Karlos wrote:
For fluffy :-)
In my opinion, there is so much more to discover - sticking to creationalism or darwinism are not going to get us far.
This is far too much to try to address while I'm supposed to be working ...
But why are you hung up on creationism and darwinism.
Darwinism is only really concerned with what happens after you have a living cell, creationism is only really interested in building an unquestioning army for "god".
And the principle of amplification and filtering which is the underlying mechanism behind darwinism is self evident and trivially demonstrable to the point that it's very silly to question it.
Applicability to non reproducing things? Nill. They lack the amplification. IFF it reproduces with variability it will be subject to evolution. That does not mean that it will change over time just as the tone from an oscillator will not (hopefully) change over time unless the filter is adjusted. In a constant environment, evolutionary forces work to conserve rather than diversify.
A good chemistry is not likely to change unless it can change radically all at once to produce a better system and the chances of that are vanishingly small.
As to there being no evidence of any other biotic chemistry in the past, we don't have much evidence of much in the past and the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Yes, there are many questions but that does not mean that answers cannot be found. Mathematics has run into many roadblocks over time but we didn't throw it out at the first sign of trouble.
Evolution is a principle, a frame-work more than an answer per-se. It does not give specific answers to any question but it does show a path. Why are there ducks? Evolution doesn't specifically answer that question but it gives us a framework in which to examine the question.
As to how it all started, that is a different question. Of course it is. So what? It certainly isn't answerable by calculating permutations as that sort of thing is devoid of context. What are the odds or 100 spinning magnets in a row all lining up end to end north to south and vice versa? Mathematically speaking you're not likely to see it in your lifetime. The fact that this outcome tends to happen a lot should tell you that there is something missing from your mathematics but it shouldn't make you assume that there is an invisible guy nearby lining up all your magnets because that is a more "intelligent" configuration.
Yes, it means that we do not know everything about the universe, but it doesn't mean that we should just chuck out the basic principles which have helped us know what we do know of the universe.
Like I keep saying, just because we cannot apply darwinism to prebiotic chemistry does not mean that we have to throw it out all together. This is the creationists arguement, and you are not one, and therefore you should not be making an arguement which can so easily be mistaken by creationists as support for their position and then used by them, however erronously, to tear down your own position.
The fact that biology is complex does not argue against evolution, nor does it support ID. Period. (translation to English - Full Stop). Most of what the IDers bring up doesn't support ID either. Listening to them as a source of questions is a waste of time since they do not ask them honestly. They ask them with a specific agenda and that is to open the door to the "Creator" and make "Him" necessary. You can think of better questions yourself.
