Posted on 12/15/2023 1:35:37 AM PST by spirited irish
Good, I hope she’s making a fortune in $cience.
You’re wrong and don’t understand basic thinking.
You’re the one touting magic. And making incredibly stupid strawman questions.
And no my argument has NOTHING to do with intelligent design. I’m simply pointing out basic reality of divided sciences.
Of course you’re showing you don’t understand basic reality of anything at all.
You’re unfamiliar with intelligent design and biology both.
So let’s review.
“ It’s like the difference between a software developer and a chip designer.”
This is an intelligent design argument. There is no designer in evolutionary theory.
“ Every scientist knows that evolutionary science (which itself has evolved FAR beyond Darwin’s initial theory) has NOTHING to do with how life began.”
What is your distinction for life beginning?
Answer this question and you’ll begin to understand.
“ Darwinism never purported to explain how Life began.”
Why do people cite evolution to argue against creation bu God?
No I’m very familiar with intelligent design and biology both. I’m also familiar with the fact that you have the reading comprehension of a drunk 5 year old.
That is NOT an intelligent design argument. That is a metaphorical argument, paralleling the chip software relationship to the bio-genesis evolution relationship. People studying evolution DON’T study bio-genesis, even though you have to have life for it to evolve, because it’s a different field. Just like software engineers don’t know how to design chips, even though you have to have chips to run software, because it’s A DIFFERENT FIELD.
Another strawman. When you realize your questions are both stupid and pointless you’ll begin to understand.
“ Am not a biologist…”
That’s obvious.
“, but I know the difference between a man and a woman. Ha-ha!)”
That’s a good one.
“ Like asking how bananas could possibly evolve to fit the human hand so perfectly! ”
Interesting that the books that are the subject of this post are apparently arguing for this point of view as useful and valid.
They don’t. That’s always been the hilarious part about the whole science v religion argument. Very very dumb religious people whose faith is thin because they lack understanding keeping thinking science is attacking religion. Meanwhile science has no interest in religion one way or the other. Scientists are off doing science stuff and really don’t care what religious people worship and aren’t arguing against ANY religion.
“ Epigenetics vindicate Lamarck”
I wouldn’t go that far.
“ Chemical evolution doesn’t take a position on evolutionary biology either.”
Biology is just chemistry.
“ They don’t.”
You never heard of Richard Dawkins?
and chemistry is just physics
That’s right.
Which gets us nowhere.
Why do you say that?
It makes us understand there’s no difference between life and non-life physically/materially.
It’s a false dichotomy scientifically.
“ People studying evolution DON’T study bio-genesis”
Tell that to Jergen Brosius and all the RNAers.
You simply repeat silly platitudes you don’t understand.
Dawkins is an professional asshole. Holding him against evolutionary scientists is like holding Joel Osteen against religious people. Both sides have useless wastes of flesh. And both sides ignore their own, and are better served by ignoring the other’s.
And you show, again, you’re a moron. Bye now.
Good answers, not really getting your auto analogy but appreciate it
As to chickens, forgive my ignorance, but as I understand it chickens have been doing this egg a day thing for along time, before there was engineering to make this happen.
Like orange trees, never (not that there are not), have I seen great flicks of wild chickens lol
The reason I bring up advantage, is that is a prime part of Darwin’s theory. There is a benefit or advantage to the mutation that promotes this over something it was…
Not a biologist, just an observer
You stated “ People studying evolution DON’T study bio-genesis” which is false and completely ignorant of the field.
I provided an example for your edification.
Here’s an abstract and excerpt from it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12836680/
“ We examine whether and to what extent known evolutionary principles can be applied to an RNA-based world. We conclude that the major basic Neo-Darwinian principles that include amplification, variation and selection already governed evolution in the RNA and RNP worlds. In this hypothetical RNA world there were few restrictions on the exchange of genetic material and principles that acted as borders at later stages, such as Weismann’s Barrier, the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, or the Darwinian Threshold were absent or rudimentary. RNA was more than a gene: it had a dual role harboring, genotypic and phenotypic capabilities, often in the same molecule.”
This is 20 years old and it is still an active area of study in the evolutionary field..
“ Meanwhile science has no interest in religion one way or the other.”
Yes, although I’d say bearing on rather than interest in.
Unfortunately, that’s not true for all scientists or I should say people who get paid as scientists,nreal or pretend.
Dawkins, whom you correctly pegged in another post, is a classic example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.