[GourmetDan]

"I haven't forgotten about it. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why identifying the first life forms and how they got here is relevant to what happened after they were here. You keep saying it is, but you don't offer any support."

Which is exactly why my point from the beginning was, "Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion."

I even addressed this specifically TO YOU when I said, "It all depends on what you define as a 'first life form' and what biological systems that alleged life form would have that were spontaneously generated without evolution. If any selection is involved in the appearance of this first 'life form', then evolution was involved and the fallacy of exclusion applies." That was posed TO YOU way back in post 658.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Which is exactly why my point from the beginning was...

Repeating yourself isn't helping. I think you must be making a point that you consider so self-evident that you can't figure out how to explain it. Walk me through it:

You claim that evolutionary scientists commit the fallacy of exclusion if they don't address the origin and nature of whatever preexisted self-replicating life forms. Is that correct?

For that to be a fallacy of exclusion, information about that "whatever" must be relevant to the evolutionary behavior of self-replicating life forms. Do you agree?

If you agree, can you explain the relevance?

[MrB]

“Yeah, but if you exclude whatever makes my theory fall apart, my theory holds together quite well!”