rationalskepticism.org

scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:...

scherado wrote:I also know that if there were no inheritance mechanism, then traits--that somehow, some way appear ("random mutation")--would never be passed to the next generation: we, all of us, would not be here discussing how we got here. We are discussing this, nevertheless, the same would be true about the subject theory: there would be no Theory of Biological Evolution.

Chemical structure is a trait, genius. Chemical structure has its own inheritance mechanism, and that is its structure. Genius. ...

Idiot, you haven't addressed my statement in your response. You may make another attempt after reading this: The referent "traits" in my statement quoted in this post means what? It means anything and everything that is inherited by a newborn baby as a result of the propagation act (successful sexual reproduction) performed by Mommy and Daddy. Do I need to give you a lesson in the birds and the bees next?

You may compose your next response to my statement quoted above. Perhaps, it is unassailable.

scherado wrote:I know what "referent" means.

Cito di Pense wrote:
It might be the only bit of the English language you're confident you know what it means.
...
Don't hand me this shit now about "critical mechanism in the subject theory". You're doing an obvious bait-and-switch, here, because you've baited us with abiogenesis, gotten a bit of education (which you obviously don't comprehend) and have switched back to inheritance in organisms. ...[the rest omitted in an act of compassion]

You have, obviously, become unhinged by someone who knows the meaning of a referent. I have, obviously, "cut to the chase" when I wrote, "critical mechanism in the subject theory." I will type slowly in the very slim chance that it will help. Granted, in what follows, I added "change" for clarity.

"[C]ritical [change] mechanism" == mutation, random or otherwise; I used previously "random mutation" as it is, or used to be, the actual, primary mechanism of change in the Theory of Biological Evolution. I wrote, "random or otherwise," here solely because the qualifier "random" does not, in the end, have any bearing on the essence of the putative mechanism called mutation. Anyone who understands the referents knows that "random" is/was designated chosen characteristic to represent "not-God."

"[S]ubject theory" == the Theory of Biological Evolution, as it exist. I add the ending clause as the theory has changed over the few decades since I first learned of it and I expect that it will, for some reason or another, in lieu of finding life off-Earth, or, we can only hope, an alien invasion.