ID, intelligence, meaning, purpose.

[semlogo]

Cdowis: if you're afraid to discuss these issues in depth, just say so. Otherwise, pick one and we'll discuss it.

[changed]

Please post specific data you think evolution can't explain.

where life came from in the first place.

fine tuning

fundamental laws that gov. nature

order in spite of entropy

butterflies and other fragile animals (we should be populated by fierce fighters - by the fittest)

food that tastes good (what plant/animal would evolve to taste good? Why would they do that?)

love

agency - our actions are not programs, we are not robots - where does this part of us come from?

conscience, self-awareness, our mind.

etc. etc. etc.

Altruism

Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.[6]

Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.[7]

Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.[citation needed]

Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.[citation needed]

Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group.[citation needed] Chimpanzees will help humans and Conspecifics without any reward in return.[8]

Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.[9]

Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system.[10][11]

Raccoons inform conspecifics about feeding grounds by droppings left on commonly shared latrines. A similar information system has been observed to be used by common ravens.[12]

In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives support in raising its young from other "helper" birds, including help with the feeding of its fledglings.[13] Some will even go as far as protecting an unrelated bird's young from predators [14]

Most mammal carnivores like wolves or dogs have a habit of not harming pack members below certain age, of opposite sex or in surrendering position (in case of some animals, the behavior exists within entire species rather than one pack).[citation needed]

Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.[15]

Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.[16]

Some termites release a sticky secretion by fatally rupturing a gland near the skin in their neck. This autothysis defends against invading ants by creating a tar baby effect.[17]

Meerkats often have one standing guard to warn whilst the rest feed in case of predators attack.

African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators.

Many of the above actions do not help the herd, go against survival of the fittest. Dogs do not help other dogs survive by taking care of tigers, cats, and squirrels.... Animals killing themselves so that other families, with other genes, can survive - would you be willing to sacrifice yourself so that your neighbor can live? Animals should be trying to preserve their own personal genes, putting their lives above that of their cousins...

(Book of Mormon | Alma 30:44)

The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

So, all the prophets are liars, all of the religious people in the world are liars, all those who have had spiritual encounters are liars....? or pehaps, some here are missing something.

[semlogo]

where life came from in the first place.

fine tuning

fundamental laws that gov. nature

order out of entropy

butterflies and other fragile animals (we should be populated by fierce fighters - by the fittest)

food that tastes good (what plant/animal would evolve to taste good? Why would they do that?)

love

etc. etc. etc.

Altruism

Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.[6]

Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.[7]

Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.[citation needed]

Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.[citation needed]

Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group.[citation needed] Chimpanzees will help humans and Conspecifics without any reward in return.[8]

Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.[9]

Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system.[10][11]

Raccoons inform conspecifics about feeding grounds by droppings left on commonly shared latrines. A similar information system has been observed to be used by common ravens.[12]

In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives support in raising its young from other "helper" birds, including help with the feeding of its fledglings.[13] Some will even go as far as protecting an unrelated bird's young from predators [14]

Most mammal carnivores like wolves or dogs have a habit of not harming pack members below certain age, of opposite sex or in surrendering position (in case of some animals, the behavior exists within entire species rather than one pack).[citation needed]

Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.[15]

Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.[16]

Some termites release a sticky secretion by fatally rupturing a gland near the skin in their neck. This autothysis defends against invading ants by creating a tar baby effect.[17]

Meerkats often have one standing guard to warn whilst the rest feed in case of predators attack.

African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators.

Many of the above actions do not help the herd, go against survival of the fittest. Dogs do not help other dogs survive by taking care of tigers, cats, and squirrels....

(Book of Mormon | Alma 30:44)

The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the bearth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its dmotion, yea, and also all the eplanets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Great, let's pick one and discuss it. Your choice.

[changed]

Irreducibly complex objects

Cambrian explosion

Missing links

Punctuated equilibrium

Long periods of stasis

....

there's so many, it's hard to decide. You pick one

I have to run, busy weekend, be back eventually.

[cdowis]

semi,

I repeat myself ==>> You have not demonstrated that you can carry on a credible conversation. I have taken my time to point out specific examples.

I have already discussed these issues with others in several threads, but I guess I am just "afraid" of you.

[semlogo]

Irreducibly complex objects

Cambrian explosion

Missing links

Punctuated equilibrium

Long periods of stasis

....

there's so many, it's hard to decide. You pick one

I have to run, busy weekend, be back eventually.

A lot of these are vague or very large subjects. But let's go with "irreducible complexity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a nonscientific argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity.[4]

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve,[6] and Behe's examples are considered to constitute an argument from ignorance.[7]

Behe's main argument in a famous court case was the supposed irreducibly complex structure of flagella in microorganisms, which he claimed were too complex to have evolved a piece at a time, and would be non functional if any piece of the flagella were changed. He was famously proven wrong in court by real scientists:

The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 complex protein parts. Behe asserts that the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function, and that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex as in his view if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.

Scientists regard this argument as having been disproved in the light of research dating back to 1996 as well as more recent findings.[63] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[64] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."[65][66]

Behe's claim:

The refutation:

[semlogo]

semi,

I repeat myself ==>> You have not demonstrated that you can carry on a credible conversation. I have taken my time to point out specific examples.

I have already discussed these issues with others in several threads, but I guess I am just "afraid" of you.

You've demonstrated over and over that you have no interested in learning about evolution. You're not afraid of me - you're afraid of facts that you find theologically uncomfortable.

[Tarski]

where life came from in the first place.

Natural Selection does not explain abiogenesis. It also doesn't explain the big bang or stellar evolution. So what. When do anyone say it explained everything? How silly.

fine tuning

Again, what has that to do with evolution?

fundamental laws that gov. nature

Again? See above.

order in spite of entropy

In the nonequilibrium thermodynamics of open systems the emergence of complex structure is expected. The law of entropy is a law about closed systems close to equilibrium.

This has been pointed out millions of times. Why doesn't it sink in. Haven't you been corrected on this before? Then why repeat it????

butterflies and other fragile animals (we should be populated by fierce fighters - by the fittest)

Nonsense. The criterion is fitness for successful reproduction. There is no reason a gentle strategy cannot be used. In fact, we can observe butterflies and see how it is they survive despite the existence of lions, tigers and bears. It isn't mysterious.

food that tastes good (what plant/animal would evolve to taste good? Why would they do that?)

For the most part you have it backwards. Food tasting good is just our subjective reaction to the food and the fact that we find high calorie food to be good tasting is something about how our brains evolved. Gasoline would taste good to us if it were available in the ancient environment and were as good for our survival as digestible carbohydrates. Presumably grass tastes good to cows (that how their palate evolved).

love

really? Well I will give you a hint. Family ties and loyalty facilitate successful reproduction. Also, sex and love are kinda related--remember?

agency - our actions are not programs, we are not robots - where does this part of us come from?

Have you solved the philosophical question of free will?

conscience, self-awareness, our mind.

Read Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dan Dennett. You will see the role of evolution.

Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.

Yes and the chances are that the helped animal carries copies of many the same genes as the helping animal which has a high chance of being a relative. That explains quite a bit. Remember, it is really the gene that must survive rather than the individual. Do have an example of a Dolphin helping a Jelly fish?

[cdowis]

Natural Selection does explain abiogenesis.

To take a saying from the law, natural selection can explain a ham sandwich.

A good evolutionist requires an abundence of imagination

It also doesn't explain the big bang or stellar evolution.

Yes, but it can explain language, (going from gutteral grunts to the sophistry of politicians), writing, farming, religion, music, love, and even homework.

So what. When do anyone say it explained everything? How silly.

I agree that it does not explain the Big Bang... at least, not yet.

In the nonequilibrium thermodynamics of open systems the emergence of complex structure is expected. The law of entropy is a law about closed systems close to equilibrium.

This has been pointed out millions of times. Why doesn't it sink in. Haven't you been corrected on this before? Then why repeat it????

I know I have heard it a million times.

But, tell me again how the earth <-> sun fits into the definition of an open system. I think I missed that one.

I found one definition, " (thermodynamics) A system across whose boundaries both matter and energy may pass." So, the fact that the sun can pass energy to the earth makes it an open system?

Nonsense. The criterion is fitness for successful reproduction. There is no reason a gentle strategy cannot be used. In fact, we can observe butterflies and see how it is they survive despite the existence of lions, tigers and bears. It isn't mysterious.

I see that evolution treated the monarch butterfly in a special way -- caterpillar, coccon, and then the butterfly. It then flies thousands of miles to a certain location to mate.

That is truly an example of the "miracle of evolution" . But, as you say, evolution can't explain everything.

snip

Yes and the chances are that the helped animal carries copies of many the same genes as the helping animal which has a high chance of being a relative. That explains quite a bit. Remember, it is really the gene that must survive rather than the individual. Do have an example of a Dolphin helping a Jelly fish?

In what way could a jellyfish use the help of a dolphin? But we have examples of their helping humans in the wild. Are you suggesting a genetic connection between dolphins and humans, they have a common ancestor?

Evolution would predict this, would it not? But, ( going back to that ham sandwich) I'm sure someone will figure it out/

[Tarski]

To take a saying from the law, natural selection can explain a ham sandwich.

It was a typo. I meant to type that it does not explain or attempt to explain abiogenesis.

Yes, but it can explain language, (going from gutteral grunts to the sophistry of politicians), writing, farming, religion, music, love, and even homework.

Argument from incredulity? Anyway, it doesn't explain it as much as get us to the point where the devolopment of such thigs can come about through social development.

In the nonequilibrium thermodynamics of open systems the emergence of complex structure is expected. The law of entropy is a law about closed systems close to equilibrium.

This has been pointed out millions of times. Why doesn't it sink in. Haven't you been corrected on this before? Then why repeat it????

I know I have heard it a million times.

But, tell me again how the earth <-> sun fits into the definition of an open system.

The earth is the open system. The entropy of the earth-sun system is increasing.

The kind of order that is entropy is not even the same thing as what we mean when we say that a living being has low entropy (high order). In ice cube is more ordered than a dog from the point of view of entropy.

I found one definition, " (thermodynamics) A system across whose boundaries both matter and energy may pass." So, the fact that the sun can pass energy to the earth makes it an open system?

Right. The important point technical point is that the earth absorbs high frequency low entropy radiation and radiates thermal radiation (higher entropy).

Read Penrose's explanation of this in "The Emperor's New Mind".

I see that evolution treated the monarch butterfly in a special way -- caterpillar, coccon, and then the butterfly. It then flies thousands of miles to a certain location to mate.

That is truly an example of the "miracle of evolution" . But, as you say, evolution can't explain everything.

Special way? Don't you feel special? Are elephants special?

How many species are there that have this cocoon to winged butterfly life cycle?

Hint: Around 28000 species.

How many species have nipples (mammals)

Hint: around 5400.

So now tell me again how special the cocoon thing is compared to the special lactation/nipple thing we mammals have?

Check your facts.

The truth is that there are all sorts of special things going on. The one you pick out is just another.

Each family of species has these special niche filling attributes and they are elaborate because nothing stops nature from becoming extravagant. It's not guided.

I thought about explaining in detail the principles of the evolution of altruism that answer every single one of your questions. It would take a few paragraphs at least. But I get sick of doing research for you. If you want to maintain your position by not looking at what's out there then you really don't want to know the truth anyway.

[cdowis]

I was somewhat obscure. "Special" does not mean unique, but difficult to explain thru evolution. Evolution used mechanisms which are almost impossible to explain, even for the bright, imaginative evolutionist.

And you mention the example of nipple and the mammary gland. Yes, they are indeed special. There was an entire thread where the evolutionists attempted to explain their evolution. I agree that such discussions are tiresome, but rather predictable. In this case, I gave them a very simple experiment to test their scenario, but the outcome was pretty obvious. The infant dies of starvation.

[changed]

Natural Selection does not explain abiogenesis. It also doesn't explain the big bang or stellar evolution. So what. When do anyone say it explained everything? How silly.

evolution is the science of where we came from - where we evolved from. as it is the science of where we came from, I think they need to... you know... explain where we came from.

In the nonequilibrium thermodynamics of open systems the emergence of complex structure is expected. The law of entropy is a law about closed systems close to equilibrium.

This has been pointed out millions of times. Why doesn't it sink in. Haven't you been corrected on this before? Then why repeat it????

OK - a computer is a complex structure - so, you think, that if you throw in all the right atoms, they will form a computer?

Why has the structure of iron, copper, led, tin, zinc... etc. etc. why have these crystaline structures not evolved? iron etc. etc. melts, reforms, melts, reforms - has plenty of changes to form random mutations etc. etc. so why has the iron crystal structure not evolved? That's all anything is - a product of atoms interacting with one another, bonding to one another according to their interaction potentials... right? We're nothing more than atoms bonded together through defined interaction potentials - so why have certain structures evolved? has the interaction potentials between the atoms changed?

Have you solved the philosophical question of free will?

free will - that is the difference between us and a chunk of iron isn't it... a chunk of iron does not try to survive, why do we?

really? Well I will give you a hint. Family ties and loyalty facilitate successful reproduction. Also, sex and love are kinda related--remember?

you do know the difference between love and lust right? so, tell me, why families? Why not create children by merely splitting in half? why the sex? and why sex between just two partners if combining DNA is a good thing, why did some creatures not evolve to rely on threesomes? hundredsome's to create a child, why just two?

Yes and the chances are that the helped animal carries copies of many the same genes as the helping animal which has a high chance of being a relative. That explains quite a bit. Remember, it is really the gene that must survive rather than the individual. Do have an example of a Dolphin helping a Jelly fish?

There are many examples of Dolphins helping people.... people eat dolphins, and yet, they still help us...

Dolphins just hang around us for the fish? nope.

34.While most wild animals avoid contact with humans, wild dolphins (note the "wild" part, not dolphins that have been raised/pampered by humans from birth - but wild dolphins) are known to play and associate with humans, especially children.b

37.The dolphin

[Ralph Man]

Some plants are evolved to "taste good" tarski, either to encourage pollinators or seed dispersers. Then on top of that, a great deal of our food supply has been artificially selected for taste. The relationship changed imagined there isn't backward so much as incomplete. Food "tastes good" in part because our sense of taste is evolved to detect nutritional value, but there's more to it than that.

Changed -

Do you think a snowflake forming violates the second law of thermodynamics?

[changed]

Changed -

Do you think a snowflake forming violates the second law of thermodynamics?

no, snowflakes form at a specific pressure and temp, the crystal structure is created through specific atomic interactions, snowflakes have not evolved over billions of years, snowflakes form now, as they have always formed...

why have snowflakes not evolved?

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=57

In many ways, water is a miracle liquid. It is essential for all living things ....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why Sexual Reproduction?

http://panspermia.org/sexual.htm

[Tarski]

Some plants are evolved to "taste good" tarski, either to encourage pollinators or seed dispersers. Then on top of that, a great deal of our food supply has been artificially selected for taste. The relationship changed imagined there isn't backward so much as incomplete. Food "tastes good" in part because our sense of taste is evolved to detect nutritional value, but there's more to it than that.

this is correct and i was going to mention it. but the process i mentioned is, i believe, the logically primary one---things don't just intrisically "taste good".

it is a reaction of the organism.

[thesometimesaint]

changed:

I came from Walla Walla Washington.

Evolution is not per say where we came from it is how living organisms change to meet a changing environment.

[Ralph Man]

no

Great. That process is an example of a spontaneous reaction that results in a decrease in entropy. Or rather, there is a local decrease in entropy that is mediated by heat radiating out of the atmosphere. So you can see how such things can happen. On earth, there will be all manner of entropy increasing and decreasing reactions. The important thing is that there is a net increase in entropy, which in this case is ultimately being mediated by the sun radiating energy into space.

[changed]

Great. That process is an example of a spontaneous reaction that results in a decrease in entropy. Or rather, there is a local decrease in entropy that is mediated by heat radiating out of the atmosphere. So you can see how such things can happen. On earth, there will be all manner of entropy increasing and decreasing reactions. The important thing is that there is a net increase in entropy, which in this case is ultimately being mediated by the sun radiating energy into space.

so, why have snowflakes not evolved?

Evolution is not per say where we came from it is how living organisms change to meet a changing environment.

We live in the same environment as snowflakes... again, why have snowflakes not evolved? What is the difference between what is alive and what is not? - why can life design/direct/change, while other things cannot?

hint: the answer has to do with where we came from

[Ralph Man]

Because "living" is a property of a particular subset of chemical reactions that snowflakes are not part of?

Hopefully this different approach suggests that you've backed off your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[changed]

Because "living" is a property of a particular subset of chemical reactions that snowflakes are not part of?

Hopefully this different approach suggests that you've backed off your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

there are no chemical reactions which evolve over time.

if you prefer, diamonds - they are made out of Carbon - why has the structure of diamonds not evolved over time?

Is that all it takes? organic molecules? you think that chemical reactions between organic molecules evolve over time? have you taken O-chem? the interaction potentials between organic molecules do not evolve over time, their preferential bonding structures do not evolve over time.

Again, what is the difference between what is alive, and what is not that allows what is alive to change?

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:52)

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we shall be changed.

see my name, I think it's pretty cool, that unlike some things, we can change. This change does not come about through random mutations though. We live in a cause/effect universe - there are govorning laws, science would be reduced to rubbish if the answer was "it just randomly happens" - nothing just randomly happens.

[changed]

Natural Selection does not explain abiogenesis. It also doesn't explain the big bang or stellar evolution. So what. When do anyone say it explained everything? How silly.

Please post specific data you think evolution can't explain.

yes, it was silly for some to suggest that evolution was the grand answer - obviously, it isn't.

[thesometimesaint]

changed:

Nonsense. ALL life is a series of complex chemo-electrical reactions, and they do change over time.

Graphite is pure carbon to. Its molecular bonds are just arranged differently than diamonds.

Put a lump of coal under intense heat and pressure. You get diamonds. Burn diamonds and you get carbon dioxide and a little bit of water vapor.

Yes I've taken organic chemistry. A simple Biology 101 class should disabuse you of your faulty notions.

Lots depends on how life is defined.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html

"Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell".

It is highly doubtful that the writers of the New Testament knew the first thing about viruses.

[Ralph Man]

Diamonds aren't organic. An organic compound has to have another element attached to one of the carbon bonds. Yet, I'm not the one asking if I've taken O-Chem. Yikes.

That's beside the point anyway. I think this is just a simple category error. Asking why diamonds aren't alive is like asking why coffee cans aren't zebras. Because they aren't? Because they're something different that doesn't meet the even loose criteria what it means to be alive?

there are no chemical reactions which evolve over time.

Pretty much all chemical reactions in a given environment evolve over time. You probably mean "evolve" in a biological sense. The definition of life is fuzzy at the borders, but in order to have that you at least need a population of organic replicators with imperfect conservation of form that regulate their environment in some way. Snowflakes don't do that because snowflakes aren't that.

[changed]

changed:

Nonsense. ALL life is a series of complex chemo-electrical reactions, and they do change over time.

why - you have still not answered the question - why do they change?

V=iR ... is that going to change anytime soon?

e = 1.602176487(40)

[changed]

Diamonds aren't organic. An organic compound has to have another element attached to one of the carbon bonds. Yet, I'm not the one asking if I've taken O-Chem. Yikes.

That's beside the point anyway. I think this is just a simple category error. Asking why diamonds aren't alive is like asking why coffee cans aren't zebras. Because they aren't? Because they're something different that doesn't meet the even loose criteria what it means to be alive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

Living things are made up of the same things that non-living things are made up of. I am a metallurgical engineer, you take specific atoms, put them at specific temp and pressure, and you know exactly what you will get, what crystalline structures will form based on potentials. It's repeatable, the atoms don't change, the potentials don't change, the crystal structures that a specific combination will form at a given T,P does not change.

evolution is like saying: put imperfect ice into a cup of water, let the water see/copy the imperfect chunk... then the new imperfect chunk is put in another cup of water, and so on and so forth. the problem with this is that the atomic potentials are the things that control the structures that are formed. Seeding clouds etc. etc. works because it overcomes surface energy, activation energy - makes it easier for the liquid to crystalize. The crystal structure does not change over time though, because atomic potentials do not change over time.

Now, if you take two piles of atoms, both the same, put them both in the same T,P, etc. etc. and one pile forms the crystalline structure that you expect to see, while the other gets up, and start walking around... there is something different going on, something more than mere potentials.

Pretty much all chemical reactions in a given environment evolve over time. You probably mean "evolve" in a biological sense. The definition of life is fuzzy at the borders, but in order to have that you at least need a population of organic replicators with imperfect conservation of form that regulate their environment in some way. Snowflakes don't do that because snowflakes aren't that.

snowflakes can replicate themselves - seeding - put a little chunk of ice in a cold cup of water, and the water will learn the new crystal structure from the chunk of ice. The ice will form imperfectly, there are grain boundaries, holes, but the atomic bonding keeps most of the atoms in check. We can talkabout some of the shape memory stuff out there etc. etc. so ice, metals, they react to their environment (melt, crystalize), they can replicate the same structure over and over again, they form imperfectly - but they do not evolve. Why not?

the melting T and P of ice does not change over time, it's repeatable, that's the great thing about good science - it's repeatable, it doesn't change.