What did I do that was lazy? Can you be specific please? If drawing conclusions based on the facts is lazy or wrong please explain to me succinctly why this is please.
-Kate
Really Kate? You’re going to continue to play dumb? It has been explained at least a dozen times on this thread that you’re not drawing conclusions based on the facts but are instead choosing to assert unjustified presuppositions. Rather than doing any kind of research that could potentially verify your hypothesis you’re instead injecting your conclusion into an unknown. That’s not good reasoning. And it sure isn’t science. It’s just plain lazy.
But what the heck, let’s give this one more try shall we?
Your explanation is lazy because you haven’t explained how evolution was guided, what mechanisms were used, when it occurred, who did the guiding, and you haven’t provided a method via which we can tell the difference between guided evolution and non guided evolution. Instead, you’ve just made an entirely unsupported ad hoc and applied it to one of the frontiers of science. Anybody can give an answer for anything. What we care about are explanations that are actually likely to be true.
The claim you’re making operates very much in the majesty of chemistry. As such, before you get to go around exclaiming “Eureka, I’ve found it!” or drawing any kind of conclusions you first have to do the actual work. Your hypothesis needs to be demonstrable with measurable accuracy and/or testable with repeatable veracity. That is to say, there needs to be some kind scientific methodology which we can use to get us from point A to point B.
If you went to the scientific community and said, “Hey look, I have this high fidelity model of what we would expect unguided evolution to look like over a period of 4 billion years and and another one that shows guided evolution over 4 billion years - and look - it shows that the life we observe on the planet right now looks a lot more like guided evolution model.” Then the scientists would say, “Hey Kate, you might be onto something, how can we test this?” And then you would still have all your scientific research, conclusions, peer review, publishing, and academic debate in front of you.
But that’s NOT what you’ve done. Instead, you’ve chosen to be lazy. Instead, you’ve chosen come onto a forum where most people have no formal education in chemistry and you’re attempting to browbeat them over the head with their scientific illiteracy in order to justify your unsupported ad hoc.
Well, I for one am not impressed. Nor am I entertained. You started a thread claiming you were using science (chemistry to be exact) to justify your claim. But when we ask you for the science you resort to a God of the Gaps Fallacy. I cannot make this any clearer Kate, arm chair speculation is NOT scientific research. You know this. And you know what is necessary to justify a scientific conclusion. You just don’t want to have to actually do that work . . .
. . .and you know what we call people who try and take short cuts and don’t want to do the necessary work?
