Back to the first biological entity capable of passing on heritable traits to its subsequent generation, variation of those traits, and upon which natural selection can act, as I have previously explained to you.
At what point does one stop and why?
Asked and answered.
What/who has determined evolution's starting point? Man?
All scientific theories have a scope that is limited to the phenomona which are subject to the processes or mechanisms described by the theory. Evolution is about heritable traits being passed on to subsequent generations, those traits having variations across the population, and the population being subject to natural selection. Therefore, it's starting point is the earliest biological population that is capable of being characterized by that process. By definition, the first living organism arose from some other process (whether it be some form of abiogenesis, or seedlings planted by space aliens or deities.) Therefore it can't be described by the same processes that describe Evolution, as it is a different phenomona. This is identical to why the theory of the origin of water is fundamentally distinct from the theory of water dynamics, i.e., Hydrology. As I said in my last post: "Different processes, different phenomona, different theories." Which word didn't you understand?
Then it's whatever he wants it to be isn't it, and he will defend to death won't he.
No, as I have just painstakingly explained for you yet again. ("Different processes, different phenomona, different theories." Which word didn't you understand?)
I can see that *in theory* the Theory of Evolution doesn't *have to* depend on any Theory of Origion [sic] but how does one *know* it doesn't?
By paying attention to the argument I put forward three times now, instead of ignoring the content of my posts and responding with non-sequitors such as "Yes, but Evolution is unique and complex, therefore it must address Origin of Life itself!". Your conclusion does not logically follow from that premise.
What is are the specific reasons the theory of evolution cannot include origin of life? Why must the two theories be separated?
Asked and answered. ("Different processes, different phenomona, different theories." Which word didn't you understand?)
Touch me with your Noodly Appendage please..... :-)
I accept your cordial acknowledgement that you don't have a counter argument to what I've been trying to tell you for the last several posts. If you don't understand after this post, there isn't any point in my continuing this one sided dialogue. Go in peace; may all your noodles be al dente.
I didn't say that.
This is illustrated by you pinging PatrickHenry with your last reply to me. Why? Because you want him to see how the mighty intellectual squishes the worm?
And why the deliberately warped misquote?
Why is this?
I heard Burt Rutan talk about revolutionary vs evolutionary thinking years ago, of course he is a proponent of revolutionary thinking. Is your thinking original and revolutionary thinking? Is my thinking original and revolutionary thinking? All to often people simply say what they were taught to say - no more and certainly no less; they think how they were taught to think - no more, and certainly no less. There is plenty of evidence of this on this thread. Consider the point in time where man switched from the flat earth theory to the round earth theory. Who were the evolutionary thinkers and who were the revolutionary thinkers? Consider the point in time where man switched from thinking the sun revolved around the earth to realizing the earth revolved around the sun; Who were the evolutionary thinkers and who were the revolutionary thinkers? Both times evolutionary thinking had to buck established revolutionary thinking. So now here we are on this thread discussing evolution vs design. I don't think it would be out of line to suggest people here ask themselves if their thinking is evolutionary or revolutionary, if it simply what they were taught to think, or independent, critical and original thinking.
What major breakthroughs were the result of regurgitated, evolutionary thinking?
Revolutionary thinking will always question the status quo.
The Origin-of-Life Prize ® is interesting to me because it is encouraging revolutionary thinking as evidenced by this statement; "The winning submission will likely provide both a novel and cardinal conceptual contribution to current biological science and information theory."
That should be pretty exciting.