Forgive my naivette' (sp) if i understand you correctly in #45, ' things' don't just evolve out of nothing, there's always some type of life force for new type's of life.......
How do you or how is 'real-time ' defined? ( x number of hours, days, weeks etc.,etc. )
By 'real-time' it's meant while someone is watching/observing, so that could include observations in nature or the lab over the course of years, or a single generative cycle in a population, or weeks, hours, minutes, a single mating, etc.
Whatever the mechanisms, comparative genomics is a fascinating scientific field. Genomes are historical records that leave genetic "imprints" of changes over time. Whatever mechanisms one uses to explain these changes, it's amazing and fascinating how we are able see and study the genetic changes that have occurred over time because this record of changes is preserved in genomes.
I agree, from what I understand computer programmers who have studied the genetic code are blown away by the level of functional complexity there are in the layers of embedded code doing rather complex work.
It took billions of years to reach that level of complexity.
Stating the beliefs isn’t proving anything, which is why saying how log it took to happen isn’t proof it happened that way!
No.
The proof lies in the fossil record. Among other places.
Stating what has been proven by other sources, is 100% valid.
Forgive my naivette' (sp) if i understand you correctly in #45, ' things' don't just evolve out of nothing, there's always some type of life force for new type's of life.......
How do you or how is 'real-time ' defined? ( x number of hours, days, weeks etc.,etc. )
Yes. In Evolution, life always comes from life. That is what the field of Evolution studies.
Which leads us to the obvious question: How did life begin.
That is another field, called Abiogenesis.
Much less is known about that one.
Forgive my naivette' (sp) if i understand you correctly in #45, ' things' don't just evolve out of nothing, there's always some type of life force for new type's of life.......
How do you or how is 'real-time ' defined? ( x number of hours, days, weeks etc.,etc. )
Yes. In Evolution, life always comes from life. That is what the field of Evolution studies.
Which leads us to the obvious question: How did life begin.
That is another field, called Abiogenesis.
Much less is known about that one.
Without the answers to Abiogenesis any theory about Evolution is putting the cart before the horse, all the driving mechanisms in life have their foundation starting in the beginning mind or mindlessness, which is the reasonable explanation? If we simply defer to others our answers may as well be mindless since we are not using ours.
Not really. They are completely separate fields of scientific study. What you are talking about is philosophy/metaphysics; not science.
If you do not know how the processes driven by instructions arrived in life suggesting any mindless means is without justification.
You could believe a blind watchmaker could do it without knowing what was being done, but that would mean there was a force even blind directing the process towards some end. You could look at life see the appearance of design and acknowledge it or deny it for some reason that has nothing to do with what you see and recognize.
If you do not know how the processes driven by instructions arrived in life suggesting any mindless means is without justification.
Without justification for metaphysical naturalism....which is philosophy. Again, you're talking about metaphysical world views; not science. Science is simply learning about the world through observation. The lack of an explanation for the origin of life is not a problem for science, but a problem for metaphysical naturalism.
Here is the thing, if it happened through an agency or even saying God did it, that then means it did indeed happen in the natural world making it an event in our natural world. Refusing to accept something due to the possible implications aren't following evidence it is simply denial. Any act of God that occurs in this world after it has entered now falls into all of the various stresses, and forces, that the world applies to everything in it. Rejecting something out of hand just because is no different than accepting it out of hand if neither looks to see what the evidence is telling us.
Who is rejecting things out of hand?
No, I'm not "assuming"
You are not assuming, you know, there is no room for errors, it is undeniably true? Well not much sense talking to you about this if that is true.
That is not what an "assumption" is. Surely you know the difference between an "assumption" vs. degree/level of certainty. Not sure why you just conflated the two. They are two different things.