In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, James Foster <email@example.com> wrote: >David Beorn (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: >: On 27 Aug 1996, James Foster wrote: > >: > The probability that life has arisen from selective pressure on mutation >: > is exactly one. After all, life HAS arisen that way. > >: Must be nice to know everything so you can just ASSERT the facts - I >: guess you were there??? > >The devlopment of life by selective pressure on mutation is the second >most well tested and validated theory in science (quantum mechanics >being the first). That this process explains what we observe in nature >is a fact at least as much as any other scientific fact, and is better >established than most.
I'm a little confused here. Do you mean to say that natural selection explains the "development of life" and that natural selection explains "what we observe in nature"?
Your statements might be considerd to be accurate if you were referring to "evolution" but not if you mean "natural selection". Please clarify.