolution).

Even allowing for some reabsorbtion of less successful breeds back into the fold all of this allows for at least a few successful canid-like species with between 78 and 34 chromosomes. But none are known. If wolves and foxes weren't so successful that wouldn't be a problem ... but they are nearly everywhere. By implication any transitional species should also have the right stuff.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that even when scientist have "good evidence" they can still have serious problems.