[Reach]

Originally Posted by 1961casey

I have been brought to task on the distinction between nucleic acids versus amino acids and on the probablilities used to estimate the likelihood of its spontaneous creation. However, I had used it as a basic example on a molecular level of the difficulty of excepting chance as a driving force for evolution. Even if the odds were ridiculous, what are the odds for any other steps to occur? Any estimation of any degree would very quickly spin into an astronomical number that would preclude the possibility of chance as a driving force for the creation of life.

In order to except evolution as a reasonable theory for the creation of life it would require a dogmatic and close minded view of the world; a situation untenable for an open-minded scientist.

An example that failed, given it was not at all relevant.

Evolution isn't about chance at all, so we don't have to accept chance as a driving force for evolution...!

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at at the end of your post. Are you trying to say that, for example, there are a ridiculous amount of other ways things could have happened? If so, this is entirely irrelevant. There still has to be some outcome of this process, and we are that outcome. Just because it could have happened any number of different ways is meaningless, aside from the fact that this tells us life on other planets could be vastly different than it is here...


Also, with respect to the post about adam...if there were in fact only 2 humans that went on to birth everyone else, our species would quickly inbreed with everyone else in the species and we wouldn't be here. It's simply not possible.

I think you have vastly misunderstood the point of what was said on national geographic (which was probably about a common ancestor of all species on earth).