[Cicero]

Ah, well. No use arguing with Darwinists. I have no religious objections to Darwinism, just scientific and philosophical.

The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be refutable, not circular. "Survival of the fittest" is circular, because essentially "fittest" is defined by its own survival.

On the other hand, at least it can be confirmed or refuted whether particular catalysts can aid in the formation of biological materials, although it's still a big leap of faith to the larger hypothesis.

[CobaltBlue]

"Survival of the fittest" isn't circular.

"Survival of the survivors" is circular.

"Survival of the fittest" argues that there is something about the survivors that is different that those which don't survive. That difference is called "fitness" - which doesn't mean that the survivors are physically fit from working out in the gym, but that they "fit" the environment better than those which don't survive.

If the environment is a round hole, and they are square pegs, they are rounder than the ones that don't survive.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Ah, well. No use arguing with Darwinists. I have no religious objections to Darwinism, just scientific and philosophical.

The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be refutable, not circular. "Survival of the fittest" is circular, because essentially "fittest" is defined by its own survival.

Evolution is circular? The process of adapting to changing environments leading to natural selection is a linear process that leads to divergent forms over many generations.

Circular reasoning is main pillar of theology. I seem to recall the " I think, therefore I am" philosopher Descartes deduced the existence of God because only God could put that idea in his head.

[Dimensio]

The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be refutable, not circular. "Survival of the fittest" is circular, because essentially "fittest" is defined by its own survival.

This article is about speculation on the first life forms. It has nothing to do with evolution, thus your false claim regarding the term "Survival of the fittest" is irrelevant.

[donh]

Ah, well. No use arguing with Darwinists. I have no religious objections to Darwinism, just scientific and philosophical.

I see. Have you shared this concern with the editors of "Science" and "Nature" and the directors of the Franklin Institute, as yet?

The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be refutable, not circular.

These are not polar opposites. What does it mean for a scientific argument to be "circular"?

"Survival of the fittest" is circular, because essentially "fittest" is defined by its own survival.

Much as "tuned" is defined by a Tv set being in legible adjustment. I fail to understand what is circular here. Are you suggesting that because humans have survived, and humans invented, or discovered, the concept of Darwinian evolution, that there is a circular argument here? If Darwin had been a dodo bird, would that resolve the difficulty for you?

On the other hand, at least it can be confirmed or refuted whether particular catalysts can aid in the formation of biological materials, although it's still a big leap of faith to the larger hypothesis.

However, it's not such a great leap of faith to realize that if biological materials can be produced abiologically, than natural abiogensis has to remain on the table as a possibility.