Simply appealing to ignorance is no way to advance the Cause of Perfect Knowledge. You are welcome to provide a more sound line of reasoning than Wikipedia.
If it may refer to Any of a list; pick the most relevant one. It should be that simple. - - - Updated - - - Of course there is simply by following your own line of reasoning, use some type of experiment, and simply prove that chemicals evolve into something else.
Does none of that involve the "commutation" of chemicals from one state to another? That "commutation" is also a form of "evolution".
Please define your terms and explain what you are talking about. Including this... simply prove that chemicals evolve into something else.
I must disagree here....oxidation is a chemical process and though it may bare a resemblance to the process of evolution it is not the same thing. Also, evolution in the context being discussed is understood to involve a living organism rather than rudimentary chemical reactions.
The Miller-Urey experiment already proved it. Can you prove that experiment failed in its hypothesis? - - - Updated - - - It may depend on the paradigm employed; oxidation still happens to living organisms that have evolved, such as the sole surving species in the Homo genus.
Yes....oxidation occurs in every living organism, but this is not evolution. It may be part of the process and even play a role in mutation to an extent, but this does not equate it to the larger process....that would be similar to stating that sugar is cake,
You are missing the point; every "anarcho-capital" transaction may not be always successful. However, it may take only one successful attempt to enable an evolution of the "Body politic" that may "host" that transaction.
So you're saying you don't know which of these many different processes you're referring to, and we get to guess. Real clear communication there. YOU pick the meaning you intend, and then YOU use the terms specific to that meaning. Then we can actually talk about the same thing.
pick the most relevant one. It should be that simple. what Part of that simplification is too difficult to understand?
You are asking ME to pick the meaning YOU consider most relevant? How the HELL do I know what you're talking about if "you take a guess" is the best you can do? As I said several posts back, there are two possible reasons why you refuse to specify what you mean. The first is, you have no clue what you're talking about, and the second is that you refuse to admit it. And here you go again. YOU tell ME what you're talking about. I cannot tell you what you're talking about, because so far you don't seem to know.
I am not the one with a lack of argument and a point. Thank you for ceding it regarding chemical evolution.
You have claimed a new science...and clearly stated chemical reaction is considered Evolution. This stance is going against much of the science behind your suppositions, and thus it falls upon you to explain the hypothesis. Unless you can provide a synopsis we can examine....you are simply making things up and thinking people are as ignorant as yourself.
A chemical reaction is simply that; it may be a part of a chain of reactions that lead to evolutionary processes.
This tells us nothing. You might as well refer to molecular motion when you MEAN "weather", and then try to claim that one leads to the other. Everything material is chemistry at some level.
Not every "anarcho-capital" transaction needs to result in evolution, much like amino acids are only building blocks for proteins.
You didnt say why you feel a need to concoct a new term for old familiar processes. If you started talking like that in the chem dept, they would wonder who this dude is and what he is going on about.
this does not even remotely answer the q nor, for that matter, explain why you are posting such in a science form about evolution.
political solutions evolve as well. in any case, it is about evolution and chemical forms of evolution, specifically.
