Sure it is. You moved the goal post a bit but the result is the same.
I in no way said that "it is so just because it is so". I said that it is the result of the interplay of specific processes, which I specifically listed.
Stating that the result of the interplay of specific processes answers the question of why those processes direct toward a certain end doesn't answer the question at all. Why do those processes interact in a way that directs toward life rather than inertness is the question? And you haven't even gotten close to answering it. There is no shame in saying "I don't know" you know.
Misrepresenting my post serves no purpose.
I didn't misrepresent anything, I offered my opinion on your answer to the question I posed. If you don't want dialogue, don't post to me.
Sure it is.
No, it is not.
You moved the goal post a bit but the result is the same.
In what way have I "moved the goal post"?
[I in no way said that "it is so just because it is so". I said that it is the result of the interplay of specific processes, which I specifically listed.]
Stating that the result of the interplay of specific processes answers the question of why those processes direct toward a certain end doesn't answer the question at all.
Sure it does. You're obviously looking for "more", as if you're convinced that there "must" be some sort of "deeper" explanation. That's why I wrote in my last post the following: "If you're disappointed because my answer doesn't fit your philosophical bias about what the answer "must" be like, well, sorry about that."
You feel that the answer "has" to incorporate some sort of teleology. This is your philosophical bias, which causes you to reject answers which show that the "mindless" interplay of simple processes can and does naturally produce the phenomenon you're convinced "must" have a metaphysical origin. Again, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm reporting how the world actually works, not how you might want it to operate.
Why do those processes interact in a way that directs toward life rather than inertness is the question?
Again, it's a direct consequent of the interplay of the basic processes. Your question is as pointless as asking "why do the physics of water molecules make them produce clouds rather than not?" Given the basic properties of water molecules (mass, charge distribution, etc.), you're *going* to get clouds when the conditions (temperature, pressure, etc.) are appropriate for their formation. What "deeper" answer are you desperately hoping to hear?
Are you asking me to explain exactly how variable replication interacts with selection and produces evolution as an inevitable result? I can do that if you want -- if it's not already obvious, as it should be. But I suspect that that's not really what you're wanting.
Evolution arising as a consequent of the interplay of replication with selection is such a simple, direct, *necessary* result (just try to set up a system that has those conditions in a way that evolution *won't* occur whether you want it to or not...) that it's obviously not something that had to be "designed in" to the Universe as an "added ingredient". It's a "freebie" in any system where variable replication meets variable success.
And you haven't even gotten close to answering it.
No, I haven't gotten close to giving the answer you *want* to get.
There is no shame in saying "I don't know" you know.
But I do know.
[Misrepresenting my post serves no purpose.]
I didn't misrepresent anything,
Sure you did. You misrepresented my detailed explanation by inaccurately summarizing it as merely "It is so just because it is so". That's not the nature of my answer at all. If you think it is, then you're failing to understand it.
I offered my opinion on your answer to the question I posed.
Feel free.
If you don't want dialogue, don't post to me.
I do want dialog. And part of that process is your willingness to hold up your end. Don't misrepresent my posts by putting words or ideas in my mouth that were never there to start with.