Post by Arlon10 on Nov 8, 2019 11:12:04 GMT
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.
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.
The point is and should be the first life, not origin of the species. There is no reason to discuss evolution anywhere including in anything I said. It has been generally accepted as a plausible theory.
What the political world does is deliberately cloud the issue of the origin of life with irrelevant discussions of evolution because they know they can "win" evolution and suspect they will lose attributing the origin of life to forces found in nature. Those are two different arguments and even your public schools told you so. The political world is inept at persuasion except where force of law can be used. That's why they refuse to acknowledge the issue is not evolution.
Your claim that there are "no selections pressures" prior to self-replicating life shows what a superficial understanding you have of it all. And you are continuing to dodge the issue with your obfuscation. Smaller molecules have an advantage over larger ones. It matters not that they have no awareness of it. It matters not that the larger molecules are not aware of being ripped apart. It means there will be no progress toward life.