So odds are not an issue? If there is one chance in a google it will happen, right? You see it's not only odds that is the problem with evolution, it's timing. Everything in the very begining has to be so timed, with only one chance. The odds of both are not even calcuable.
When looking at any event that has happened in the universe it really does not make sense to consider it's probability in terms of odds (I'm talking about on a cosmological scale of course). Why you ask? Because the odds for anything happening the way it did is so exponentially small, that when you look at the way things are, you can't help but notice that it had almost no chance of happening the way it did; however, that would be the case for every possible way the universe could form, with life or not. If you look at the beginning of the formation of the universe the potential for possibilities is so vast it's incomprehensible, you might even say the ways in which the universe could possibly unfold is infinite. But it has to happen one way, right? So our universe existing as it does had a 1 in infinite chance of doing so, but that will always be the odds no matter which way the universe exists.
To narrow the scope of odds to just our planet does not help much either. Consider the following questions: What were the odds 1000 years ago that you would exist where you are sitting right now? What were the odds in the last rain storm that every drop of water would fall precisely where it did? The odds are so vast they are not even calculable, but despite all odds the rain storm happened as it did, and the sequence of event unfolded as they did from 1000 years ago to allow you to exist as you are. Do you consider these events miracles because of all the odds against them? If so, then everything would be a miracle and the term sort of loses it's meaning. The point is, it has to happen one way, and it just so happened that our planet formed the way it did so as to allow life to emerge through a natural sequence of events. This is no more miraculous than the formation of Saturn which has no life at all. The probability for both such occurrences happening precisely as they did is the same on a cosmological scale.
Example: Life has to form along the lines of how the atmosphere is forming. There is a certain point from abiogenesis that a ozone layer is needed to protect the newly forming life from UV rays. If the life forms before the ozone can block enough UV rays, the life form will be burned until dead. Which will make it not be able to survive long enough to reproduce. And if it did, it's offspring could not survive either....So what are the odds that the exact timing for life to form did, when the ingrdeints needed did not exist yet?
We have no idea where or how the first life forms emerged, in fact we can only speculate on what the conditions were like that allowed such a thing to happen. The bottom line is we don't know, and we may never know for sure exactly how it happened. However, the world is a big enough place with enough chemical reactions and a vast amount of possible variables, known and unknown, that would allow such an event to take place, with even maybe multiple different processes.
Who knows, it may even be a universal law where planets with conditions such as ours necessarily must produce life by virtue of it's very nature, one can only wonder. There is no way to know if life being part of the universe is a necessary component that must inevitably occur in one of the universe's stages of development. Think of it as the universe hitting puberty, where certain changes take place in it as it matures and gets older, the changes being the emergence of life. The point being, that life only seems miraculous and improbable to us because we don't fully understand the dynamics on how a universe can develop, life may be an intrinsic property for the development of a universe much like stars, black holes, and planets, but since we can only study our one universe, and in a very limited scope at that, it seems that life happened by chance, but that is coming from a very narrow perspective. One thing is for sure, however, and that is that at one time in the universe there was no life, and then at a later time there was. And because the universe has always been an existence of countless ongoing natural processes, then we conclude that there is a natural process from which life emerged from non-life.
Do we have all the answers? I think it's an obvious resounding no. But that is what science is, a quest to find answers about our universe, and right now the theory of evolution best explains the data that scientist have gathered. Although, and I'm sure any scientist will admit this, there is still very much to learn in order to make TOE true with a higher degree of certainty, it remains as the best explanation for science despite it's inadequacies in fully explaining with precision the exact process from the origin of life through all the evolutionary paths to modern biology.
So evolution is as easy as baking a cake? Interesting.
Also, do you know what the total is that 99.8% comes from? And also why the total is never printed because people would figure out evolution is not true.
The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. Do the math. .1% = 3,000,000 (3 million) differences. So .2% means we have 6,000,000 (6 million) differences between us and chimps. Now does that sound like we are so so close? Of course not. But 99.8% does. So sell the percent to the masses nd hide the number.
So here is the perfect example of how evolution hides the truth in math so that the deception can be sold to the masses while the truth is hidden. If not, answer as to why no one book on evolution gives the actual number of the percentage difference?
So the usage of a percentage is a conspiracy theory to espouse non-believers, hmmm. Sorry Ike but your paranoia is unfounded. It doesn't matter if you use a percentage or the actual figures or even reduce the ratio, it's all the same number.
6,000,000/3,000,000,000=1/500=.2%, any way you slice it up it represents the same figure. I'm sure if any student wanted to find out the actual numbers from the percentage they could ask their teacher or figure it out on their own, after all it's not a big secret.
In any case, by printing the actual number difference in species genomes, small or great, would not disprove evolution by any stretch of the imagination. Variation based on such differences is what produces change, the theory of evolution needs there to be such differences in order for the theory to be coherent. If there were not 6 million different base pairs between humans and chimps then we would be the same species, but the fact that we do share 2,994,000,000 pairs out of 3 billion, makes a good case in saying we are very similar and possibly descendants of the same ancestor.
Then every other planet should have life as well. Do they? You can one moment sell how easy evolution is so that the odds are ignored because it makes evolution work. Then on the other hand sell how hard it is as the reason it took so long to evolve. So which is it? You cannot have opposites making a theory work just because you want it to be true.
No, why would every planet have life if every planets composition and condition is not like earth? It's obvious that the nature of earth's condition is conducive to life and that Jupiter's isn't. Now if you could find a planet in another solar system that has a similar star to our sun, with a planet at equal distance from their star as our earth is from our sun, and that also had a similar planetary composition and formation as our earth, but you found no life then you might have a case. Now if you found a billion of these planets and none had life, your case would even be stronger, but what if on every such planet you found some form of life, primitive life on some and advanced on others, what would you say then? Obviously right now there is no way to know what is happening outside our solar system, because everything we see beyond our solar system are events long gone and already over. But as far as we know, only earth like planets can sustain life, and since we cannot leave our solar system, we have no idea if there are any out there, but it is definitely a possibility.
Well you guys do imply that you have proven evolution to a true absolute fact, right? So instead of complaining when someone actually makes you own up to your claims of this, why don't you provide the information required to meet the status in which you exalt the theory to?
Now see, Ike, you can't generalize proponents of the theory of evolution into a category of "you guys" because not every one views the theory in the same light. It would be like me saying 'you guys imply that you have proven Islamic creationism to be a true absolute fact.' There are many creationists accounts that share one over arching principle, but none have proven to be dominant over the other, as far as truth is concerned; while all creationist believe a god(s) created life, not all are in the same boat as to what god(s) did it. Adherents to TOE share similar schisms, all will agree that life changes over time and does so naturally, but there is still much disagreement over precisely how it began and has happened. Evolution is not a true absolute fact, it is a working theory that best describes our evidence but is a long way from being scientific law.
You see your claims that evolution is a true fact are only warranted if you can provide the evidence. Complaining that it's impossible to provide what I ask proves that the claims are fraudulent and unwarranted, and basically a deception. Just like hiding the real numbers for DNA difference. What is wrong with providing actual math numbers that is basic math? Is it to decieve the dummies in highschool to believe a deception? Explain it to me.
There is plenty of evidence that suggests evolution is true, the only problem is you look at that evidence and interpret it differently, in favor of creation. And that's what it all comes down to, perspective. And when it comes to providing any concrete evidence from either position both are faced with limitations. For instance, creationist say show us macro-evolution, and we say we can't it takes too much time. We say show us god physically, and you say you can't it's not his will or something of that nature. You say prove abiogenesis, and we say we are trying but we have our work cut out for us. We say prove you can make a man from dirt, and you say only a god whom you will never witness performing such an act can do it. It seems we are in the same boat as far as proof is concerned.
If, as you say, the inability to provide the necessary evidence your opponents require to prove your assertions true is grounds for "prov[ing] that the claims are fraudulent and unwarranted, and basically a deception," then your position fares no better, my friend.
So now growing is evolution? And you guys say I don't know what evolution is?
Cute, but if by a small chance you are serious you missed my point by a long shot.
How are you going to fill the gaps of time? Are will the excuse that because of time we cannot test it, be used forever? You believe lightening started the process of life in abiogenesis right? By doing this you concede to a higher power even if it's a natural one. Now how many lightening strikes are there a year? The Earth has 100 lightning strikes per second - 3.6 trillion per year! ...
Now how many spawn off new life? ZERO. So what does that tell you?
No, time will not be used as a so-called 'excuse' forever, I'm sure in 2 million years TOE would have the empirical data you so desire, but it will obviously be too late for you.
Lightning is one possible variable needed, who knows there may be more than one abiogenesis process. I have only claimed that life happens naturally, and because lightning is part of nature I am not conceding to anything.
As far as your question to how many spawns of new life has there been, nobody, including you, knows at all. Because as far as I know, there is no active scientific program that can predict where lightning will strike all over the world at all times, and that are ready with a microscope to see if indeed new life has emerged. Unfortunately for your disbelief in abiogenesis, new life could be forming everyday and you would never know unless through some extraordinary coincidence and incredible luck you were looking at a place on earth through a microscope and lightning just happened to hit where you were looking and there were the right materials and conditions needed for abiogenesis to take place for you to witness. But just because it's improbable that any one will actually witness it in naturei,t does not make the actual process impossible.
But in each step you find something missing because everytime you try to duplicate the cake it does not work. After using every known ingredient in the world, you find that you cannot duplicate the process. But you want everyone to believe the cake exists. So what do you do? You find work arounds to fill the void about the cake. So that people will buy it that the cake actually exists, and there is a process for making and baking it.
I think you are confusing tentative inferences based on research and data to try and explain gaps in the theory as deceit and purposeful lies to confuse people. These 'work arounds' you speak of, seem to be referring to unproven hypothesis' that are suggested by scientist to be needed to strengthen TOE. These work arounds are not arbitrarily decided upon as a method to sell the theory, but are legitimate obstacles that scientist are having difficulties overcoming to fully understand the process, but regardless of the challenge they are researching fervently for consistent proof none the less.