Originally Posted by
Seraphim
That gives a good explanation if you take the case of having multiple sets of ancestors.
How about if you go all the way back to The Beginning? Science does a good job of suppporting "recent" history, but does not do so well at Genesis.
Does the scientific explanation of the origin of life say that multiple sets of life happened to spring forth at once, thereby allowing for reproduction as we know it?
From a state of non-living matter, by whatever combination of circumstances (primordial "soup", etc...) let's say life did spring forth by the utmost hapenstance in all it's complexity ("simple" cells are not so "simple" are they?).
So, is the scientific theory that a single cell sprang forth and was able to self replicate, or is it saying that there were multiple cases of life spontaneously happening, and thus they could simply get it on and reproduce as we know have come to know reproduction? For either circumstance, the cell has to be at least complex enough to reproduce, which is no mean feat.
Or is the position that reproduction was not needed as life formation was an easy/common process, and thus multiple early life forms simply came into being? If that is the case, how come we see no evidence of life simply coming into being anywhere else, under any circumstance?
How scientifically valid are any of those positions?
According to the above link, the mitochondrial trail has only been followed back, what was it? 170, 000 years. So, that is as far as the "evidence" goes. After that it is at best extrapolation, and at worst assumption and guesswork, however educated those guesses may be.
They have done a god job at supporting evolution in regards to change over time, but there is plenty of non scientific hand-waving going on when it comes to where life came from to begin with.
