Is Evolution Probable or Improbable? It Depends On Who You Ask.

[Frank Robert]

"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Science is about the natural world

So which hypotheses in the THEORY of evolution have been proven?
Why all the "missing links" in the fossil record?

There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

That is maybe so.
Wide is the path that leads to destruction.

You/they hear the gospel and reject it because it is folly to you/them.
I understand that and also why.

The Bible demonstrates how to follow in Jesus' footsteps such as love others and do what is right towards others, be humble, live simply and selflessly, and importantly, what we sow we will reap.

Science and theology are different domains. Science refers to the system or process of acquiring knowledge about the natural world while theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief. There is no inherent reason for them to be in conflict.

I believe that Stephen Jay Gould—the renowned paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, and the 2001 Humanist of the Year—sums it up best:

Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life

Can science help us overcome the terror of existence?

www.scientificamerican.com

The magisterium (domain of authority) of science “covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory),” he wrote in his 1999 book Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. “The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value.​

 

[Frank Robert]

Adam and Eve were literal historical people. I also used a book and showed you that. That book was the bible. You know the author.

I do not disagree that A&E were literal historical people.

 

[CrowCross]

Science and theology are different domains. Science refers to the system or process of acquiring knowledge about the natural world while theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief. There is no inherent reason for them to be in conflict.

What happens when Science contradicts Gods word? For example Science says when you die you can't resurrect on day 3. In other words Science says the resurrection of Jesus didn't happen because it's scientifically impossible. But Gods word said it did happen.

 

[CrowCross]

I do not disagree that A&E were literal historical people.

Would you say atone time they were the only two people on earth or that A&E were just two people from an evolving population?

 

[Frank Robert]

What happens when Science contradicts Gods word? For example Science says when you die you can't resurrect on day 3. In other words Science says the resurrection of Jesus didn't happen because it's scientifically impossible. But Gods word said it did happen.

You seem surprised that an atheist scientist does not believe in the resurrection.

If you ask Christian scientists like Dr. Kenneth R. Miller or Dr. Francis Collins I am sure they will tell you that they believe in the resurrection.

FYI, Dr. Miller is a Roman Catholic and Dr. Collins is an Evangelical Christian.

 

[CrowCross]

You seem surprised that an atheist scientist does not believe in the resurrection.

If you ask Christian scientists like Dr. Kenneth R. Miller orDr. Francis Collins I am sure they will tell you that they believe in the resurrection.

FYI, Dr. Miller is a Roman Catholic and Dr. Collins is an Evangelical Christian.

Why would an atheist believe in the resurrection?

 

[Frank Robert]

Why would an atheist believe in the resurrection?

I assumed that it is atheist scientists that don't believe in the resurrection that you are referring to. If not what scientists are you referring to who don't believe in the ressurection?

 

[CrowCross]

I assumed that it is atheist scientists that don't believe in the resurrection that you are referring to. If not what scientists are you referring to who don't believe in the ressurection?

I would say any non-christian scientist doesn't believe in the resurrection.

 

[Manfred]

There is no such thing as a scientific proof.

So the 5 postulates of Robert Koch and what was "proven" as an example is NOT scientific proof!

I do not agree with your assessment at all. What you state above is just another avoidance tactic to justify your belief system.
It's like calling the Covid "vaccine" a vaccine and having to change the definition of a vaccine to suit your narative.

 

[Frank Robert]

So the 5 postulates of Robert Koch and what was "proven" as an example is NOT scientific proof!

I do not agree with your assessment at all. What you state above is just another avoidance tactic to justify your belief system.
It's like calling the Covid "vaccine" a vaccine and having to change the definition of a vaccine to suit your narative.

Postulates & Theorems in Math | Definition, Difference & Example - Lesson | Study.com

Explore what postulates and theorems are in math and how they are different. Find answers to many questions, such as if postulates are accepted as...

study.com

Postulates are statements that are accepted as true without being proven. Theorems are statements that can be proven. Postulates are generally the starting point for proving theorems.​

​

Note: a theorem is a statement that has been proved, or can be proved. The proof of a theorem is a that uses the inference rules of a deductive to establish that the theorem is a logical consequence of the axioms and previously proved theorems.​

 

[Manfred]

Postulates & Theorems in Math | Definition, Difference & Example - Lesson | Study.com

Explore what postulates and theorems are in math and how they are different. Find answers to many questions, such as if postulates are accepted as...

study.com

Postulates are statements that are accepted as true without being proven. Theorems are statements that can be proven. Postulates are generally the starting point for proving theorems.​

​

Note: a theorem is a statement that has been proved, or can be proved. The proof of a theorem is a that uses the inference rules of a deductive to establish that the theorem is a logical consequence of the axioms and previously proved theorems.​

How does this help your statement that science does not prove anything.

Did the Postulates of Koch prove the theorem brought forth.
a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.

 

[Frank Robert]

How does this help your statement that science does not prove anything.

Did the Postulates of Koch prove the theorem brought forth.
a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.

You didn't read the article I linked to, did you?

Instead of clinging to what you believe, you could do some inquiry on your own such as a google search. Also there are several free AI chatbots. Be careful with AI though as hallucinates a bit.

 

[EarlyActs]

I was amused after many exchanges with a friend in Europe about evolution-as-fact that the person did not know what the Cambrian explosion was. I think the doctrines are rife with this problem of overlooking, which Lewis called 'being taught to see with one eye shut.'

 

[TB2]

Irreducible Complexity: This argument, popularized by biochemist Michael Behe, suggests that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved gradually through natural selection. According to Behe, some cellular structures, such as the bacterial flagellum or blood clotting cascade, require multiple interdependent components to function properly. Creationists argue that these systems could not have evolved in a stepwise manner, as the removal of any one component would render the system nonfunctional. They claim that such complexity implies the involvement of an intelligent designer

Yes, irreducible complexity argument hasn't fared well

Fine-Tuning of the Universe: Creationists often assert that the physical constants and conditions of the universe are finely tuned to allow for life. They argue that the probability of this fine-tuning occurring by chance is incredibly low, suggesting the intervention of an intelligent creator. They cite examples such as the precise values of fundamental constants like the gravitational constant or the cosmological constant, which they believe are too improbable to have arisen naturally

This is less an argument against biological evolution, and more a philosophical argument for God's existence. The fine tuning also is less about fine tuning for life per se, but the lack of stars and planets (or a universe at all!).

Origin of Life: Creationists frequently challenge the scientific understanding of abiogenesis, the natural process by which life is thought to have originated from non-living matter. They argue that the probability of life spontaneously emerging from inanimate materials is astronomically low. They point to experiments attempting to recreate the conditions of early Earth and argue that the complexity and information content of even the simplest living organisms make their origin by chance highly implausible.

It's important to note that while these arguments may be persuasive to some, they have been extensively scrutinized and countered by the scientific community

This too is not an argument against biological evolution. Here I think it's important to recognize that our current sum total scientific knowledge to date seems to indicate that life cannot spontaneously emerge from nonlife.

 

[Frank Robert]

I think it's important to recognize that our current sum total scientific knowledge to date seems to indicate that life cannot spontaneously emerge from nonlife.

Depends on who you ask.

 

[TB2]

Depends on who you ask.

Well, not really. The scientific community will by and large acknowledge what I'm saying (and of course, it's really the other way around, I'm just reporting what they're saying!). They would acknowledge that it at least *seems* impossible on the face of it, though of course they don't believe that it is (for example, see the Asphalt Paradox in "Paradoxes of the Origin of Life"; "An enormous amount of empirical evidence.... suggests that it is impossible for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the 'living'") and that we have no idea, but it is still the working theory and assumed a priori to be true; so much so that it's spoken of as if it's true and established fact.

Here's a succinct run down of the current status of the origin of life by (atheist/agnostic) origin of life researcher Pier Luisi (who also happens to be an acquaintance of mine, he's a great guy and respected scientist): "The Prebiotic Experiment"

Best

 

[Frank Robert]

Well, not really. The scientific community will by and large acknowledge what I'm saying (and of course, it's really the other way around, I'm just reporting what they're saying!). They would acknowledge that it at least *seems* impossible on the face of it, though of course they don't believe that it is (for example, see the Asphalt Paradox in "Paradoxes of the Origin of Life"; "An enormous amount of empirical evidence.... suggests that it is impossible for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the 'living'") and that we have no idea, but it is still the working theory and assumed a priori to be true; so much so that it's spoken of as if it's true and established fact.

Here's a succinct run down of the current status of the origin of life by (atheist/agnostic) origin of life researcher Pier Luisi (who also happens to be an acquaintance of mine, he's a great guy and respected scientist): "The Prebiotic Experiment"

Best

I don't disagree that we don't know how life began. However, not knowing does not stop science and scientists frequently make breakthroughs.

Here is a recent study that offers a possible solution to the water paradox.

Aqueous microdroplets enable abiotic synthesis and chain extension of unique peptide isomers from free amino acids

Abstract​

Amide bond formation, the essential condensation reaction underlying peptide synthesis, is hindered in aqueous systems by the thermodynamic constraints associated with dehydration. This represents a key difficulty for the widely held view that prebiotic chemical evolution leading to the formation of the first biomolecules occurred in an oceanic environment. Recent evidence for the acceleration of chemical reactions at droplet interfaces led us to explore aqueous amino acid droplet chemistry. We report the formation of dipeptide isomer ions from free glycine or L-alanine at the air–water interface of aqueous microdroplets emanating from a single spray source (with or without applied potential) during their flight toward the inlet of a mass spectrometer. The proposed isomeric dipeptide ion is an oxazolidinone that takes fully covalent and ion-neutral complex forms. This structure is consistent with observed fragmentation patterns and its conversion to authentic dipeptide ions upon gentle collisions and for its formation from authentic dipeptides at ultra-low concentrations. It also rationalizes the results of droplet fusion experiments that show that the dipeptide isomer facilitates additional amide bond formation events, yielding authentic tri- through hexapeptides. We propose that the interface of aqueous microdroplets serves as a drying surface that shifts the equilibrium between free amino acids in favor of dehydration via stabilization of the dipeptide isomers. These findings offer a possible solution to the water paradox of biopolymer synthesis in prebiotic chemistry.​

The only point I am making is that at least we know that there are active researches who believe OoL is probable.

 

[TB2]

I don't disagree that we don't know how life began. However, not knowing does not stop science and scientists frequently make breakthroughs.

True, and to clarify I am not arguing a god-of-the-gaps type position from ignorance but based on the tremendous amount we know about chemistry and physics. That sum total knowledge suggests that life is not an inevitable result of natural law/natural processes (and scientists reject chance luck as a non-explanation akin to invoking miracles); which leaves contingency: that life is the result of a rare possibly one time occurrence of a unique set of contingencies that made the origin of life a high probability event. The problem is there seems no way to avoid chance luck.

But it goes beyond that. The "breakthroughs" amount to inches in progress while the gap between life and nonlife has widened to an enormous Grand Canyon Gulf. The "breakthroughs" haven't kept pace with the widening gulf.

People also don't realize that most origin of life chemistry amounts to "proof of concept/principle" experiments (including the one you post). For example, people think it's just a matter of rolling the dice enough times and then the right combination of the 20 amino acids will connect together. But that's not reality. There is no known environment where all 20 amino acids are reactive. They react at different temps and pH and so on. This is how people thinks it works...

But that's not reality. This is reality (and under ideal conditions in labs, I might add)...We can only get 1-3 different types of amino acids to connect in the lab and only short length chains... (these are the types of peptide polymers formed in labs; they're not numerous nor diverse)

Similarly, the paper you cited is for homopeptides and copeptides: GlyGly, AlaAla, Gly-Gly-Gly-Gly-Gly-Gly.... This matches the <0.001% of dipeptides, homopeptides we find in the Murchison meteorite. The studies are fascinating and I love and support the research work that's being done. But we must keep in mind that these are only "proof of concept/principle" experiments that don't actually demonstrate the combinatorial chemistry we need. It is not possible to construct biologically relevant proteins from copeptides and homopeptides.

At present, we have no evidence that nature is doing the type of combinatorial chemistry needed to make biologically relevant proteins (chemically, it doesn't even seem possibly due to the mutually exclusive reaction conditions of amino acids):

So, the problem goes beyond the astronomical improbabilities. We have no evidence that nature is even rolling the dice in the way needed for combinatorial chemistry to construct biologically relevant proteins.

Grace and peace