They have. Think of Miller for one.
Miller is definitely
an example. And there are more specific examples. The point is that they are hardly exhaustive of the potential ranges of chemicals/environmental conditions/and time required for products to form.
Thus appealing to the failed experiments do not get us closer to knowing what the actual probabilities of formation are, other than they are not high under the few conditions tested.
Since the laws of chemistry are against chance formation of these complex molecules that make us up, what are the other possibilities, perhaps design by something? How credible would we be to consider this as an option? I mean it certainly works for weed eaters and tables.
But the laws of chemistry are NOT against the chance formation of these complex molecules. They are against the chance formation UNDER SPECIFIC KNOWN conditions. The probabilities are not known given many volumes of conditions.
While someone appearing and creating these things is a possibility, there are still unexhausted avenues of formation from natural mechanisms. Thus jumping to the more complex answer is a bit premature.
As far as weed eaters and tables go, unlike life they do not reproduce themselves, and they both have functions beyond themselves. Living things reproduce and change over generations (even if you don't believe in speciation I assume you recognize this fact), and are useful for themeselves and have no inherent function for someone else.
I didn't give any experiments that didn't work. They worked just fine and I was just sharing the results of them with you.
This is a tad disengenuous don't you think? The experiments may have worked as experimentd, but what they did not work as is environments where probability of formation were heightened. That is what we were discussing after all.
Darwinian magic: Elephants magically 'poof' out of amoebas; ape-like critters start giving birth to men in violation of the species definitions in science; pakicetus carves his legs into flippers, poofs up to a giant 100 times as big as he was, bellies off into the ocean and morphs into a whale; reptiloid therapsids supernaturally shove their jaw-bones up into their ears and shoot etherally into mammals.
Well I don't know anyone advocating that explanation except for you. Especially as you have used magic within the definition of magic. What do you mean by magic?
I mean this seems all very strange that you'd keep using "magic" and "supernatural" in any of your descriptions as if it is something that Darwin appealed to, or that evolutionary theory espouses.
Designer magic: I do understand that some may view quantum mechanics as magic, but I can assure you it is really science.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting some quantum mechanical manifestation is responsible for abiogenesis and speciation?
Occam shaves for my side, I'm afraid. Begin with an amoeba, end at a man (if you like), use the process described above in the Darwinian magic paragraph, spell out those poofs a couple of billion times as we consider all the speciations it would have taken to get men from amoebas. A rather complicated scenario, don't you think?
Yeah that would be complicated, but what has that got to do with evolutionary theory? Here's what I learned about evo theory:
1) We can see that living organisms change during reproduction from one generation to the next,
2) Certain conditions can affect the ability for members of a generation to breed and so have characteristics pass to the next generation,
3) There does not appear to be any barrier for change in an entire population given time and consistent conditions,
4) We see fossil evidence of previous life starting as simple and moving to more complexity with time,
5) We have no evidence of an entity which lived back then directly interfering with the natural reproductive cycles.
Given those facts, it is rather simple to argue that the same generational cycles we see today, produced the speciation which we have seen over time, rather than positing that an unknown entity we have no evidence of nor explanation for having designed each species and thus intentionally create the speciation.
Which is simpler, all of that, or that a designer designed man pretty much as he is today?
Yes, your strawman is more complex than the oversimplified version of your own theory and thus Occam would pick that. However as I noted above, Occam would accept the evolutionary theory over one of postulated designer creating unknown numbers of designs.
Although I would have to ask, even in your simplified version, why the designer created so many manlike things, and how you can tell the difference between a manlike thing he created which did become us, and a manlike thing he created which didn't?
If this is credible you are going to have to come up with some scenarios that could form a homochiral protein from amino acids. If you can't, it's just a daydream.
No, its an unknown. Before they showed that urea could be produced through nonbiological means it was believed that only living bodies could produce it. That is a rather commonly taught example in chemistry, cautioning chemists from making the mistake that unknown mechanism means impossible mechanism.
And of course what this means is that there is more work to be done before drawing any conclusions.
On the flipside perhaps you can come up with a scenario regarding the formation of your designer, as well as its ability to interact with stages of life across billions of years and over large geographic areas without leaving a trace beyond the pristine appearance of a new life form.
La Chateliers principle is a law of chemistry that forbids the type of reactions we were discussing. What do you think could have happened in nature to overcome both this principle and the second law of thermodynamics?
Okay, I have absolutely no idea how what you just said actually impacts what I just said. You threw in a name and a thermodynamic law, and simply asserted they go against the reactions I was talking about... how and why? Actually unpack your argument.
As far as I can tell you simple stated two things which control reactions, and asserted they stand against an as yet unknown reaction from occuring.
And again, your reference to the 2nd law is troublesome to me. That applies to closed systems. In the specific case I mentioned the sun and earth would have been pouring in energy, which could be absorbed and stored within chemical cycles.
Well, if you want to consider probability math as a model, I suppose you can. We just use the term differently.
Probability calculation requires a model, right? How else can you calculate odds unless you have a model of how X functions?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2