Joined: Oct. 2007
|Well scientists should think that lifetime physical development equals evolution, because that's what happens at the molecular intelligence level. |
Wrote the non-scientist. REAL scientists (particularly biologists) don't use the phrase 'molecular intelligence' because it's a nonsensical term.
|Our molecular intelligence in us right now is estimated to be at least several billions years old, into its development. We are all like one thought in its long lifetime, with a developmental stages that are being figured out using phylogenetics.|
Evidence? Oh, wait, you don't have any. Whatta hoot!
Adding the word "evolution" to the equation makes a big-fuzzy to operationally define that scientists still argue over where to draw the line and what metric to use to quantify the process. Then there are spats over "microevolution" and "macroevolution" sometimes blame "creationists" for inventing the words that came from university researchers working on the problem caused by "evolution" inherently being a generalization too. It's a big mess.
Most scientists 'get' the theory of evolution, Goo goo; just because you don't doesn't mean everybody is a dumb as you are. The macro/micro-evolution spat is a product of other nonscientists. You'd know that if you actually studied the issue objectively. 'Big messes' are often what idiots call complex issues, & you're a textbook example.
This theory eliminates all that unproductive arguing over nothing. Just have to get used to not needing what are more like comforting crutch-words, which really only trip you up, while arguing in circles again.
It's not a theory, and certainly doesn't do what you claim. You wouldn't know a circular argument if one rolled you over. WHATTA HOOT!