The second sentence describes the evolution of living things, which are already complex systems.
Isn't your post saying that matter, that would be non-living materials, evolve, as you call it, into living things? Isn't that a different question? Or am I not understanding you correctly?
To me, your question is specifically raising the question about the instant that non-living matter transformed into a living thing, the origination of life forms itself.
Miller–Urey experiment - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At least so it is currently hypothesized, to my understanding anyway.
Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Barack Obama January 2008
That a majority of scientists believe in the AGW explanation before corroborating evidence can be found to support the AGW hypothesis, shows their biases. Those who test and don't agree are unbelievers. Are 'blasphemers'. Let's find some facts on this, OK. I'm sick of your ideologies.
You're not really making much sense here.
Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.
(1) water vapor is about 95 percent of all earthly greenhouse gases. Water vapor is always in earth's atmosphere in the cycle of rain to evaporation to rain.
(2) methane, another greenhouse gas, has been tested to be approximately 25 times MORE EFFECTIVE in trapping heat in earth's atmosphere than CO2.
AGW doesn't attempt to reduce great portions of greenhouse gases, just CO2, because of the belief that man is the main (only) causer of global warming. Maybe this global warming disaster you predict isn't imminent?
Last edited by cabse5; 07-22-14 at 09:56 AM.