Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 165
- 83
Is it? As far as I can tell there is science there.
Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?
Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.
We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.
Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.
I always am amused at the thought of living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
This is purely using ones imagination and showing the faith needed to believe such a thing.