Not good enough! Who determined when the conditions were right? Who mixed the ingredients to the right proportions? Back to the Miller experiments - had it succeeded, it would only have proved that life had to be created and science knows that life comes only from life. Science knows that life cannot just happen. But - just about all "books on evolution skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter." (
Creation ch. 4 p. 39) You seem fascinated by abiogenesis. Why don't you go start a thread on it? This one is about fossils and evolution. Do you have anything to say about fossils and evolution?
Fossil evidence still leaves the question of transition unanswered
What does this even mean?
. Natural selection has been offered as the solution, but:
the greatest problem for the theory of evolution by natural selection, is that it cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. Natural selection cannot develop a species' genetic data; therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species. The greatest defender of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows:
The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well. (
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about9882.html?hilit=Branches+biology )
That's right, wilson, now stop all the noise in your head, pay careful attention, and you might learn something, although my hopes are not high. Ready? Here it comes? It's not natural selection alone, it's descent with modification PLUS natural selection. There are two, two, two parts to the theory. Natural selection alone doesn't do it. It takes descent with modification PLUS natural selection.
If you need me to explain this using smaller words, just let me know and I'll be happy to.
No! We do not agree here. No movement because I have questions. Abiogenesis happened? Nothing as colossal just happens! WHO did the zapping? What diversified? What appeared first? Where are the fossils? Talkorigins says it was simple. What is a simple cell? What method of reproduction did it have? When, why and how did it choose to diversify into male and female?
You want to examine the top floor, but youre asking the wrong questions. The top floor is much too complicated. It is better to start at the bottom where the ToE says it was simple.
I think you should really go get an education in Biology, and then you can take up this question you think so important. Science has yet to solve it, and apparently you think it's so important that all Biology should stop until it's solved. Go to it?
O.K., can we agree on this:
At some point there were no living things on earth.
There are now living things on earth.
Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened.
Can you agree to that?