My point is that only if the beginning of macro-evolution and the continuation of macro-evolution are different things would hypotheses of the origin of life and the theory of evolution be two different things. For example, we can look at a statement like this:
"I have tried to conform to the overriding rule that life be treated as a natural process, its origin, evolution and manifestations…as governed by the same laws as nonliving processes. I exclude…finalism, or teleology, which assumes goal-directed causes in biological processes….My approach demands that every step in the origin and development of life on Earth be explained in terms of its antecedent and immediate physical-chemical causes."
Christian de Duve
I understand your logical distinction between the two, but what evidence do you have that the beginning of macro-evolution and the continuation of it are entirely different things in fact, not just in logical category?
Cordially,
No evidence is needed for that distinction as it may or may not be true. It is of no interest for those who are studying the differention of species. If soemone wants to study the origin of life they may use it as a working hypothesis.
I don't have any evidence whatsoever, because I am not sure what processes led to the formation of the first living organism. However, were the processes leading to the first organism similar to those that drive evolution (they can't be the same, since there would be no mutation in a pre-biotic chemical aggregate) the origin of life is still logically separated from the theory of evolution.
Think of it this way. Suppose God created the first living cell by speaking it into existence. Does that mean that the natural selection of mutations that this cell underwent could not have happened? Suppose the first cell came from outer space. Does this imply that mutations could not have occurred when this cell reproduced? Does this imply that natural selection could not have occurred? Suppose the first cell is the result of some natural process occurring on the pre-biotic earth. Could mutations not occur when this cell reproduces? Could natural selection not weed out the undesirable ones and propogate the desirable ones?
In short, it makes absolutely no difference where this first living cell comes from. In any case implicit in calling it alive, is the notion that it can reproduce itself. We know that living things reproduce imperfect copies of themselves. We know that natural selection weeds out the variants that cannot survive well and causes those that can survive well to become the dominant variation. The source of the cell says nothing about its behavior after it has been formed.
Do you realize you just demanded empirical evidence of genesis from me? Even Nobel Prize winning biologists understand hypotheses proposed about the origin of life are speculative. The next thing you know, some creationist is going to say that after having my eye teeth pulled I reluctantly admitted that science does not, in fact, know how life began despite the best efforts to hide it.
It is not just simply stremba's or my logical distinction. Limiting the scope of study is an integral part of scientific investigation. Through the use of modern DNA sequencing technology, we can directly observe genetic markers travel through populations of bacteria over time. In this sense, evolution is an empirical fact. On the other hand, no one conclusively knows how life began. We cannot travel back in time and there are very few rock formations easily available to us from the earth's earliest time. Therefore the bounds of study must be limited in scope and assumptions must be clearly laid out beforehand. Doing so allows us to move forward knowing full well what we're positive about and what has some uncertainty so that we may understand our margin of error.