[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

No, it's an example of nonlinearity and feedback in chemical kinetics.

Ha! That tells me about the process that is there. But it says nothing about how it got there or what could have put it there. It is like telling me how the regulator of a watch works but expecting me to infer and believe it got there on its own from extraneous natural processes!

[spunkets]

"it says nothing about how it got there or what could have put it there."

The systems arise naturally. The mechanism given is a natural one, not a designed system like your watch example.

" expecting me to infer and believe it got there on its own from extraneous natural processes!"

I don't expect anyone in particular to be able to know what it means, or understand it. A scientist will recognize and understand the simple physics presented there. It's basic. If someone is interested in the truth of the matter and doesn't understand it, he'll ask questions. It was sufficient to show one example of reletively simple chemistry that results in an oscillation around the equilibrium point, to disprove the need to claim, or infer design in such systems.

Natural processes are not extraneous.

[Ichneumon]

But it says nothing about how it got there or what could have put it there.

Evolution could have, easily. This particular mechanism is small-potatoes compared to the complexity of things which evolution has been observed to be capable of building.

It is like telling me how the regulator of a watch works but expecting me to infer and believe it got there on its own from extraneous natural processes!

Again, watches don't reproduce, therefore they don't evolve. Are you *intentionally* choosing a grossly misleading and fallacious analogy through dishonesty, or merely through ignorance?