[This post is reserved for a reply to the most recent post by RAZD.]
-------------------
-------------------
RAZD, not once have I conceded the process of evolution.
To review, I had arbitrarily conceded to the issue of speciation. That wasn't because I agreed with that concept either, but because the question of speciation, itself, was not well-defined. This concession was done strategically and specifically to develop my main idea, with enough room to take it one or two steps further.
If you recall, I clearly stated that a lack of speciation wasn't necessary to do that. No, even the systematic invalidation of "macro-evolution" remains unnecessary to advance the actual topic of this thread. I believe that invalidation is easily done, though, at least to the point of relieving science of any legitimate duty. Science itself is under no obligation to continue any support for such a damaged idea.
Yes, there are conditions that exist, which would lend themselves in support for the theory of evolution. Big deal. It is simply a theory. That much seems to be forgotten. No amount of support validates a theory, as long as at least one other theory explains the same situation, or takes existing data down a separate path of an equally likely reality. That's simple science, my friend.
Believe it or not, the phrase "a fabricator of life exists" is a theory. It may appear to be a very simple theory. And you may insist that there is no evidence to support it, but that's immaterial. It doesn't need ANY support for the time being, until and unless anything can disprove it. When someone sets out to characterize that position, science is obligated to observe, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter who's doing it, or whether it has been attempted before.
Call it a hypothesis if you want. It is no less sound than the theory of evolution. It carries as much merit, weight, and potential value to the scientific community. No number of layers of supporting evidence for the theory evolution has changed that, because it has arrived nowhere. Evolution is no more sound than the claim that pixie dust snaps into existence, out of thin air, and magically takes the shape of plants and animals.
Now, if you want to talk about likelihoods, we can do that. You haven't brought it up yet, though. But, since you've goaded me into responding, I'll go ahead and address my position.
First of all, the speciation that is defined by evolution takes time. You yourself admit that. If you want to remain true to the overall theory, itself, you'd be careful to examine any attempt to mimic such a process in a lab. The experimental mate selection process you advocate is valid by exactly no means, because it doesn't address evolution. It addresses the effect of artificial duress on an existing species.
Now, it may have identified some other significant, yet unrelated process. And, it may have stumbled onto some quirk of, dare I say, design. Neither of which would I pretend to understand. But, it hasn't supported the idea of evolution, because the natural persistence of the new "species" over time has not been studied. Yes, it's interesting, but no more so than breeding dogs is.
You must concede the scientific importance of establishing the natural stability of new species. So, when you fairly evaluate the method I suggested, you see that it takes a much more realistic approach, and that it's presented as a more scientific approach. I don't appreciate you stepping on good science. But again, it no longer applies to my argument.
What WOULD apply to my argument is the idea that many of the organs in our bodies can be treated as animals themselves. They qualify under several criteria as living creatures. Take the sponge, for example, which is much less complex than most of our organs. When you consider that these organs, when immersed in an appropriate environment, may survive indefinitely. Doing that may actually isolate the cause of aging. It's certainly worth taking a look at, in the context of defining a more meaningful classification system.
But, I won't lay that proposal down here, with no room for responding. Maybe another thread.
Now, kindly move my goal posts back, please.
Next?
Edited by limbosis, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2