Does the Theory of Evolution demand a begining or source?

Question

I understand that no scientist should claim to have all the answers. To think so would be arrogant, at the least. Nonetheless, do Evolutionists assume there must have been some begining to all, (wheather or not this "begining" had life)?

If evolutionists do not believe in an ultimate begining, they must believe in an "eternal-before", correct? If evolutionists do believe in an ultimate begining, then what is the source of that begining, (be it alive or not)? If evolutionists are undecided in this topic, then science would demand they had an open mind to any possibilities, Would it not?

My apologies for the multiple questions. I have just been inquiring more and more about science and its theories. I know about the many books, but it will take me time to read them all!!

Thank you. I appreciate any and all answers.

Answer 1

Those questions seem to be more philosophical than scientific, as "evolutionists" don't really focus on the "beginning," but rather try to explain why things are the way they are currently. Logically, for there to be life now, there must have been a "first life," but how that came about (via protobionts, or even via a creator) is not as important as how life has expanded since then, to an evolutionary biologist. One thing to remember is that the point of science is not to say what actually happened, but to give the most logical reasoning for why something happened.

Answer 2

I'm not sure "Evolutionists" is the appropriate term, firstly... :P

I, personally, believe that evolution is the most parsimonious explanation for the existence of life as we know it. I do not think that personal belief in God or any external force affects the realities of evolution. Personally, I like to watch what happens when I put a fish in a fishtank, I don't want to direct its every move. But alas, I am no diety. :)

I believe in a Big Bang (for others, God creating the world in seven days could suffice as this Bang). There is a very famous experiment that was conducted in the 1960's where a pair of scientists recreated the conditions that would have been present on a very young planet Earth. High heat, lots of carbon dioxide, and various minerals. They then introduced electricity to this mixture to simulate the near-constant lightning strikes that would have been present billions of years ago, and when they examined the mixture, amino acids had begun to form. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein, sort of like nucleotides are the building blocks of nucleic acids like DNA.

As for what "evolutionists" believe, the reason I say that is not an apt term is because the people who believe in evolution as an explanation for change in life on earth are not a homogenous group. Some are very devout Christians, Muslims, you-name-its. Some are agnostic or atheists. As far as the enternal-before or Big Bang question, I suppose you're just going to have to take a survey! :) I find your curiosity refreshing though, it's nice that you ask questions and get informed before making a statement.

Answer 3

I have just come across a new theory about a "reciprocating" universe. It basically said that there have been multiple "big bangs" as the universe expands to its limits, then collapses back and starts all over again. Evolution of life then would be able to form in the interum.

Answer 4

Evolution is a mechanism, not a belief. Evolution deals on how changes happen, not on origin. That's a whole different area of biology, called "Origins of Life", with Oparin, Haldane, Lazcano, Margulis, etc. as main scholars, i invite you to investigate their works.
Besides, biologists studying evolution do not need beginnings solved, as well as they don't need to be specialists on enzymology or chronobiology in order to study their field.
Good luck with your searches.