Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1…718719721723724…822

Comments

  • #21602
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    JC, as you've answered later posts, I can only assume you've seen my post with some direct questions in it?

    Any chance of some answers? Or are you desperately searching for a nonsense website to copy and paste?


  • #21603
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    OK, so show me a fly (any sort) evolving into a non-fly.

    Define "fly".


  • #21604
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Ahhh, sweet, you actually believe that creationists are the only ones asking questions about evolution, don't you? You actually think that we all think it's a done deal, all solved, let's pack up and go?
    ...whatever about asking questions, Creation Scientists seem to be the only ones answering questions about evolution!!!!!:D:)


  • #21605
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I don't think the bastardisation of hundreds of years of genuine science to suit a fundamentalist religious agenda is particularly amusing.
    ...yes indeed, the bastardisation of science by Evolutionists to suit their fundamentalist agenda is no laughing matter.

    ... but if you didn't laugh sometimes, you'd just have to cry ... and you wouldn't want to see a grown man cry, Emma ... now would you???:eek:


  • #21606
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Define "fly".

    Anything in this would be a start:
    http://www.tolweb.org/Diptera


  • Advertisement
  • #21607
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Define "fly".
    ...a "fly" is something that a man needs to be particularly careful about closing ... when a zipper is involved!!!!:eek::D:):p


  • #21608
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    It's all nonsense.
    ...is that a scientifically validated conclusion ... or just an 'off the cuff' remark??:rolleyes::D


  • #21609
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Wicknight said:

    Evolution means,say, single-celled ocean life changes over time to land-life and eventually to man. Not the same thing as mutating viruses. Or only in your dreams.

    Wait - who's dreaming here?

    OK, so show me a fly (any sort) evolving into a non-fly. Or any other organism you care to select, into anything other.

    It's been documented thousands of times. What you want is a fly giving birth to a non-fly, which is of course an absurdity.


  • #21610
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Anything in this would be a start:
    http://www.tolweb.org/Diptera

    Which bit of evolution don't you understand? Oh wait, are you one of those people who imagines evolution to be linear? You know, monkeys became humans, flies can turn into non-flies etc.

    image017.jpg


  • #21611
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...is that a scientifically validated conclusion ... or just an 'off the cuff' remark??:rolleyes::D

    Could you answer my questions please?


  • Advertisement
  • #21612
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    What was contained in the original CSI? What is the original CSI? Is the CSI confined to that DNA and a direct function of it? What happens to the CSI when an organism acquires a new piece of DNA? Are you flatly denying the existence of insertion/duplication/horizontal transfer events at the genetic level? You are not making any sense.

    As I understand it, you are saying that the piece of DNA necessary for that slug to start producing a chlorophyll product was already there in the original slug, in the founder of the "kind"? I'd really like you to address this final question (actually I'd love you to address them all but I fear you will skip them) as I think it's critical to this debate. So I'll repeat:

    Did the CSI of the founder slug genome contain the DNA necessary to encode the algae chlorophyll product?


    No it isn't. Diversity is a result of existing sequence variation. This only works if you are asserting that the slug genome already contained the algae genetic DNA. Are you asserting this?
    ...it appears that the original CSI has the ability to sequester the algal chlorophyll ... and thereafter is able to reproduce the chlorlphyll ... its like a living 'App'!!!

    doctoremma wrote: »
    Two things:
    1. You see functionality because you read English. If you show this sentence to a person who does not speak or recognise any English words, this sentence is completely non-functional. Who is correct on this issue, you who asserts that the sentence means something or the other who asserts that it is meaningless?
    2. Computer programmes have shown that this sentence can be generated from apparent gobbledygook by random mutation and selection in 43 (?) generations.
    1. Once I have established its alphabet and that it is a functional language, I can measure it's CSI, irrespective of whether I understand it or not.

    2. These computer programmes are Intelligently Designed to do this ... so all they prove is that Intelligently Designed systems are needed for ANY Evolution to occur ... even within Kinds (which Creation Scientists accept as occurring).:D:)


  • #21613
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Could you answer my questions please?
    ... such enthusiasm and 'hunger' for the wisdom of Creation Science!!!!:D:)


  • #21614
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    AtomicHorror wrote:
    J C wrote: »
    ... a Human mediated process would involve the addition of CSI ... and a 'frame shift' would be the outworking of existing CSI.

    How do you test for the addition of CSI? How do you test for the outworking of existing CSI? What tests and calculations, specifically, does one use to test these things?

    Still waiting for an answer on this.
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote:
    J C wrote: »
    ... all of these phenomena involve an ultimate input of Intelligent Design ... from either God or Man!!!

    We can directly observe the methods that humans use in design. By observing them in the process of design and creation, we can understand their methods, behaviour and capabilities in detail. We can thus make logical inferences regarding what humans have designed even when we have not directly observed them. Essentially we can model human design by observation and inference.

    What specific methods does God use? What are His capabilities, habits and behaviour? What are His limitations, feigned or otherwise? What is His aesthetic sense like? By what means have these characteristics been directly documented and how have we shown how they apply to His designs? Essentially, from what empirical knowledge base can we make the logical inference that this or that thing is God-designed as opposed to human-designed or, more critically, designed by some other unknown intelligence?

    ...there are some artefacts (like the huge stoneworks in Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid in Egypt, for example) where we haven't a clue about how they were constructed ... or by whom ... but we still know that they were intelligently erected.

    Really? No clue how people might have arranged some big rocks in a circle? How would we test if this were built by human intelligence? Gosh I can't even imagine. We can certainly establish that they were intelligently erected via a combination of evidence and inference. We can directly observe that humans can and do move large rocks using rudimentary tools that would have been plausibly used at the time. We can and do observe humans building and using many of the artefacts and structures that pre-dated, surrounded and supported Stonehenge, again without needing to invoke unlikely technologies. So we have made direct observations from which we can make a justifiable logical inference that Stonehenge was built by the humans we know, from other evidence, were prevalent in the area at the time Stonehenge was built. It's really not complicated for us to make the inference.
    J C wrote: »
    Similarly, we also know that the CSI found in living organisms is on a vast scale and of such a high quality as to have a definitively Intelligent Origin.

    Similarly? How was the process you used to arrive at that conclusion analogous to Stonehenge? More importantly, what hallmarks of CSI, assuming it exists, suggest that it is the work of the Judeo-Christian God rather than some other intelligence? What direct observations have you made of similar intelligences (or the same one) designing and building things in the same manner? What about methods, limitations (if any), aesthetic?
    J C wrote: »
    Scientifically, that is all we can conclude ... and it is over to the different 'Faith Communities' to take it from there!!!:D:cool:

    And if that were scientifically all we could determine, you would be quite delighted. You're not looking to fill in the gaps, you want to create gaps.
    J C wrote: »
    ...and I've told you that we can't (although there is some promising research being carried out into measuring genetic potential) ... but, at present, we can only assess the potential of the original CSI by examining the resulting diversity in each Kind.

    How is this done? Be specific.
    J C wrote: »
    ...BTW, if Evolutionists didn't commandeer all of the public funding for their 'research' and were willing to share some of it ... much greater progress could be made in answrering your question!!!

    The Discovery Institute takes in over $4 million a year. The Christian Research Institute takes in close to $7 million per year. What percentage of these revenues is spent on research? How many primary research papers (not essays or reviews) do they publish per year? To give you an idea of how far such money would go in research, a researcher with a Ph.D. would take a salary of about $50,000 per year. A research team could be fully employed for $500,000 a year leaving many millions for equipment, consumables and research publications costs.


  • #21615
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Which bit of evolution don't you understand? Oh wait, are you one of those people who imagines evolution to be linear? You know, monkeys became humans, flies can turn into non-flies etc.

    image017.jpg
    which bit of 'evolution' are these two FLIES supposed to illustrate?


  • #21616
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    which bit of 'evolution' are these two FLIES supposed to illustrate?

    Variation by mutation.


  • #21617
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Still waiting for an answer on this.
    ... and you will be ... because the research hasn't been concluded.

    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Really? No clue how people might have arranged some big rocks in a circle? How would we test if this were built by human intelligence? Gosh I can't even imagine. We can certainly establish that they were intelligently erected via a combination of evidence and inference. We can directly observe that humans can and do move large rocks using rudimentary tools that would have been plausibly used at the time. We can and do observe humans building and using many of the artefacts and structures that pre-dated, surrounded and supported Stonehenge, again without needing to invoke unlikely technologies. So we have made direct observations from which we can make a justifiable logical inference that Stonehenge was built by the humans we know, from other evidence, were prevalent in the area at the time Stonehenge was built. It's really not complicated for us to make the inference.
    ... that was my point ... that we don't need to know who/what the 'Intelligence' was to know that it has been applied!!!!


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Similarly? How was the process you used to arrive at that conclusion analogous to Stonehenge? More importantly, what hallmarks of CSI, assuming it exists, suggest that it is the work of the Judeo-Christian God rather than some other intelligence? What direct observations have you made of similar intelligences (or the same one) designing and building things in the same manner? What about methods, limitations (if any), aesthetic?
    ...you are correct that the answers to these questions are currently not to be found within the scientific realm

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ...there are some artefacts (like the huge stoneworks in Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid in Egypt, for example) where we haven't a clue about how they were constructed ... or by whom ... but we still know that they were intelligently erected. Similarly, we also know that the CSI found in living organisms is on a vast scale and of such a high quality as to have a definitively Intelligent Origin. Scientifically, that is all we can conclude ... and it is over to the different 'Faith Communities' to take it from there!!!


    AtomicHorror
    And if that were scientifically all we could determine, you would be quite delighted. You're not looking to fill in the gaps, you want to create gaps.
    ... I want to establish the truth ... gaps and all !!!!:eek::):D


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    How is this done? Be specific.
    ... seriously, you need to enroll on an ID course somewhere ... if there are any still publicly available ... that the Evolutionists haven't succeeded in shutting down!!!:eek:


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    The Discovery Institute takes in over $4 million a year. The Christian Research Institute takes in close to $7 million per year. What percentage of these revenues is spent on research? How many primary research papers (not essays or reviews) do they publish per year? To give you an idea of how far such money would go in research, a researcher with a Ph.D. would take a salary of about $50,000 per year. A research team could be fully employed for $500,000 a year leaving many millions for equipment, consumables and research publications costs.
    ... yes, scientific research is an expensive business ... but well worthwhile!!!:)


  • #21618
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by doctoremma
    Which bit of evolution don't you understand? Oh wait, are you one of those people who imagines evolution to be linear? You know, monkeys became humans, flies can turn into non-flies etc.

    image017.jpg

    Posted by J C
    which bit of 'evolution' are these two FLIES supposed to illustrate?

    AtomicHorror
    Variation by mutation.
    ...to produce one fly without wings and another apparently 'on its last legs' ... sounds like 'devolution' by mutation to me!!!:eek::)

    ...any more 'evolution' or 'variation' ... and they'll both be dead!!!:eek::eek:


  • #21619
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote:
    Still waiting for an answer on this.
    ... and you will be ... because the research hasn't been concluded.

    Irrelevant. We need to results. We're not talking about results, we're talking about testability. What method are they using?
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote:
    We can certainly establish that they were intelligently erected via a combination of evidence and inference. We can directly observe that humans can and do move large rocks using rudimentary tools that would have been plausibly used at the time. We can and do observe humans building and using many of the artefacts and structures that pre-dated, surrounded and supported Stonehenge, again without needing to invoke unlikely technologies. So we have made direct observations from which we can make a justifiable logical inference that Stonehenge was built by the humans we know, from other evidence, were prevalent in the area at the time Stonehenge was built. It's really not complicated for us to make the inference....
    ... that was my point ... that we don't need to know who/what the 'Intelligence' was to know that it has been applied!!!!

    Not my point at all. We very much need some information about the agent to make the inference valid. For example, if we were to know that humans did not favour geometric patterns in a given culture or did not have access to tools or materials within the required time period, that would rule out humans as designers in this case, or at least a given group of humans. Understanding the designer is crucial.
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote:
    How was the process you used to arrive at that conclusion analogous to Stonehenge? More importantly, what hallmarks of CSI, assuming it exists, suggest that it is the work of the Judeo-Christian God rather than some other intelligence? What direct observations have you made of similar intelligences (or the same one) designing and building things in the same manner? What about methods, limitations (if any), aesthetic?
    you are correct that the answers to these questions are currently within the scientific realm

    This does not answer any of my questions.
    J C wrote: »
    ... I want to establish the truth ... gaps and all !!!!:eek::):D

    No. You want more than anything for this one piece of scientific knowledge to not be true.
    J C wrote: »
    ... seriously, you need to enroll on an ID course somewhere ... if there are any still publicly available!!!:D

    If you are unable to explain it yourself, you're not really qualified to make these grand arguments.
    J C wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote:
    The Discovery Institute takes in over $4 million a year. The Christian Research Institute takes in close to $7 million per year. What percentage of these revenues is spent on research? How many primary research papers (not essays or reviews) do they publish per year? To give you an idea of how far such money would go in research, a researcher with a Ph.D. would take a salary of about $50,000 per year. A research team could be fully employed for $500,000 a year leaving many millions for equipment, consumables and research publications costs.
    ... yes, scientific research is an expensive business ... but well worthwhile!!!:)

    It's expensive, but both the DI and CRI could easily afford to fund at least one major project each per year. Projects that would be the envy of many mainstream biology projects.


  • #21620
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Irrelevant. We need to results. We're not talking about results, we're talking about testability. What method are they using?
    ... no can do!!!


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Not my point at all. We very much need some information about the agent to make the inference valid. For example, if we were to know that humans did not favour geometric patterns in a given culture or did not have access to tools or materials within the required time period, that would rule out humans as designers in this case, or at least a given group of humans. Understanding the designer is crucial.
    ...we don't need to 'understand' a designer to know that functional information in excess of 330 Bits WAS Intelligently Designed ... the maths PROVES it.


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    If you are unable to explain it yourself, you're not really qualified to make these grand arguments.
    ... I fully understand it ... I just don't have the time or the energy to bother repeating myself ad nauseum!!!

    Like I have said, if you are REALLY interested ... you should enroll on an ID course ... before the Evolutionists have them all shut down!!!:eek:


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    It's expensive, but both the DI and CRI could easily afford to fund at least one major project each per year. Projects that would be the envy of many mainstream biology projects.
    Good idea!!!:)


  • #21621
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ...apparently this was the moment when the Atheist was touched by the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ... and (as you can see) the Atheist became as 'spaghetti' in his head and in his bed !!!:eek::rolleyes::p:D

    http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/noodledoodle1600_1200.jpg

    ... and here is the most embarassing question that an Atheist man can ever be asked by a woman!!!!:eek::eek:
    http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/havetouched.jpg


    .


  • Advertisement
  • #21622
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    J C wrote: »
    ...to produce one fly without wings and another apparently 'on its last legs' ... sounds like 'devolution' by mutation to me!!!:eek::)

    ...any more 'evolution' or 'variation' ... and they'll both be dead:

    I'm surprised even you would come out with something as ignor ... actually no I'm not.

    Evolution = change. It doesn't mean good or bad change, it simply means change.


  • #21623
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ...to produce one fly without wings and another apparently 'on its last legs' ... sounds like 'devolution' by mutation to me!!!:eek::)

    ...any more 'evolution' or 'variation' ... and they'll both be dead!!!:eek::eek:

    It would take a very serious misapprehension of evolutionary theory, not to mention basic logic, to start talking in terms of "devolution". A man goes to the shops via the mechanism we call walking. When he goes back home is he dewalking?


  • #21624
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    monosharp wrote: »
    I'm surprised even you would come out with something as ignor ... actually no I'm not.

    Evolution = change. It doesn't mean good or bad change, it simply means change.
    ...it would take a 'horseload' of 'good' change to move from 'Pondkind to Mankind'!!!

    ... and flies losing wings and legs ... aren't going in the right direction !!!!:eek::eek:


  • #21625
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    It would take a very serious misapprehension of evolutionary theory, not to mention basic logic, to start talking in terms of "devolution". A man goes to the shops via the mechanism we call walking. When he goes back home is he dewalking?
    ... he wouldn't be dewalking ... but if he lost useful appendages at the rate that these flies are losing theirs ... he wouldn't be walking at all ... and he would end up dead very quickly indeed !!!:eek::)


  • #21626
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ... no can do!!!

    You say these things can be measured. So we ask for the measurements. You say they're not done, so we ask for the methods. You can't give use those. So basically your claims regarding CSI have no basis in evidence. Withdraw them please.
    J C wrote: »
    ...we don't need to 'understand' a designer to know that functional information in excess of 330 Bits WAS Intelligently Designed ... the maths PROVES it.

    Please show your calculations.
    J C wrote: »
    ... I fully understand it ... I just don't have the time or the energy to bother repeating myself ad nauseum!!!

    Sure you do. You've done nothing but repeat the same old misconceptions and you certainly don't hesitate to repeat the same streams of emotes.
    J C wrote: »
    Like I have said, if you are REALLY interested ... you should enroll on an ID course ... before the Evolutionists have them all shut down!!!:eek:

    If you're not prepared to back up your claims with specifics then this is not a scientific debate. You might as well be dismissing us with "Google it". Please, engage with us properly or stop wasting our time.
    J C wrote: »
    Good idea!!!:)

    No, it's a blindingly obvious idea. A research institute using about 10% of its budget to fund... research. The fact that they're not doing that at minimum is not for lack of a "good idea". It can only be due either to extreme incompetence or deliberate avoidance.

    You made the claim that mainstream scientific funding is needed in order to do creation research. Since you have decided my idea is a good one, do you now concede that your claim is incorrect?


  • #21627
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ...no ... but if he lost appendages at the rate that these flies are losing theirs ... he would end up dead very quickly indeed !!!:eek::)

    There are many imaginable contexts in which this is true, and many in which it is not. The direction of change, in terms of complexity, is irrelevant to whether the change is advantageous.


  • #21628
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    There are many imaginable contexts in which this is true, and many in which it is not. The direction of change, in terms of complexity, is irrelevant to whether the change is advantageous.
    ...if you are arguing that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' then the observed 'direction' of mutagenic 'change' is very important indeed!!!

    If creatures are observed to be degenerating under Mutagenesis then we can scientifically conclude that they weren't generated by this mechanism ... not in a billion evolutionist years ... nor even in a billion billion such years!!!:):D


  • #21629
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Wait - who's dreaming here?




    It's been documented thousands of times. What you want is a fly giving birth to a non-fly, which is of course an absurdity.
    No, it's the former I'm after. Details please.


  • #21630
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Which bit of evolution don't you understand? Oh wait, are you one of those people who imagines evolution to be linear? You know, monkeys became humans, flies can turn into non-flies etc.

    image017.jpg
    I take it you hold the standard evolutionary theory that involves some sort of sea life evolving over billions of years into you and me? All I'm asking if for any observed example of just a little bit of that - flies or anything else evolving over many generations into something other. Do you have the case studies or not? It is you folk who keep claiming evolution has been observed.


  • Advertisement
  • #21631
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Giblet said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane

    Yes it does. Non-organic matter evolves to the amazing complexity we have today, contrary to the known law. The law demands a move from such complexity to a more basic state. From specified complexity to simplicity, over time.
    In a closed system. Take away the sun giving energy, and that will happen. We have a lovely open system here though! So you are wrong. So knowing this, will you now admit you don't know how the law works, or that you didn't understand it. If you want to argue say, the universe is a closed system. Then yes, in time the whole system will enter a state of 100% entropy. The universe isn't uniformly distributed though, so we have areas where energy is being passed to other bodies within the system, creating smaller, more open systems.
    So the sun's radiation acting on the first self-replicating cell and all life after allowed that life to self-organise into increasingly complex forms over billions of years?

    Certainly we know that sunlight supplies radiated energy for life to convert into chemical energy by means of the organism's already existing information complex. But does it generate that information in the first place and does it improve or degrade it afterwards? As far as I am aware, sunlight degrades the genetics of life, moves it to a less complex functionality. And it is just such mutations that evolution depends on to move the whole of life upward in complexity from the self-replicator to the present biosphere.

    What this looks like to me is (long -term) mass-slaughter of most life, with only those most suited to the enviroment surviving. But the survivors are still being assaulted by radiation and the force of entropy, so they too are mass-slaughtered and only the fit survive. And so on.

    Yet this is supposed to lead to an abundance of life, and of life vastly more complex than the original. Sounds like life, like the non-living matter before it, must have 'magic' inherent in it to overcome such difficulties.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement