Yet you seem to insist that SOME element of the evolution you claim to accept has a physical basis — yet you have absolutely no idea, nor do you care to make a conjecture, as to what the physical basis is. Is it intellectual laziness? I sketched out this model a few years ago:
You'll note the model contains a "physical basis"
and an informational component that looks at the algorithmic complexity of each of the five levels.
This model is based on Alex William's work, fleshed out with a bit of Grandpierre and Chaitin. The proposal of quantum and biological vacuum fields (Fig. 3) is my hypothesis.
But of course, the model does not deal with evolution per se, only "self-making," irreducibly complex biological systems in nature. In short, what biological systems are, not just what they "look like."
I hope you'll find the model interesting.
The chart does nothing to explain the physical basis of the evolution you claim to accept.
It does nothing to differentiate the evolution you claim to believe in from the mechanism Darwin outlined.
So I guess the answer to if you could explain the physical mechanism behind the evolution you claim to believe in is still a resounding “No”.
So how would a population “evolve” via a physical mechanism in the evolution you claim to accept?
Can you explain it in a non-”Darwinian” fashion?
Apparently not.
Very amusing.
