Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's theory.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Bakar:

JB,

The law of entropy

holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganized state.

Bakar, I dnt know or heard about that Yahya b4 today , but if you atleast are familiar with phycics, you´d laugh at your source´s idiocy to cut short and Falsify Darwin´s theory

with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Harsh i may sound but his materialization on the The Second Law of Thermodynamics as a disprove to Darwin´s theory is way too ridiculous.

 

First , The Second Law of Thermodynamics is based on human experience

What it simply says is :

Hot frying pans cool down when taken off the stove

and ofcourse your example Iron rusts (oxidizes) in the air

why?

 

becouse

Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so.

 

not becouse

Evolution is wrong and there is start and finish for mother earth becouse it´ll be wrapped as a carpet.

 

As you can see it is the spreading of the energy that causes the coolness of the frying pans.

 

entropy = the measurement of the spontaneous dispersal of energy:

how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes — at a specific temperature.

 

Now how on earth can that measurement falsify the Evolution theory?

it goes without saying that it least helps creationisim just becouse energy is spreadable.

 

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

Some have a nack of reducing serious matters into trivialities.

i coulden´t agree more !!

[Bakar]

SB says:

 

We see this lack of scientific knowledge evinced in this proposterous claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution theory. He failed to mention in his article that the 2nd Law applies ONLY under specific condition -- closed systems. As the 2n Law states: the entropy or disorder in a CLOSED system will increase. However, the Earth, where evolution took place, is not a closed system. It gets energy from the sun.

 

 

 

 

What I have gathered from your argument is this: for such life form to take place, there must be some sort of energy—sun. According to my understanding, the author acknowledges the implication associated with both system (closed and open system), whilst provides a counter argument to what evolutionist scientists postulated. For instance, as you stated, that 2nd Law can only be applicable to closed system. The author acknowledges the fact that sun is the sole energy for animate objects; and hence without it there wouldn’t have been as such, as you put it. It is my conjecture that you deliberately mistreated the premise that every animate object needs some sort of energy conversion mechanism which is Compatible with their physical and chemical properties.

 

Read these paragraphs and provide scientific evidence stating erronousness of his logical conclusion.

 

 

An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.

 

However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol .

 

The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts

 

 

JB and SB

 

I am yet to see any proof or refutation in direct relation to this topic. On the contrary, the whole discussion resorted to discrediting intellectual figures such Yahya, who invested all his time in refuting and explaining logical shallowness and distortion of claiming that all life evolves from simple structure. Again I am asking you: How can a scientist believe aformentioned process takes place without any relation to the Law of Universe? The underpinning of science is that everything has a cause, yet how can an act of genuinely free will be caused? Likewise, how can any chance event, i.e. one that is uncaused? When confronted with these dilemmas, natural scientists twist and turn with arguments that virtually always amount to denial of the phenomena of free will and chance.

 

 

Salamatiin

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Bakar:

JB and SB

I am yet to see any proof or refutation in direct relation to this topic. On the contrary, the whole discussion resorted to discrediting intellectual figures such Yahya, who invested all his time in refuting and explaining logical shallowness and distortion of claiming that all life evolves from simple structure. Again I am asking you:

How can a scientist believe aformentioned process takes place without any relation to the Law of Universe?

The underpinning of science is that everything has a cause, yet how can an act of genuinely free will be caused? Likewise, how can any chance event, i.e. one that is uncaused

?

When confronted with these dilemmas, natural scientists twist and turn with arguments that virtually always amount to denial of the phenomena of free will and chance. z/font>

Salamatiin

Dear Bakar !!

First, Mr"intellectual" Yahya is your source ,therefore we´ve to verify|evaluate his(your)assumptions regrding the 2nd law , unless you´re asking us to swollow it and shut up.

 

The 2nd law or as it is know sometimes (the mother of all Murphy's Laws)which your source uses as a contradicting prove against evolution per se will neither make you a die-hard scientist|naturalist or a die-hard creationist|religious.

The fact of the matter is becouse of the 2nd law about the direction of energy flow life is possible and weird enough becouse of the 2nd law life is always under constant threat.

 

Having said that, the question why life and every living(non-living)thing is under contant threat of disorder or(decaying) is not fairly, scientifically adressed by your source and his creationistic approch where we´re told that we´ve to die (things have to decay)becouse we must go through God´s Exams of what we´ve done during our lifetime and how faithful we were to our him/her.

but there a possibility that is the case.

 

Where science and physics tell us that the 2nd law is purely enegery-oriented the more localized the longer a thing survives the more spread the less a thing survives.

Every organic chemical of the 30,000 or more different kinds in our bodies that are synthesized by nonspontaneous reactions within us is metastable. All are only kept from instant oxidation in air by activation energies. (The loss or even the radical decrease of just a few essential chemicals could mean death for us.).

 

Living creatures are essentially energy processing systems that cannot function unless a multitude of "molecular machines", biochemical cycles, operate synchronically in using energy to oppose second law predictions. All of the thousands of biochemical systems that run our bodies are maintained and regulated by feedback subsystems, many composed of complex substances.

 

Now in terms of what we can and can´t know the latter seems appealing unless some of us enjoy a somehow higher and advanced hman senses:D

 

What we want to beleive is a matter of our choice which is trivial i.e scientifically un intresting.

 

If you favor your source´s meterialization on the 2nd law becouse the disorder in the enegry flow is predecided and coded by an Intelligent designer without further presentation of how it might be so then so be it , maybe some of us are celestial, who knows ,

but don´t tell us that scientists |naturalists twist and turn the truth , it is the other way around .

science and Scientists present facts and realities and leave it for the taking ,yes there is chance and a will,Scientists never deny that, but becouse there is a chance an assumption is not necessarily true, and there seems to be where the it itches.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by juba:

quote:Originally posted by Socod_badne:

]Evolution is a FACT as supported by experimental data and evidences collected. However, evolution is not certainty. .

how can it be a fact but at the same time an uncertainty? that sounds a little contradictive to me.

Uncertain was poor choice of a word, I meant to say not provable. It is a fact because we can demonstrate it in labs. It is a fact because we see it taking place in nature. But we can't say that Evolution Theory is 100% right since all science theories are provisional. Tomorrow may surface new evidence that will either correct or stregnthen old theories. This is the way science works. Science is progressive and self-correcting.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Bakar:

Read these paragraphs and provide scientific evidence stating erronousness of his logical conclusion.

 

Ok.

 

Yahya says:

The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional.

.

 

He is wrong here. Entropy is NOT always disorder. This is a point often not well understood. Even I had alot of difficulty fully understanding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

The truth is entropy can sometimes correlate with disorder. As entropy of closed system increases, disorder increases. However, in other occasions order of closed system increases as entropy increases. Infact, entropy can be used to increase order of a system. Lastly, 2nd Law allows increase in order in one place to be offset by decrease in another place within the system.

 

The creationists notion that order can not come about as it contradicts second law is bogus. There many things in this world that don't conform with second law and seem to contradict it. But if understood in their proper context, they wouldn't seem to contradict 2nd law. I'm writting words now, condensing disorderly words into structured sentences ensembling order. How is this possible given what the 2nd Law says?

 

The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts

 

And how does this show evolution is not possible :confused:

 

 

I am yet to see any proof or refutation in direct relation to this topic. On the contrary, the whole discussion resorted to discrediting intellectual figures such Yahya, who invested all his time in refuting and explaining logical shallowness and distortion of claiming that all life evolves from simple structure.

 

Yahya (not his real name btw) is not a scientist. That is not my biggest problem with him. It's that he is disingenuous and uses dishonesty to make his case. He purposefully twists other ppl's words to agree with his claims. He sputters scientific theories/principles he doesn't fully understand.

 

With regard to not refuting what he said, I disagree. I believe I have. I explained why the second law doesn't discredit evolution being a fact of life. I wrote more in this post about the subject. Hope that explains things better.

 

Again I am asking you: How can a scientist believe aformentioned process takes place without any relation to the Law of Universe?

 

But scientists DON'T believe in processes that don't conform with universal laws. They wouldn't becuz such process is not demonstrable or agreeable with observed facts.

[Bakar]

Mr. JB

 

Now in terms of what we can and can´t know the latter seems appealing unless some of us enjoy a somehow higher and advanced hman senses:D

What we want to beleive is a matter of our choice which is trivial i.e scientifically un intresting

 

First, I am not physicist, nor am I depicting myself as pseudo-intellectual. However, there are those who use paradoxically the term "Science" while rejecting or refuting creationsim on the basis that it is bereft of "scientific proof". It is human propensity to conceptualize differently and form categories for which they specify their experience. Here I will take the term science as an example, and how some people use its definition for various reasons. For example, we have been witnessing how some folks in this thread attempted to bring evolutionism under banner of pure scientific knowledge. In other word, they say that theory of evolution holds scientific evidence, meaning that it can’t be proven to be otherwise. According to my understanding, when such thing is said to be a "fact" or true, the implication is that we can not think of any thing opposite; and hence everthing else is opionion.

 

Can we say evolution is science? Because, according to definition of the word "science", subject of the origin of life and the universe is outside the scope of human observation and, therefore, does not technically come under the definition of science per se. Since no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by chance or evolution.

 

Similarly, no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by design or creation. The later does not need scientific proof. Why? This is where faith and human reasoning provide answers to these question: Where do we come from? Where are we going? Who are we? What is our purpose?

 

So if evolution is neither science nor faith, then what is it? If my memory serves me well, you, yoursefl, are tentative to say the true defintion of science fits theory of revolution. In fact I posed a similar question in my first post. Since an intelligent power was behind the origin of life and the universe, scientific evidence from genetics, biogenesis, thermodynamics, information theory, laws of probability, and other areas of science better support faith in creation than chance or evolution.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Bakar:

Mr. JB

 

First, I am not physicist, nor am I depicting myself as pseudo-intellectual. However, there are those who use paradoxically the term "Science" while rejecting or refuting creationsim on the basis that it is bereft of "scientific proof".

Science is a well defined subject, but i do agree with you that it can be diffrently comprehened.

just like you and me.

Originally posted by Bakar:

It is human propensity to conceptualize differently and form categories for which they specify their experience. Here I will take the term science as an example, and how some people use its definition for various reasons. For example, we have been witnessing how some folks in this thread attempted to bring evolutionism under banner of pure scientific knowledge. In other word, they say that theory of evolution holds scientific evidence, meaning that it can’t be proven to be otherwise. .

Stop, hold it right there Bakar, you got that all wrong sxb.

this is either a prove that you were not reading or caring what we post or you just have missed it .

1:evolution theory holds scientific facts.

please if you haven´t read or are not familiar with it , try to read it for yourself (ama give you Dawrins´s original text at the end of my post)

 

2:It can be proven wrong or strengthned, that is what is so good about science and scientific theories, unlike creationism´s undiscussable stand scientific theories are provisional.

 

 

Originally posted by Bakar:

According to my understanding, when such thing is said to be a "fact" or true, the implication is that we can not think of any thing opposite; and hence everthing else is opionion.

Wrong again !!

on the contrary , once confronted with facts YOU´re supposed to take it or leave it, but if you leave it , you´re supposed to share your new found (unknown to thers) facts and present it for human comprehension|evaluation etc etc.

All ideas can´t be wrong or right at a given time in a given place under a given circumstance.

Bakar, you´ve asked a almost diffrent question in almost every post, but thus far , you haven´t presented a single line where you tell us why creationism is the correct theory.

so far we´ve ONLY been discussing science (sometimes in details)and the evolution theory.

 

Originally posted by Bakar:

Can we say evolution is science? Because, according to definition of the word "science", subject of the origin of life and the universe is outside the scope of human observation and, therefore, does not technically come under the definition of science per se. Since no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by chance or evolution.

I dnt know how many times we´ve to go through this , but what the heck , evolution is a process and the "evolution theory" is a scientific theory ,is that clear enough? now am sure you dnt wanna ask a Q like like "Is science a process"?

No human was probably there when the moon (was placed) took that position where it is located and we find out the distance

 

Originally posted by Bakar:

Similarly, no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by design or creation. The later does not need scientific proof. Why? This is where faith and human reasoning provide answers to these question: Where do we come from? Where are we going? Who are we? What is our purpose?

Faith and human reasoning can not walk hand in hand there sxb, actually the power of reasoning or Rationalism is used to wipe out many if not all creationistic claims. so your answers are soley based on faith which is a deadly substitute for a thought.

 

Originally posted by Bakar:

So if evolution is neither science nor faith, then what is it? If my memory serves me well, you, yoursefl, are tentative to say the true defintion of science fits theory of revolution. In fact I posed a similar question in my first post. Since an intelligent power was behind the origin of life and the universe, scientific evidence from genetics, biogenesis, thermodynamics, information theory, laws of probability, and other areas of science

better support

faith in creation than chance or evolution.

And there we differ, so,please for the 1st time in this debate share with us , how an intelligent designer is behind it and what made you come to that conclusion.?

 

Science and scientific evidence present a true blue fact , a reality that evolution theory is partially a fact untill proven otherwise.

but creationism and creation theory lack scientific evidence. unless you present one it´d be like bribing science to assume creationism without proving.

To wrap it sxb , Evolution theory had survived a century old scientific challenge, while creation theory sentenced millions to death when they questioned it´s robustness.

 

Drwin wrote:

"THE AFFINITIES of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species . . . The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups . . . From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state . . . As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications" (Darwin, 1859).

The Origin of Species

[xiinfaniin]

JB, O ye of little faith?

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

JB

, O ye of little faith?

Xiin.. i thought the subject was bigger than lil me n my beleif.

i´m in it wholeheartedly for the benifit of all.

i thought exploring the borders of our beleif|faith can only make it more solid than shake it´s foundations|existence.

i could be wrong though.

i´m of the idea that we rather have a faith based on solid grounds , instead of a mere possibility becouse i beleive in facts and realities speaking for themselves , thus surviving myth n lies.

[Bakar]

And there we differ, so,please for the 1st time in this debate share with us , how an intelligent designer is behind it and what made you come to that conclusion.?

 

Proving how the intelligent designer made the universe is tantamount to proving the existence of the designer HIMSELF. When delving into constant immobility of nature, faith and conviction instead of evolution is required. When we make an attempt to explain things whether scientifically or not, we use our sense perception—seeing hearing, touching, smelling and tasting, and thereof make our judgement. What this means is that our judgement (which is in direct relation to the external objects) is contingent upon our experience. Then, how can we believe ourselves capable of understanding things beyond which our senses can no longer perceive. It is preposterous to acquire scientific data in the hope we know the nature of our existence.

 

 

Faith and human reasoning can not walk hand in hand there sxb, actually the power of reasoning or Rationalism is used to wipe out many if not all creationistic claims. so your answers are soley based on faith which is a deadly substitute for a thought.

 

Is that a conjecture from your part? Are you insinuating reason and faith are irreconcilable? What religion or faith do you think contradict reason, vice versa? I find your statement very ambiguous. I thought rationalist heavily relay on reason when investigating the unseen world and its connection with physical world. Though they reached different conclusions, most of them believed the concept of God being the “designer†of the universe. Unfortunately, I don’t possess intellectual ability needed to venture distinction between rationalism and empiricism school of thoughts. According to my understanding, the former uses human intellect for exploring the intelligible entities (unseen) which is beyond our observation, while the later requires human senses to investigate tangible entities, that is, the seen world.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Bakar:

Proving how the intelligent designer made the universe is tantamount to proving the existence of the designer HIMSELF. When delving into constant immobility of nature, faith and conviction instead of evolution is required.

Why?

Why is it favorable to have a plain faith instead of a beleif (a fact) based on what you can KNOW?

 

Originally posted by Bakar:

When we make an attempt to explain things whether scientifically or not, we use our sense perception—seeing hearing, touching, smelling and tasting, and thereof make our judgement. What this means is that our judgement (which is in direct relation to the external objects) is contingent upon our experience. Then,

how can we believe ourselves capable of understanding things beyond which our senses can no longer perceive.

Excuse me Bakar, but , haven´t you already answered this very Question in your (first)above statement?

where you insist that a plain faith is required when Proving how the intelligent designer made the universe.

 

Originally posted by Bakar:

It is preposterous to acquire scientific data in the hope we know the nature of our existence.

Bakar,no matter how preposterous it might sound, the alternative you present is more preposterous and absurd, becouse if you deliberately choose not to beleive in the scientific data you aquire but deny it, you´re intentionally closing your senses , and that is pure insanity, an indication of a need of a higher beeing.

In the psycology field ,Maslow's hierarchy of needs points to the existance of such a need.

 

Originally posted by Bakar:

Is that a conjecture from your part? Are you insinuating reason and faith are irreconcilable? What religion or faith do you think contradict reason, vice versa? I find your statement very ambiguous. I thought rationalist heavily relay on reason when investigating the unseen world and its connection with physical world.,

Though they reached different conclusions most of them believed the concept of God being the “designer†of the universe.

Very loose assumption out there don´t you agree?

Dear Bakar, In the defination of Rationalism , The excercise of reason provides the primary basis for knowledge, instead of revalation and experience.

Now if that is reconcilable with your faith, then your faith is based on excercising reason and not revalation and faith as you stated earlier.

 

Originally posted by Bakar:

Unfortunately, I don’t possess intellectual ability needed to venture distinction between rationalism and empiricism school of thoughts.

According to my understanding, the former uses human intellect for exploring the intelligible entities (unseen) which is beyond our observation, while the later requires human senses to investigate tangible entities, that is, the seen world.

Neither am i claiming the possession of the intellectuality needed to venture ,but the TWO (empiricism and rationalism ) contradict each other in terms of gaining knoledge, where the first relys on the power of reasoning and the latter relys solely on the power of experience.

It goes without saying that empiricism and faith are not the same, your earlier statement was faith and reason(rationalism).

 

So yes, when i say they don´t go hand in hand that was a conjecture from my part, becouse of the reasons i stated above.

Having avoided the scientific data aquired , you still have to reason ,experience or faith your way out of ignorance .don´t you think so

[Baashi]

Great exchanges. Thank you all. Special thanks to Socod_badane, Johnny B the greatest stud ever landed on the SOL land, and Bakar. You have been polite and yet managed to air your views on the subject with considerable passion and conviction.

 

Darwin's theory is one explanation among many. Some people get their understanding of science, ideology, religion, etc all mixed up. Mutakalim was onto something when he suggested perhaps we look at the scientific method and the philosophy behind it.

 

All in all, the jurry is out and the Darwinists have undergone metamorphosis of a kind and one would be hard pressed to refute them since the original theory and the neodarwinism are quite different.

 

In the interest of good discussion in the future, I urge those who are interested in this subject to visit NOVA site. Nova is programming content catered to public use and PBS is the one that has the right to air. The last several weeks there have been four consecutive science program called The Origins of Life. Tomorrow night PBS will air the last segment of the serious. Fortunately, the site has a sizable material from these programs posted. the link is Here...check it out.

[Mutakalim]

Maa daama eey gabannadu ka daaleen hantaataca, dhowr eray aan ka idhaahdo mawduucan. Anigoo tookha yaraynaya

 

Ultimately, all variation in living organisms is due to chance. What may be considered "unintelligent design" is the work of selection; this is (as everyone knows) related to both environmental and physiological constraints, which are, themselves constrained by "bigger things" such as physics!. The motor behind it all is, nonetheless, "chance" -- and this is where science steps out of its domain and takes a philosophical stance as to nature of origination.

 

Chance requires regularity. And the standing question is thus :"Where did this regularity come from?"

 

The "substance" or "stuff" of our universe (I am avoiding words like "matter" or "particles") is arranged so that what we call "hydrogen" can combine with what we call "oxygen" in a proportion of 2:1 to create what we call "water". Why? "Because it is so" , is the answer of science. But could it be otherwise? Science does not know, and probably cannot ever know- in principle. Nevertheless, there is here a clear rule, i.e., an example of the absence of chance. The same sort of rules are found at all levels (one "proton" and one "electron" combine to form one "hydrogen atom").

 

Chance, to sound redundant, requires a universe to work. In fact, chance - as we know it- requires this universe to work. This universe cannot be a part of itself, so, whatever is the reason behind how the universe is, "chance" is not it. The concept of randmoness does not make sense in a sample of one(i.e. the Universe).

 

Since this is a metaphysical argument, and not a scientific one, not all the King's scientific essays and reports can make a dent in it. They could only (if they are scientific) address how this universe is, not how it came to be.

 

Now, if one supposes (as some sceintists) that this regularity or "order" came about by random variations along a given range of possible values, then who defined the range? A range, by itself, is order. And this is what I mean by "chance requires regularity". Random variations presuppose a given range, i.e., they presuppose order. If every constant (i.e. Gravatational constant) and every proportion (water or salt) could range from - infinity to + infinity, there would be nothing. There would not be a field for chance to work with. This much is mathematical. Chance is not an acceptable explanation, so one is left to choose Design or "irreducibility" (it is so, because it is so). However, irreducibility insofar as it is an alternative is a non-explanation.

 

With Salaams

PK

 

P.S. These arguments are one level higher than scientific ones, hence, the reference to "metaphysics" or "meta-science". Metaphysics gives science the background to work. Note that, if we measured the gravitational constant one million times in one million different places and found the value to be uniform, science would still be unable to claim that it is constant throughout space and time. This is a metaphysical claim (one which science embraces, for obvious reasons). It is not science which tells me that they are constant, it is metaphysics (science never showed that the constants are constant throughout space and time -- we just assume that, because assuming otherwise would stifle research.

[Baashi]

Great job yaa Mutakalim. If you try hard enough sometimes you can minimize the bookishness and make reasonable contribution to a topic without being so condenscending. Still there are room for improvement. Many thanks for cutting the crab or the tookh to tolerable levels

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Mutakalim:

Ultimately, all variation in living organisms is due to chance. ]

Sorry, but there is no 'chance' involved in the 'variation' of living organisms. My understanding of 'chance' is something that happens while not in agreement with dictates of invariant natural laws. According to science everything in our world is subject to invariant set of natural laws. If you mean 'chance' something other than what I stated then state what that is. Because from my unerstanding, according to you, we should envision without much skepticism the 'chance' of a fish developing body feature characteristic only of terresterial mammals. What are the chance of observing that?

 

 

Chance requires regularity.

How can that be possible? If something happens with regularity, that means before the event takes place you can be fairly confident that it will happen like it did last time. But if it always happens by chance, then you have no confidence to say whether it will or will not happen since the outcome is based on chance. Chance and regularity seem antipathic, don't you think?

 

The "substance" or "stuff" of our universe (I am avoiding words like "matter" or "particles") is arranged so that what we call "hydrogen" can combine with what we call "oxygen" in a proportion of 2:1 to create what we call "water". Why?

"Because it is so"

, is the answer of science. But could it be otherwise? Science does not know, and probably cannot ever know- in principle.

Science KNOWS why two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen form water...it is based on the intrinsic molecular properties of Hydrogen and Oxygen. We know 'why' this happens so well that we can apply it to artificially make water from sea water.