Not with any degree of accuracy. We only know that it happened at least once (assuming we leave out supernatural explanations).
What physical evidence is there of this intelligent creator?
We know at least once even if we DON’T leave out supernatural explanations.
But the question was about life spontaneously arising, not arising due to some supernatural cause.
Quoted for emphasis. How life began on this planet and how it changed once it existed are two completely different and unrelated topics.
Well, ok, but the OP seems to be actually suggesting that the odds against life appearing spontaneously is so low that a “creator” makes sense. We both agree though, that there is not enough information to quote odds regardless of the underlying circumstances of the creation of life.
And as I said earlier, the origin of life is not related to the theory of evolution, so I suggest continued discussion of it is a dead end as far as the OP’s original question.
Has no one brought up the odds of a creator arising existing without antecedent?
Could you please give us an example of what you mean by this? I understand Creationists frequently give eyes as examples of complex features which evolution can’t account for, but I’ve read that there is, in fact, evidence of intermediate steps. Indeed, while I accept evolutionary theory (note that I consider saying “I believe in evolution” to be inaccurate), I doubt what I would regard as a “complex new feature” would appear spontaneously as a genetic mutation. Instead, I would expect a series of changes to take place over time resulting in a complex feature.
If you want an example of a genetic mutation appearing and becoming part of a population, I can give you three examples.
First, of course, there are Manchester’s Famous Moths. To give you a quick summary, there’s a type of moth which is frequently found in Manchester, England. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, these moths were light colored. As the Industrial Revolution took place and more coal was burned, these moths became dark colored. As England took steps to control air pollution, light colored moths became more prevalent. The linked article and other Dopers can explain things better than I did.
If you’d like an example of evolution assisted by outside intervention, how about Sphinx cats? This breed came about when a naturally hairless kitten was born. It was bred to other cats. The gene bred true and now Sphinx cats are a recognized breed.
OK, fine. I know what Dopers are like. Even in GD we’re allowed to have an appreciation for the cute and cuddly.
That’s what they’d like you to believe.
(Yes, it’s a cheezburger page; don’t click if you don’t want that much cute and cuddly.)
You’re the first. Go nuts!
Yes, that’s a point the OP should consider if he’s concerned about probabilities. Frankly, though, I find the idea of postulated a creator (or intelligent agent who tinkers with genes) to be a cop out. That’s not how science is done. You don’t throw your hands up proclaiming you can’t understand something and then just say “it must be by design”. If you want to good science and postulate some sort of intelligent agent, then give me some actual evidence of this agent. Tell me something about what it is and how it does what it does.
Madman! Logic is not allowed in creationist arguments!
“An intelligent creator”? What, like space aliens came and fiddled with our DNA?
If complex structures can only arise through design, who designed the space aliens?
Actually, the madmen can be found right across the table.
You may notice them by their smug looks,(oblivious to the simple truth that, from a scientific perspective they are no more able to prove the non-existence of God than the theist who insists on his existence) and the absence of irony.
Present company, included.
Do I have to read the entire thread, the raindog or could you perhaps link me to a post that demonstrates that they are considering that* the topic at hand?
*that = Resolved: the non-existence of God is provable, using the scientific method.
Actually, the smug looks are are reaction to the flailing demands that science disprove god, when science is in fact still waiting for a reason to even bother looking at the whole issue in the first place. Until some evidence of god’s existence is presented, science has nothing to do with the matter, and the ‘existence of god’ is kept up on the shelf with ‘the existence of santa claus’ and ‘the existence of invisible unicorns’ until it is needed. The ball is, and always has been, in your court.
No one here is trying to prove the non-existence of God. It’s just that the God hypothesis in the context of this topic is an unnecessary level of complexity. It explains nothing.
Hey, it’s the standard playbook! Back on familiar ground at last.
Anybody want to search up one of the dozens of threads where we danced to this tune? I’m tired and going to bed.
Why not the eye. Or blood clotting. Or the bombadier beetle. Or anything else out of the Behe/ICR/Gish catalogue of stuff that’s been dealt with before?
Silly creationists, we don’t need to prove that God exists any more than the non-creationists (note: I intentionally did not use the term evolutionists or athiests) need to prove that He doesn’t. Quite simply, God is irrelavent in the light of empiricle study.
No valid scientific theory I have ever heard of relies on His intervention to reach a provable conclusion and I don’t believe any ever will.
For Example:
An arguement could be made that this is covered in Genesis around the time of the Tower of Babel, or even in Genisis chapters 1 and 2 where God created man and woman on the sixth “day” and then clearly created Adam and Eve sometime after the seventh “day”. These “Sixth Day” humans could have been as unaware as Adam before his “enlightenment”, more animal-like than man-like. Around 58K-BC this self awareness somehow developed. Did God do it?
Does that really matter?
It stands as a rough milestone on the development and evolution of man one way or the other. The evidence of God would not change the approach to studying the event and how it came to be.