3 ms·
I am absolutely not. There are lines I didn't draw for the sake of time. Re: think about how you could translate my hypotheticals into how nature could do that
by not_alexb 3y ago
I am absolutely not. There are lines I didn't draw for the sake of time. Re: think about how you could translate my hypotheticals into how nature could do that on its own (obviously over a much longer course of time and fortuitous conditions).
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago1) I presumed that the person you originally replied to was speaking of terrestrial life when they wrote "all life". 2) There are thoughts that life on Earth, presuming it started on Earth and wasn't seeded from meteorites, may have started from multiple populations. But it's presumed that if it did so those multiple populations were either out-competed by one population, or sufficiently alike that they effectively merged in their descendants. At any rate, at this point, all life that we have so far detected shares similar enough features to presume a common origin. This includes incredibly separate lineages such as the bacteria and archaea. Would you consider modern computers to be descended from IBM mainframes? Someone building a duplicate lifeform from parts based on existing knowledge and existing lifeforms does not negate that those existing lifeforms evolved into form since the beginning of terrestrial life. Your work is standing on preexisting evolutionary knowledge, processes, and a chain of life, even if it technically replaces biological reproduction with a human engineer. From a dialectical point of view you're effectively invoking god to nitpick. If you believe you aren't you're going to have to spell it out for me.