quote:
And again, I must agree with Triforce that your assumptions are just that, assumptions, correct? After all, every good scientist knows that our understanding of the universe is base upon an ever enlarging and slowly proofing out of a series of assumption, right?
Al,
Thanks for admitting you were wrong about the DNA thing. That admission is thoroughly respectable, and reflects a curious and honest mind. We could use some more of that around here.
Your quote above, however, is not accurate. Science is not a set of assumptions, it is a body of data from which theories arise. One may assume a hypothesis which will, or will not, stand to testing.
Astronomers do not assume that the Earth orbits the Sun, it's observable fact. Chemists do not assume that compounds are made of elements, it's demonstrable. Biologists do not assume the DNA map of living organisms, they can actually count the genetic similarities and locate genes that account for specific physiological developments.
Theoretical, better described as hypothetical, speculations such as abiogenesis and quantum cosmology, are always qualified as hypothetical. These speculations are not out of the blue, nor derived from ancient collections of mystical writings, but are educated guesses.
Evolution is a fact. The best hypotheses for abiogenesis and the Big Bang are speculations, and they say so. But speculation is an essential part of curiosity. Some are right, some are wrong, but all are necessary for the advancement of human knowledge.
Best for the new year!
nsns