I’m signing off this one here and now. Mark

But that is just a really chancy way to do it. So how can he increase the odds? MORE 1 litre flasks, more agitation, more remixing, and more time!

Think of that primitive earth, with its much closer moon and its one thousand foot tides, massive lighting storms and bombardments of cosmic rays, mixing and remixing those (based on today’s figures) 1,386,000,000,000,000 1 litre flasks, and then doing so continuously for somewhere close to 1 billion years.

That a self replicating organic molecule popped up does not seem so surprising then. Molecules which branched off in a ‘non-self-replicating’ direction did not survive….. etc…

And if that is not a long enough experiment, you can also consider the possibility that just such and experiment was earlier conducted on another world somewhere, and the result was then delivered to the ‘primitive earth lab’ by an icy comet, so continuing the process.

I’m sorry, but to me “intelligent design” explains nothing. It (to me) is just a whimsy, plucked out of thin air.

Not a whiff of explanation of process, no mechanism or reason. And then the question is; who or what (and how was it done?) created the intelligent designer? Was evolution (intelligently controlled of course) involved there too?

My issue with the theory is that its based on the idea of ‘random’ mutation. For me that is where the flaw is. I have seen good evidence recently suggesting there is more to it than that… mutations getting a helping hand of some kind. It seems there is an intelligence or pattern at work subtly behind the scenes. There also seem to be noteable ‘jumps’ in the evolution of species…an idea also indicated by fossil records. I am not religious but i am not closed minded enough to ignore these findings either. We dont have the full picture yet, must keep investigating with open minds… What is, is.

Sorry to see the reply area has become a massive deviation from the central point. Why is it that all Evolutionists tout themselves on being so “open-minded” yet automatically shoot down everything that dares to present something that conflicts even slightly with their peer reviewed journals? The scientific community has, in effect, become hypocritical trying to stamp out something it supposedly doesn’t even believe in…..funny how that works.

Christians, of course, need to be less afraid of change as well. But I don’t see the point on stating the obvious.

Bottom line: This is just another thing people use to divide each-other and posture against each-other. There will always be flaws to every school of thought. Science included. Science can explain the how but not the why, Religion can explain the why but not the how….. And when in the hands of the likes of most it just turns into something else to throw back at each-other.

Evolution contains both theories and facts. It is a scientifically proven fact that life arose through common descent and organic evolution. There are multiple theories about how, exactly, this occurs.

No one believes there was a 1 protein cell, so that’s a straw man. This is a common creationist fallacy, that you can simplistically reverse-extrapolate from the complex to the simple. So 200 years ago people must have been dragging half cars around behind horses.

The complex biochemistry of life was likely pretty far along before being wrapped in lipid bilayers.

You then conflate the origin of the universe with evolutionary theory – two different things. But in any case, cosmologists do not propose that something came from nothing. If you are interested, you should read more about it.

Ignoring your emotional ad hominem and irrelevant arguments,
to answer your question at the end.

Evolution does not predict or require that animals have unformed lumps as an intermediary step. That is a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

Structures evolve from other structures that were functional – and they remain functional throughout an evolutionary change.

Vertebrate wings evolved from forelimbs – not unformed lumps. Proto feathers likely functioned as insulation. Proto wings for slowing descent, or gliding. Each step of the way the forelimb was completely functional.

If you are going to disagree with the 99% of scientists who accept evolution, I recommend that you attempt to understand what those scientists actually say.