It also provides a theoretical mechanism sufficient to account for the emergence of living beings in the first place.
We have a theory that matches our observations, ready to hand: Darwinian evolution.
That's why Darwinian theory had such an impact - it showed how that can happen.
Those who have come to understand Darwinian evolution do see.
No, the principles of Darwinian Evolution apply to all dynamic systems. It is a form of mathematical probabilistic space-time chronology.
i agree!! that's why i said "mostly".
Does it matter? Reality is what and how we experience it's observable patterns.
Theoretically there can be other ways too, like a self-replicating RNA molecule first or other ways, but i don't see how they are more likely than the way i described.
it doesn't matter to me
Why not? Ants reached every nook and cranny on earth. They are one of the oldest species on earth and their survival capabilities are remarkable. Moreover, many ants and other insects "learned" to fly hundreds of millions of years before birds took flight.
I know! But by trying to explain how they got to different continents, you can just create a crazy complicated scenario and show its not impossible to happen. Then you say that given the vast amount of time, thats probably what happened.
Fortunately, the real world is not so limited.
The ascription of purpose to a Darwinian process would be an error. One hopes that error is rare, among professional evolutionary biologists.
In the case of ants, we have very good reason to believe that human boats were not involved in the early distribution. So we would choose from other explanations, that better fit the facts.
I certainly did not do so.
No idea how you state this with such certainty.
There is no logic to this.
Ordered self-organizing systems emerge and are observed from any perspective capable of observing them. They do, actually, exist. Would you prefer to call them subsystems? Nobody will mind.
They choose to study living beings (or their precursors etc) because that's what they are interested in. What's wrong with that?
Ummmm
There is no problem, but there is a very important thin line here. The question is whether these sub-systems likely belong to a bigger chemical system that is constantly producing disorder and doesn't self organize. In other words, the sum of what you consider life beings might not be increasing its order. In a sense, there does not need to be much progress from the primordial chemistry.
you forgot to say that it is about the sequence of events that happened before the previous ones were lost. Since we are not talking about living systems yet.....
Oh, I firmly believe in prior land bridges allowing simple migration. It's interesting to note that some butterfly species migrate for thousands of miles on upper air streams, to breed where they originated.
You can't.
Indeed. I conjecture that, in a few decades, we will be more accurately seeing flora and fauna - including humans - as ecologies.