I disagree with both of these points. - you can absolutely explain evolution without explaining origin - you can hypothesize about origins without needing to know if it happened once or a thousand times But, yes, Dawkins is boring.
If you reverse compile the software and can single step through it, you have explained the software. It doesn't matter if you have identified Alexander Graham Bell as the inventor of the first telephone 120 years earlier, you have a real and useful chunk of information.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
sure, but that's not your original claim you said > You can’t explain how life evolves, without first explaining its origins. I claim you can. You can explain how it was created without explaining how it evolved later. You can explain how it evolved later without explaini >
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.