>>4088318 lb

"Evolution" is much to facile a concept.

And on another topic:

Let's say you have a simple molecule.

Some kind of a protein.

And normally that protein folds up in a certain way based on attraction/repulsion between surface charges.

Now let's say you supply pulses of EM energy of an exact frequency that cause electrons to move into higher orbitals.

Wouldn't the pattern of attraction/repulsion of the surface charges now be a little different?

Wouldn't the protein fold/unfold in a slightly different configuration?

Wouldn't reactions mediated at specific sites on the molecule, based on the molecule's shape, be either increased or decreased, accordingly?

Epigenetics?

I just think there is SO much more about the interactions between biology and physics that are not even considered and not well understood. "Science" is compartmentalized, and nobody in a postgrad lab can even study something unless they can get funding to study it. Mostly, government grants given out by committees. Try to study something off the mainstream path, and you'll never see another grant in your career. Career over – finis.

Just my 2c.

I'm not a biologist or a physicist.

>>4088705 It says they "believe" they have the answer. That's what happens when they don't have a clue, but feel they must make some academic sounding pronouncement because how can you maintain your perceived "expert" status if you don't make expert sounding statements? "Belief" fits right in with the Religion of Science.