[mrjesse]

Jesse-- There are two different issues here.

The first issue is that origins must be separated from evolution. The second is that fact must be separated from theory.

Your question regarding "goo to you by way of the zoo" mixes all four of these together. I suspect it was designed to do so, a strawman with a catchy rhyme and meter as well.

Do you mean 'abiogenesis' by 'origins' or the whole process? I am starting to sometimes use "Amoeba to man" now instead of "Goo to you by way of the zoo" because the latter does encompass the two different stages. I'll reply more fully when I know what you meant by 'origins' in this case.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Coyoteman]

Do you mean 'abiogenesis' by 'origins' or the whole process?

By origins I mean origins. Origins must be separated from evolution, as I stated.

Here are five possible origins for the first life forms.

a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

Evolution works fine with any of these possible origins. That is what I mean by separating origins from evolution.