Now pay attention. I said that Darwinism doesn't explain the origin of life. I didn't say that natural selection didn't. Darwin deliberately avoided origins of life. We do not at this time know how life originated. There is growing evidence in support of the RNA world hypothesis though. Natural selection would have played a role regardless.
There is no evidence for a Biblical kind of creation though.
I must admit that I am quite too poor to pay attention; however, you are arguing the point that evolution explains how life exists...correct?
I have read your posts with interest. Now, go easy on me as I am a slow reader, but will you tell me how an inorganic world gave rise to a sugar (ribose) or a nucleic acid, or the nucleoprotein.
I am curious regarding your point in post 108 where you say essentially the same thing Canis latrans hominis said to me....that being the complete dismissal of applying philosophy in asserting science and its advance. How does one affirm science without applying the philosophy of logic, or the Law of Causality, or Principles of Uniformity. Even skepticism, which you demonstrate with each post, is a philosophical assertion.
It seems an aloof proposition to tell us how all life developed (evolved) upon this planet without telling us how first life developed. First life evolved..."the RNA world hypothesis though. Natural selection would have played a role regardless." What is your point in making this statement. I see it as a dodge from really answering the quesiton. If you had said, "I do not know", that would have sufficed.
I wonder if mRNA had a ribosome as substrate upon which to act its magic? What was the transport method across lipoprotein membranes...OK..so how did "simple life" develope cell membranes and active transport mechanism, which we observe in those simple life forms. Otherwise you do not have a takeoff into the wild blue yonder to evolve.
OK. Let's try this. Without going through the litany (which I know you have read on these threads) I will ask a simple question of you. GIVEN.. Entropy, the findings of Edwin Hubble's red shift,the findings of Penzias and Wilson, COBE, WMAP, and the Law of CAusality, all...ALL...point to the beginning of the Universe - we can agree on that..right..There was a moment just before the BIG BANG where science tells us there was nothing....THEN...the universe exploded into being.
So my question is...Why is there anything at all rather than nothing? If there is no God, why is there something rather than nothing? Notwithstanding your denial of philosophy being the underpinning of science, Francis Bacon, the father of modern science, "True knowledge is knowledge by causes." In other words the Law of CAusality is the fundamental principle of science, nothwithstanding your and coyotemans previous assertions. Even David Hume, skeptic extaorinaire, said, "If ever anyone tells you he doesn't believe in the Law of Causality, ask them what caused them to believe something could arise without a cause. So I ask you, what caused you to come to that conclusion?