---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :

 Ann, what you say makes sense.  Sal hasn't much more of clue about the origins 
of life than anyone else.  He has his own theory which may, or may not be 
correct, or likely, elements of which may be correct 

 He just likes to present it as being authoritative, and then mock any theory 
that doesn't follow his strict evolutionary process.

 I think he is mistaken.  But like he says, perhaps science will help give us a 
better understanding.

 I think there are still many open ended questions about the origin and 
development of life, and the theory is constantly being updated.

 Just like theory of the gravity waves formed an instant after the big bang, 
that he was so enthusiastic about, until is was discredited a few months later.

M: I haven't been following this too closely so forgive me if I am in left 
field,. This caught my eye. I don't believe that evolutionary theory is 
comparable to the specific theory you are referring to above. Evolutionary 
theory is the backbone of our whole understanding in biology and the life 
sciences. Whereas some geophysics theories may have a few data points 
supporting them because of the scales involved and other difficulties, 
evolutionary theory has literally millions of supporting data points supporting 
it. It will get refined in specific cases, but the chance that it will be 
overturned by even a large number of conflicting data points is very slim. 
Especially since right now we have zero and we have been looking for a while 
now. Every fossil we find and advancement in genetics  supports the predictions 

 Yes and this evidence is based on relatively recent findings - things that 
still exist in the form of skeletons, things that can be carbon dated, remains 
that are found in the various substrata of the soil. This is not guesswork as 
much as it is deduction based on hard findings of matter. Stuff that can be 
measured. Physical things. You can be relatively sure of the data you can touch 
and measure and feel or put under glass.

I thought Sal's point was an objection to a teleological  view of evolution 
where God is somehow setting up a system with a known outcome. (By God one must 
suppose or he has to take down his  Omniscience Trophy with the gold 
All-Seeing-Eye at the top that reminds me of Mordor.) We have so many examples 
of random mutation leading to evolutionary advantage this also seems unlikely. 
Just look at the our own embryological development. Is it really necessary for 
us to look like a fish in an early stage? It is a legacy of our past. And to 
say that a being set it in motion knowing that we would become the monkeys 
typing on these keyboards sometime is the same as saying :
"then magic happened." Which is really not saying very much at all.

 Oh, but it is saying everything. It is saying there is so much we don't know 
and may never know while we are still walking and breathing  and animating our 
current form. "Magic" is another word for missing information. It implies the 
unknown and this is what makes it interesting and worth pursuing even if none 
of us can ever prove what came before the skeletons, the fossils or the insects 
trapped in tree sap. Maybe "not saying very much at all" is the way to go. 
Don't talk, don't look for verbose answers in science books that may well 
become obsolete in a few short years. Just live in a way to see if an opening 
appears where the relevant answers or even the relevant questions emerge. 
Sometimes it is not the answers that are worth knowing but the journey we take 
in search of them. 



Reply via email to