Replies

I think you missed my point. I wasn’t asking about the origin of the origin of all life (abiogenisis). I was asking about the origin of all life being that one item of whatever that Common Descent proponents point to when they draw the so-called “tree of life”. The big discussion here was how foolish ID people were when they did not rely upon proven scientific experimentation to provide substantiation for their claims. Only the real scientists did this. I was pointing out that those scientists (talkorigins and Nova) represented the inferences that they drew to be the equivalents of scientific proof of Common Descent. Common Descent is a conclusion reached by inference not a provable scientific fact, insofar as it is not repeatable nor demonstrable. But, you claimed that it is science. And you can hold on the sarcastic food comments. I may not be as smart as you, but I can listen and learn.

The story so far:

You: Hmmm. Apparently the big evolutionary players, like TalkOrigins and Nova, don’t agree with you. They believe Common Descent is absolutely the realm of science and anyone questioning their right to this claim are “religionists” trying to jam out-dated dogma down the public’s throat.
Check out your compatriots.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Me:Common descent is science. Abiogenesis (studying how life might have originated) is also science. They are not the same field of science, however.
Steak is food.
Pizza is food.
They are not the same food.
OK?

Plus your current post.

My response:
1. We don’t do “tree of life” diagrams anymore.

2. No matter how you cut it or rephrase it, the origin of all life is not part of evolution. Maybe you thought I was being sarcastic, but I wasn’t. I was trying to clarify, and it looks as if it was still not clear enough. They are two separate subjects and I’m smart enough to know that my qualification do not extend to origin of life questions.