Post by Arlon10 on Nov 8, 2019 10:19:50 GMT
2) I understand evolutionary theory, but this discussion in not about evolution.
"I wonder, are you aware that no-one credible actually says that evolution is a process achieved through a series of accidents?"
Which prompted you to accuse him of being a Lamarckian. Which would only make sense if you thought Darwinian evolution was random.
This discussion is about how lifeless matter might become a living cell and by what agencies.
Once you have a living species it has rather elaborate defenses against the environment. Before you have that there are no defenses. In a prebiotic environment smaller chains of RNA and smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over longer chains and molecules. The elaborate defenses are not yet in place. Any "improvement" in the small chains is readily lost.
Although it is possible the "tornado-in-a-junkyard" argument was used against evolution, that is not how I'm using it. I'm using it as an argument against the assembly of life by any forces found in nature. I am not arguing against evolution of species. Those are two different things as I carefully explained.
Although you seem to be dodging what you believe the source of genetic variation is, the word "random" is still the most service in briefly describing it. In this context it means "unplanned," or as you aptly put it, "unpredictable." Despite your protests it is an essential element of evolutionary theory. "Natural selection" might appear the more likely to achieve results but both natural selection and some source of genetic variation (apparently random) are essential.
Perhaps ironically it is that same "natural selection" at a prebiotic level that ensures advances are not made toward living things.