Well. Gee. Thanks for your evaluation.
Tell me "Professor," what was wrong with my analogy? Did you ever take chemistry? I did, a bit. I don't remember any of my courses considering where all those atoms came from. According to the MW9 I have at hand, biology is "a branch of knowledege that deals with living organisms." I believe living is the operative word.
ML/NJ
Chemistry deals with molecules far more than atoms. They didn't discuss how molecules are made in your chemistry course?
You wrote:
Evolution has as much to do with biology as theories about the origin of the solar system have to do with chemistry, which is nothing.The "nothing" claim was the central error. Evolution has a *huge* amount to do with biology -- it's the formative factor in almost every aspect of why modern organisms are as they are, in both the largest sense (i.e. the structure of our bodies) and at the smallest (i.e. why we have the biochemistry that we do).
As for your claim that the origin of the solar system has "nothing" to do with chemistry, that's in error too, although not to as great a degree. True, many of the laws of chemistry would remain unchanged no matter how the solar system was formed, but that doesn't make the formation of the solar system irrelevant to chemistry in general, because it does affect the chemical makeup of our planet's crust and atmosphere and the types of chemical reactions that occur naturally (a valid field for chemists). In fact, the chemical makeup of our planet (and the Moon, and so on) gives great clues to how our solar system must have (and could not have) formed, precisely *because* the nature of that origin affects the chemical makeup of the results. And conversely the laws of chemistry had a lot to do with how our solar system did form. So the subjects are hardly related by "nothing".
Yes, yes it is. Your point? Are you under the mistaken impression that evolution doesn't deal with the subject of living organisms?