[Jehu]

ToE does not "pretend" to explain speciation. It explains speciation insofar as our knowledge goes at this time. ToE postulates that a single cell is the common ancestor of all life on Earth. This is a Theory incorporated in the ToE called the Theory of Common Descent.

Your previous two posts were telling me that ToE does not incorporate the idea (theory) of where life came from, but right here you tell me it does...sigh!

There is not as much evidence for this as there is for the fact of evolution. There are other explanations that could work,

Name them!

but so far all indications are that a single cell developed into all the life you see on Earth. God was pretty smart to be able to do this, wasn't he?

NO! The indications are that single-celled life first existed in the early seas, reduced the early atmosphere to an oxygen bearing atmosphere, capable of supporting multicellular life. Then about half a billion years ago life exploded into existence on this earth in almost all its basic forms...NOT a slow progression of ever more complex life. That is the evidence. Yours is an interpretation of that evidence, through an already convinced mind that evolution is a "fact!" Maybe it did work that way, but the evidence is against ToE and for special creation. If God is the problem for science, then don't even mention Him, but at least interpret the data as it is, not as you want it to be...that is not science.

[shubi]

s--ToE does not "pretend" to explain speciation. It explains speciation insofar as our knowledge goes at this time. ToE postulates that a single cell is the common ancestor of all life on Earth. This is a Theory incorporated in the ToE called the Theory of Common Descent.

j--Your previous two posts were telling me that ToE does not incorporate the idea (theory) of where life came from, but right here you tell me it does...sigh!

The Theory of Common Descent postulates all life came from an original one celled form. It DOES NOT speculate what created that first form.

Is the reason you feel threatened about it that it does not postulate special creation, a continuing intervention by God? Then I would suggest to you that you change your notions of what Genesis means.

Don't you think God is smart enough to create a system and leave it alone? He could intervene anytime he wants, but since He is non-temporal it would make no difference as far as we are concerned.

[shubi]

"NO! The indications are that single-celled life first existed in the early seas, reduced the early atmosphere to an oxygen bearing atmosphere, capable of supporting multicellular life. Then about half a billion years ago life exploded into existence on this earth in almost all its basic forms...NOT a slow progression of ever more complex life. That is the evidence. Yours is an interpretation of that evidence, through an already convinced mind that evolution is a "fact!" Maybe it did work that way, but the evidence is against ToE and for special creation. If God is the problem for science, then don't even mention Him, but at least interpret the data as it is, not as you want it to be...that is not science."

I am afraid the above is not supported by evidence. But as the article said, one could postulate other manners of descent for instance that there were several lines of descent rather than just one etc.

There is no evidence that life exploded onto the scene suddenly, unless you define suddenly as 100 million years. Also, since almost none of the life forms from the Cambrian exist today, that supports evolution rather than some poofing. No one has observed poofing, except in San Francisco and that is something entirely different...;-)