A logical problem with intelligent design

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
21

I’ll take what you can give me. :slight_smile:
Of course, I would like to see something about from rock-to–life.
Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, “non biological origins”) is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter.

You’d be suprised what I know. You should provide me what ever you think is the best evidence for your case.

Let’s consider the big fish. All I see is a fish. I think it is debatable weather they are something between fins or legs. Perhaps they are fin legs. Maybe. Most certainly, it would be up for debate, weather this fish ever held a prior “form” or that it has ever evolved into something other.

Let me ask this. Does it have lungs, this fish?

And just one more observation, sorry I can’t resist.

[size=150]“Knew”…before they had any “findings”? [/size] This article is certainly very Socratic. :slight_smile: Is it this same intuitive knowledge that now allows them to know that they are fin/leg hybrids and that it was not the original and only form of this animal?

22

something_else:

I’m not all that sure about evolution or ID. To be completely honest, I don’t know if I’m smart enough, or motivated enough to learn enought about each to wade into this argument. However, I feel that I must chastise you on your rhetorical use of arguments around the concept of macroevolution.

Asking how a cell could evolve out of a rock is an argument from rhetoric and doesn’t add anything to the debate. Making a random link and then asking someone to defend it is no attack on their position. It would only be an attack if they had claimed that cells evolved from rocks. Which I didn’t hear anyone do.

Cheers,
gemty

23

It is in the text book and is the pivotal argument of macroevolution. It needs not to have been said among the 3 posters. Don’t think of it from rock–to–life. Think of it as the generation of life from non-living matter. It is in every high school biology text book that discuses evolution without exception.

I don’t ask people to post links. I ask people to provide supporting arguments and evidence. Is it so much to ask considering how extremely “scientific” macroevolution is and how much “evidence there is for it”? I just ask for one that I can’t defeat.

The link was not random, it was provided by them in support of their theory.

Actually to be frank, this isn’t my style of debate. I’ll change it in a few posts. I didn’t mean to get into it at all and would have set it up very differently. It may work out.

24

Uccisore,

We haven’t spoken for a while. We should change this.

My point is that if our intelligence isn’t intelligent enough to work out it’s origin for itself, without having to resort to things not in evidence such a Designer or God, then it’s origin isn’t such a mystery. We’re simply a bit thick. Of course, and you seem to be implying this, one could argue the exact opposite based on the same premises. This is very much ‘in the playpen’.

25

PK,

In other words you are simply asserting the contrary to one of the premises without arguing for it. Prove that nature is uncomplicated and random. Regarding the first, even evolutionists claim that nature is complicated, otherwise there’d be no ‘problem’ to ‘solve’. According to evolutionists this complexity comes from an essentially random process of natural selection taking place over billions of years. But nature is certainly complicated, if one takes for granted science per se. You are using an unscientific claim ‘nature is uncomplicated and randon’ to argue that ID is an unscientific theory. This is bizarre.

No, because the analogy is applicable to the whole universe. If ‘the whole universe and everything in it’ is irreducibly complex (yet to be demonstrated either way, which is one reason why I believe the evolution/ID/creationism/panspermia question is an open one) then we’re looking for a ‘universe and everything in it’-maker. The point is that the watch is a metaphor for the whole universe, including life. You’ve simply misunderstood the terms of the analogy here.

Aristotle essentially solved this with the notion of the unmoved mover. There’s no reason to suggest that the creator and the created are subject to the exact same conditions. Likewise if you believe that, say, life came from an alien race who put it on earth a few million years ago, one could argue that the aliens are not subject to the same physical/biological laws that we are and as such their origin is unproblematic. Likewise if you believe that this universe, including life in it, was ‘created’ by another universe (multiverse origins theory, not a popular one but by far the most ambitious, literarily speaking) then one could argue that the other universe isn’t subject to the same mathematical/gravitational laws as this one and so it’s origin isn’t a mystery. Or, which is slightly better, that the multiverse taken as a whole isn’t subject to such laws inasmuch as it has always existed but this universe in particular is subject to such laws.

Like I say, this logical problem was effectively solved by Aristotle, all I’m doing with the panspermia and multiverse theories is rephrasing the answer.

Now you are confusing ‘a Designer’ with ‘one particular sort of God’ and criticising the former on the basis of a problem with the latter. This is irrelevant.

This isn’t the argument. The argument, in your form, is

  1. A watch is complex
  2. Complex things necessarily have designers
  3. The universe is complex
    C) The universe has a designer

Try again…

It depends entirely on how one conceives of the designer/creator.

Chaos Theory does no such thing. Complexity Theory is probably what you meant to say. Chaos theory hasn’t a thing to do with evolution.

Do you want to hear the real killer? Evolution cannot even explain the existence of language, the most basic thing that it requires to even be a theory in the first place. This I find hilarious, apparently it’s an ‘airtight’ theory of how life came to be how it is today but it can’t even explain the thing that it uses to make that claim. Of course, science in general can’t explain anything about language…

All of your criticisms either misrepresent the analogy/argument or are flawed in themselves. The analogy stands.

26

A difficulty with the idea of intelligent design is in its implication that intelligence had to be designed by an intelligent designer. If intelligence had to be designed by an intelligent designer, then how did the intelligent designer get intelligence? This is why I find the idea of transcendent design much more useful than intelligent design when talking about the origin of nature. Intelligence is a natural phenomenon. God transcends nature.

27

As I said, the answer is to not make the creator subject to the rules of the created. Good post…

28

Just a quick follow up.

ID does not and never has said that everything in the universe is irreducibly complex.

If one can show just 1 thing that IS irreducibly complex, that is enough to support ID.

The heart is absolute evidence for ID.

29

SIATD

Certainly. We’ll begin here, this is one of those wonderful subjects where my opinions are strong and my knowledge is nill, so I’ll be happy to prattle on forever about it. Feel free to drop me a private line any time you want too!

 My personal views on evolution are that it's happened more or less as people who know better have told me it has. Evolution doesn't impact theology much to me, the people who argue against it don't seem credible, and I don't have any strong personal reasons to oppose it. I do have strong personal reasons to oppose young-earth creationists, because they make me look like an idiot for being a Christian, and I haven't made my mind up about the ID thing. 
 I very much like Plantinga's argument against naturalistic origins. I can't do it justice, but in a nutshell it says this: If atheistic naturalism is true, then our brains exist to help us with the four F's: Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing, and Reproducing. Our opinions on things radically abstracted* from that such as philosophy or our origins, cannot be trusted, since our brains were not at all developed with that sort of task 'in mind'. So someone who was an atheistic naturalist would be obligated to doubt his own capacity for reaching that conclusion.

*- Actually, he argues that we shouldn’t trust our beliefs about anything, even directly related to the four F’s.


Something_Else:
I have no interest in ‘proving macro-evolution’, because
1.) It’s a term ID folks made up, and I’m not convinced the goal-posts are firmly in place.
2.) I have no special desire to prove it true- hell, if the world turned out to be 6,000 years old like the real nutters say, it would honestly a load off.
3.) People with minority views shouldn’t charge in demanding everybody else to justify themselves. You are the odd-man out, it is your job to explain what the viable alternative to ‘macroevolution’ is.

30

PK

I need to address this too. It’s something Christians casually say, but atheists should know better than to hold them to.
Listen, there is no ‘nothing’. Before God created, He was not floating around in a dark void, or staring at a blank canvass. These are juvenile concepts of ‘nothinginess’ anyways. There was God, and there simply wasn’t anything else. So, there was no point in which there was ‘nothing’, from which reality sprang at God’s direction. If theism is true, then God’s power, His will and His creativity were all things which brought about the creation of physical reality, not ‘nothing’. Ex nihilo relates to human perception- there was a time when everything we can see, feel, or imagine seeing or feeling did not exist, and God made it such that this matter came about without reliance on causation from previous matter.

31

I shall discuss some points brought up by creationist.
As I have a hangover, I shall not get into to much depth.

First of all, one problem occurs with the very definition
of Macroevolution. We have to understand exactly what
it means before we can explain it. Now creationist tend
to use it differently then scientist do, but that is how they
make the argument work. So first of all, what is your
definition of macroevolution? Are you going with Filipchencko
and Dobzhansky’s idea of macroevolution? Answering this will
help my explanation of macroevolution to you.

Irreducible complexeity

Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning
that the removal of any one part of the system destroys
the system’s function. Irreducible complexity rules out the
possibility of a system having evolved , so it must be designed.
This is an “argument from incredulity”.

One of the things about Irreducible complexity
(hereafter referred to IC) is it is
poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it
is far from obvious what a “part” is. The parts could be
individual atoms, because they are the level of organisation
that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are
the smallest level that biochemist consider in their analysis.
Now quite clearly, the heart can lose atoms, in fact any biological
system can lose atoms and still be functional. So is this what
one means when referring to IC?
Now one interesting that occurs to me is that the evidence
of IC, does not, repeat does not, create by itself automatic
evidence of a deity. IC are about biological systems, evidence
of a biological system is not evidence of god. It is evidence
of a biological system, nothing more.

Kropotkin

32
  1. Actually ID folks did not make up macroevolution. Macroevolution was made up by Darwinians. This should be clear because the term “macroevolution” and “microevolution” are text book definitions written by Darwinian biologists. You can prove it to your self with a little effort. Go to the library and look into some high-school and university level biology text books. None of them were written by ID persons. For as long as I been in school, grade school, high school, university, macroevolution and microevolution were the term used by all biology teachers and text books. The term evolution is very general and it is only used in a laissez faire kind of way when accuracy does not matter or in settings among those that have not studied biology sufficiently to understand the difference.

You are correct, goal posts are not in place as I did not start this thread or this topic. Everything so far has been reactionary and not a formal debate.

  1. I don’t think the world is 6,000 years old and ID does not state that. So this is a mute issue, luckily.

  2. I disagree. Everyone should try to justify their statements or back them up with some logic, some argumentation, some evidence when asked to. I ask nothing I do not expect from myself.

You also assume that I set out to prove something in the form of formal debate in this thread…this being the validity of ID… You assume that it is not PK that set out to prove macroevolution to be a well established, scientifically verifiable fact and that I am not in fact playing the role of devils advocate cross examining evolution.

My goal? My goal was just to bring to question PK’s supposition that macroevolution is an established verifiable scientific fact and that there is nothing supportable about the ID theory.

It goes back to what was said earlier. If the audience is not willing, there is no point.

I am discussing, not debating.

What you are insinuating is that if someone tells me, “that is wrong”, as was said, I am not allowed to ask “why” and should not expect any explanation to be put worth what so ever. Some debate. It should be my goal to prove something or disprove something in a philosophy forum without asking questions?

The problem with not being able to ask questions is that the definition of every statement can be absolutely brought into question and arguments brought to obscurity through existential argumentation.

When one asks questions agreements can be reached… I like to call it, “points of agreement” or water marker/building blocks upon which we can progress.

This is the very basis of the Socratic dialogue. He asks questions because without questions the opposition is guaranteed to never agree to anything and use existential tittle-tattle to derail a “defeat” or any point which could serve as a supporting argument to the opposition. Would you say this is fair to say by your observations of debates on forums?

Any way you cut it, that is what it comes down to. I am to except any statement put worth by the “opposition” without any supporting argumentation/evidence. Is it enough that it is said, “that is wrong”, or “that is not so” without any further discussion?

Is it so much to ask for some scientific evidence for what is claimed to be a scientific fact? I ask for it because despite the talk that there is so much evidence, in fact it is just an unjustified assumption….no one in 150 years ever been able to provide any proof….and no one will be able to in this thread either….once they try……just like not one could and can show that 2+2 does not equal 4 in the other thread.

It could evolve into something…

PK, I am not a creationist. I am something else entirely. So when you refer to “creationist” I don’t know who you are referring to. Also the people you mentioned are not here to debate with you, so it is irrelevant what they think or state. If we would start a debate, I would certainly state my own views and provide clear definitions for you to avoid any misunderstandings.

33

Uccisore
I have no interest in ‘proving macro-evolution’, because
1.) It’s a term ID folks made up, and I’m not convinced the goal-posts are firmly in place.
2.) I have no special desire to prove it true- hell, if the world turned out to be 6,000 years old like the real nutters say, it would honestly a load off.
3.) People with minority views shouldn’t charge in demanding everybody else to justify themselves. You are the odd-man out, it is your job to explain what the viable alternative to ‘macroevolution’ is.
[/quote]

SE: 1) Actually ID folks did not make up macroevolution. Macroevolution was made up by Darwinians. This should be clear because the term “macroevolution” and “microevolution” are text book definitions written by Darwinian biologists. This is a fact. You can prove it to your self with a little effort. Go to the library and look into some high-school and university level biology text books. None of them were written by ID persons. For as long as I been in school, grade school, high school, university, “macroevolution” was the term used by all biology teachers and text books.

K: the terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined
by the Russian Entomologist Iurri Pilipchenko, in 1927. It was
brought to the english speaking biological community in 1937,
with the book by Dobzhansky’s 'Genetics and the origin of species"
The terms fell out of favor by 1940’s, when it was taken over
by scientist who believed in the Orthogenetic theories. That theory
states that evolution was correct, but the cells were being driven
to evolve by some sort of “mysterious inner force” which were
code words for god.

SE: "You are correct, goal posts are not in place as I did not start this thread or this topic. " Everything so far has been reactionary and not a formal debate.
2) I don’t think the world is 6,000 years old and ID does not state that. So this is a mute issue, luckily.
2) I disagree. Everyone should try to justify their statements or back them up with some logic, some argumentation, some evidence when asked to. I ask nothing I do not expect from myself.
You also assume that I set out to prove something in the form of formal debate in this thread…this being the validity of ID… You assume that it is not PK that set out to prove macroevolution to be a well established, scientifically verifiable fact and that I am not in fact playing the role of devils advocate cross examining evolution.

K: the problem is you cannot even explain the difference between
macroevolution and microevolution. Do that and we can begin.

SE: My goal? My goal was just to bring to question PK’s supposition that macroevolution is an established verifiable scientific fact and that there is nothing supportable about the ID theory.
It goes back to what was said earlier. If the audience is not willing, there is no point.
I am discussing, not debating.
What you are insinuating is that if someone tells me, “that is wrong”, as was said, I am not allowed to ask “why” and should not expect any explanation to be put worth what so ever. Some debate. It should be my goal to prove something or disprove something in a philosophy forum without asking questions?
Any way you cut it, that is what it comes down to. I am to except any statement put worth by the “opposition” without any supporting argumentation/evidence. Is it enough that it is said, “that is wrong”, or “that is not so” without any further discussion?
Is it so much to ask for some scientific evidence for what is claimed to be a scientific fact? I ask for it because despite the talk that there is so much evidence, in fact it is just an unjustified assumption….no one in 150 years ever been able to provide any proof….and no one will be able to in this thread either….once they try……just like not one could and can show that 2+2 does not equal 4 in the other thread.
It could evolve into something…

K: you exist as a negative, but you have not proven a positive.
You say “prove that this exist” You have not said “ID is correct
because…” It is easy to let other people do your work for you.
How about creating an argument in support of something, instead
of, “disprove this”. If you actually stood for something, instead
of opposing something, you might actually create discussion.

Kropotkin

34

I think you should re-read my last post, very carefully. I do not mean this as an insult, but I want things to be clear because there seems to be a very big misunderstanding and you are trying to label me…to put me in a box. You already referred to me as a"creationist"…and now you make the insinuation that I stand for “something”.

In fact, I do not stand for what you believe I stand for. I have clearly stated this and made my motives clear.

Also, you should apply your statements to your self not just force them on me.

I have the duty to prove ID to you? Why don’t you prove macroevolution to me?

By the way en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
They do not support your statements about the origins of the term. To be frank it doesn’t matter. The point is that all university text books use it… unless something changed in the last few years. I’ve been out of university for 3 years now.

You would like me define it for you? I thought about scanning a university text book for you and posting here but I figured that if you want to twist this, we may as well not start.

[size=150]Macroevolution: [/size]
All processes that account for [non–life to life]. Since rocks do not compete…it is clearly not the same process as natural selection.

Also, all the processes that account for “types” of organisms to evolve into other “types”.

Now you will like for me to define “type”. I can’t give you an exact definition but can readily supply you with examples. Horses (all animals that look like horses), Cats (all animals that look like cats), trees (all plants that look like trees), I would say that bananas and apples are two different kinds… in short… common sense. Another example, I would say that whales and alligators (reptilians) are two different types. I would also say that reptilians and birds are two different kinds.

Microevolution:
I would say that microevolution are the processes that account for differentiation among you and me, my cat and your cat, and perhaps the Alaskan rabbit and the Desert Cottontail rabbit.

I would define theology to be the processes that account for the difference between the Eastern Cottontail rabbit and the Easter rabbit.

35

something_else:I think you should re-read my last post. " Very carefully, I do not mean this as an insult, but I want things to be clear because there seems to be a very big misunderstanding and you are trying to label me…to put me in a box. You already referred to me as a"creationist"…and now you make the insinuation that I stand for “something”.
In fact, I do not stand for what you believe I stand for. I have clearly stated this and made my motives clear.

K: We will see.

I have the duty to prove ID to you? Why don’t you prove macroevolution to me?
By the way en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
They do not support your statements about the origins of the term. To be frank it doesn’t matter. The point is that all university text books use it… unless something changed in the last few years. I’ve been out of university for 3 years now.

K: Fortunately, wikipedia is not the final resource, is it?

SE: You would like me define it for you? I thought about scanning a university text book for you and posting here but I figured that if you want to twist this, we may as well not start.

K: I have twisted nothing.

Macroevolution:
All processes that account for [non–life to life] and the processes that account for “types” of organisms to evolve into other “types”.
Now you will like for me to define “type”. I can’t give you an exact definition but can readily supply you with examples. Horses (all animals that look like horses), Cats (all animals that look like cats), trees (all plants that look like trees), I would say that bananas and apples are two different kinds… in short… common sense. Another example, I would say that whales and alligators (reptilians) are two different types.

K: OK, now we have something to work with.

SE: I would say that microevolution are the processes that account for differentiation among you and me, my cat and your cat, and perhaps the Alaskan rabbit and the Desert Cottontail rabbit.

K: ok, there is no real difference between Micro- and
macroevolution. The difference between any two species
is speciation. By definition, once organisms cannot interbreed,
they are different species. That can be accounted for by simple
evolution. The act of evolution is one of genetic changes that
allows one to adapt to a new environment. You are not a carbon
copy of your parents. You have changes in you, that make
you different from your parents. That is evolution 101.
You get a band of wolves who live happily in a forest somewhere.
One day due to a fire, the wolves flee the forest. They reach
a ravine or canyon, half the wolves go left, half go right.
Now the wolves were well suited for the forest, but here
is different. The wolves going left wind up in a desert.
The wolves going right wind up on a cold, windy, mountain
top of 12,000 feet. The idea is those wolves who have shorter
hair or can handle heat better or can go without water longer,
have a better chance, (note the word better, evolution is about
probabilities and chance, not certainties and not better or improve)
Those wolves who can handle the heat better have a better
chance of surviving the heat of the desert. The wolves who
for, whatever reason, better adapt to the desert are the ones
who are more likely to survive and breed. In that act of breeding,
they are more likely to pass one their genetic traits that allow them
to survive the desert better. So the next generation of wolves,
(assuming there is one, no guarantees) are better suited to
survive the desert, shorter hair or better adapting the heat or
whatever allows them to adapt to the heat.
The wolves who have gone to the mountain, if they can
adapt, say the longer fur ones survive, those ones are more
likely to survive and thus more likely to breed.
the next generation of wolves on the mountain, (again assuming)
should have longer fur, which allows them to better survive the wind
and cold of the mountain top. Those are simple acts of evolution
which allows the wolves to survive their respective climates or
environments. The traits that better allow them to survive
a certain environments get passed on because those animals
have a better chance of survival, which means they have
a better chance of breeding. that is evolution. Now when the
two bands of wolves have been apart long enough, and if
they are unable to interbreed, Speciation, they become
two different species. Thus the normal act of evolution,
becomes your creator of different types. Your so called
macroevolution is really microevolution carried on for a while.

SE: I would define theology to be the processes that account for the difference between the Eastern Cottontail rabbit and the Easter rabbit."

K: and I do not accept theology.

36

I agree with “all” that, as I’ve stated from the very beginning.

2 Points:
One, your wolves in the story are still wolves at the end of the story. They started as wolves and ended as wolves. What a surprise. hahaha

Second, regarding speciation, I accept that the term “species” is defined in biology precisely as you have stated. So, again we agree. How ever, I fail to see what this has to do with me.

37

I want to defend the wikipedia entry:

Okay, speciation, not abiogenesis. Get it?

Doesn’t strike me as differing all that much with PK’s description:

Same thing, slightly different interpretation, slightly different spelling.

If you want to go further to Lamark and Mendel, you’ve got a problem. Neither of them were Darwinists. :laughing:

Sorry, I’ve got one more nitpick:

Well, if you want to quibble with a popular science writer for being sloppy, I won’t argue. How about something like the current evolutionary model predicts a common ancestor for lobe fin fishes and the first amphibians? If the model is correct, we should find transitional species.

We found them. If we had found something completely different, then the model would have to be changed.

Or something like that.

At any rate, you don’t seem to have any problems with evolutionary mechanisms, nor do you seem to have any problems with common ancestors, I think. Would you accept a common ancestor for say a rat and a squirrel?

So it comes down to two points (I’m guessing here, please correct me if I’m off base):

  1. Universal common descent

  2. abiogenesis

Yes?

38

K:
You get a band of wolves who live happily in a forest somewhere.
One day due to a fire, the wolves flee the forest. They reach
a ravine or canyon, half the wolves go left, half go right.
Now the wolves were well suited for the forest, but here
is different. The wolves going left wind up in a desert.
The wolves going right wind up on a cold, windy, mountain
top of 12,000 feet. The idea is those wolves who have shorter
hair or can handle heat better or can go without water longer,
have a better chance, (note the word better, evolution is about
probabilities and chance, not certainties and not better or improve)
Those wolves who can handle the heat better have a better
chance of surviving the heat of the desert. The wolves who
for, whatever reason, better adapt to the desert are the ones
who are more likely to survive and breed. In that act of breeding,
they are more likely to pass one their genetic traits that allow them
to survive the desert better. So the next generation of wolves,
(assuming there is one, no guarantees) are better suited to
survive the desert, shorter hair or better adapting the heat or
whatever allows them to adapt to the heat.
The wolves who have gone to the mountain, if they can
adapt, say the longer fur ones survive, those ones are more
likely to survive and thus more likely to breed.
the next generation of wolves on the mountain, (again assuming)
should have longer fur, which allows them to better survive the wind
and cold of the mountain top. Those are simple acts of evolution
which allows the wolves to survive their respective climates or
environments. The traits that better allow them to survive
a certain environments get passed on because those animals
have a better chance of survival, which means they have
a better chance of breeding."

SE: “I agree with “all” that, as I’ve stated from the very beginning.
2 Points:”
One, your wolves in the story are still wolves at the end of the story. They started as wolves and ended as wolves. What a surprise. hahaha
Second, regarding speciation, I accept that the term “species” is defined in biology precisely as you have stated. So, again we agree. How ever, I fail to see what this has to do with me."

K: It does not surprise me that you didn’t get what it had to do with you.
Did you know that at one point in time, there were three hominid
species on the earth at the same time. The changes I am referring to,
has taken millions of years to accomplish. As species branch off,
(no longer to interbreed) they evolve into new species. Yes, once
the wolves are no longer able to interbreed, they become two species,
whereas only one existed before. You exist because of
various branching of mammals over millions of years. And
yes, there are transitional fossils that show us this. Take the wolves
story and put monkeys there and you get humans, of course
after millions of years. That is what it has to do with you.
You are the product of millions of years of monkeys branching
off, no longer able to interbreed, and then as some point,
you exist.

Kropotkin

39

No what are you talking about? I never talked about species. Is there some view you would like to state regarding species?

I have no idea what you are trying to say or prove or what you have a problem with. If you don’t like my statements, attack them… don’t debate with some phantom from some other site, time or universe…they are not here.

I have told you clearly and above all…very simply by what I mean by “macroevolution”. I think you are trying to admit that evolution can not account for the origins of life…is that it? That it can only account for wolves having hair lengths that are marginally different?

Would you like to follow up on KP’s post?

Also I have asked you a question regarding your last “evidence”/discovery…the fish.

40

something_else:
“I have told you clearly and above all…very simply by what I mean by “macroevolution”. I think you are trying to admit that evolution can not account for the origins of life…is that it? That it can only account for wolves having hair lengths that are marginally different?”

K: What does the origins of life have to do with anything?
It matters not how life began, it only matter that life is,
and how we got from point a to point b. It is a conservative
estimate that life had over 2 billion years to come into being.
A chemical reaction at some point could have sparked life
or perhaps a meteor landed on earth with some form
of life from outer space. Does it really matter?
I think not.

Kropotkin