[demallien]

Rare? I can't think of a single prominent speaker / writer about evolution that hasn't made this point. Of course, they also note that this is outside the scope of evolution - evolution talks about what happens once you have that first reproducing cell.

Of interest, there is on-going research into just how good reproduction has to be before evolution can bootstrap. If you have a process that successfully reproduces 50% of the characteristics of the original "cell", is that enough to allow evolution to work? 75%? 95%? We know that the number is less than 100%, indeed it needs to be to allow evolution to adapt, and obviously if the copy can be a very bad copy, that reduces the constraints on what the very first cell needs to do, increasing the solution space.

[001sky]

they also note that this is outside the scope of evolution

--What's rare, is that he is not making this point.

[CamperBob2]

And chemists rarely go out of their way to explain that their papers are outside the scope of biology. So?

[001sky]

Nonsensical formulation. Tell me again how chemistry and biology are non-intersecting? DNA? Wait, what? You need to drop [bracket] sub-segments of science, they are boring and arbitrarty. Just use [science]. You'd tell the interviewee he not a [scientist]? Are you arguing he needs to go outside of scinence to answer his question? That would be a pretty anti-science perspective.

[CamperBob2]

You sound like one of those fellows who exhibits a lot of healthy skepticism 6 days a week, while leaving it at home on the 7th. Why don't you drop the facade and argue your actual point?

[001sky]

001Sky is a Riddle, shrouded in mystery, wrapped inside an Enigma. Thank you very much.

That is a lovely compliment. Trying to understand the rest of what you've written though? Is nearly impossible.

It's like you've run out of logic (fail). Now you're only left with Ad hominem in-articulare?

The actual point was made in the original post.