Intelligible results that continually get more useful. The designers do not know what they want in particular, they have a problem to solve and make something else to come up with the solution. The design itself is not an intelligent process, the intelligent involvement is establishing the system that creates ever-better answers and deciding when it's good enough. The initial state has little, if any, resemblance to the final result.
Just because you need an intelligent actor to discern the process was successful does not mean the process isn't happening without one. The created unintelligent designer creates a successful design, then the intelligent actor uses it.
The process was created by an intelligent designer to try to turn out useful data. It wasn't created to turn out nothing. It is then an intelligent being that interprets the usefulness of those results.
You might have those odds from life originating in one immediate freak accident. We literally have not figured out how to build life from raw chemistry in a lab yet, let alone how it'd have happened naturally (which, mind you, is that man's primary argument), and each function that happens by random chance makes others more likely as you have more of the components interacting with eachother. The Earth had billions of years, the low estimates are billions of earth-like planets per galaxy, there are billions upon billions upon billions of galaxies in the observable universe.
The argument about the insane complexity where you timestamped the video starts with how describing the result with scientific confidence is nightmarish, and the fact you have to go back to the start if you get one thing wrong. Except you're not going "back to the start", you have all the world's oceans constantly undergoing variations for hundreds of millions of years at the least, easily thousands of attempts on components per square meter every fraction of a second, and every square meter constantly shifting conditions.
I did some numbers once, on what it would take to get a single chromosome. I took the entire mass of the Earth, assumed it was all CAGT proteins (I can never remember all their names. Guanine and Adenine I think are two of them), in conditions conducive to them joining together, gave a reaction rate of a million pairs forming per second, then calculated the odds based on it running for the entire duration of the Earth's estimated existence.
The statistical probability you get as a result, is roughly one in ten to the
two hundred and thirtieth power. That isn't 'all the mass of the oceans,' that's
all the mass of the Earth. To get
one Chromosome. And I allowed for an error rate of
ten percent, which I'm reasonably sure would be fatal to an actual life form, though I don't hold a doctorate in genetics so I can't tell you the exact effects. Also note, this is assuming that this reaction process
doesn't turn any of the Adenine et al into something not useful for the formation of DNA. Also, in optimizing the odds of DNA formation as much as possible, it
also ignores the fact that as the rest of a cell isn't made up of these things, it's
actually impossible for life to arise in these circumstances.
But the point of this thought experiment is to prove the absurdity of naturalistic abiogenesis, so we're giving the literal
best possible odds for getting
one of the essential aspects of life, so we'll keep going with it.
"But," some materialist atheists argued with me, "That's just the Earth, there's the entire universe of matter out there, and it only needed to happen once, and Earth is the result of that!"
Taken from Wikipedia, Earth masses 5.97237×10^24 kg. There's supposed to be ~10^90 atoms in the universe. I don't care to do the calculations of Kilograms to atoms right now, so let's forget about the fact I already was using the mass of the Earth, and just do some exponent subtraction, and take the ^90 right off of the ^230.
So now, if you take
all the mass of the universe, (ignoring that most of it is in stars and Black Holes, not environments conducive to formation of any kind of life), you knock the probability down to ~1 in 10^140.
So much progress has been made.
To get a single Chromosome. Which is not enough to form life. Because you need either a fully functional cell, or you don't have actual life.
"But wait," the atheist says, "The Earth isn't as old as the universe!"
Okay, fair. Let's take the estimated age of the Earth (4.54 billion years), and increase to the estimated age of the Universe.
Which is 13.8 Billion years.
Oh, that's a bit of a problem. Not even an additional order of magnitude there; it's barely over three times more. Still, let's be generous and knock a whole order of magnitude off.
That gets us to a probability of 1 in 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
Yes. This is less than a
billion zeroes. But this is actually something much simpler to get than what Tour was talking about (being as this is just one of
many components you need for life), and he's much more of a field specialist than I am, so I'm willing to accept that his numbers are probably closer to accurate than mine.
When you get down to it, the bottom line is
always that the naturalist evolutionists
do not have any argument that deals with the hard numbers. They try to side-step, distract, or claim that a new hypothesis, which conveniently hasn't been tested yet or is actually untestable, will prove that yes, Abiogenesis can work.
But it
never actually pans out. Evolutionism started taking hold in Academia
a hundred and fifty years ago. They still don't have answers for such basic questions that hold up to even basic scrutiny. It always gets kicked down the road again to the next theorem or hypothesis, and after that's proven to be bunk (like Embryology or Punctuated Equilibrium), they'll come up with a new one.
That video is entirely "Nobody knows, therefor God". He brings up how nuclei and mitochondria have yet more dissimilarly of cell membranes from the already heterogenous main cellular membrane, completely ignoring how this undermines his point about homogenous lipids being used for testing because dislike lipids still can form together anyways, and also makes no mention of the symbiosis theory that's established for mitochondria by them having their own nucleus and protein assembly.
We can observe a pattern in real life. If we find a complex mechanism that performs a dedicated function, we will find out that someone designed and built it to fulfill that function.
This is considered acceptable for vehicles, clocks, toys, boats, aircraft, computers, radios, televisions, etc, but for some reason following the same pattern of logic is considered irrational for biological machines and life in general.
Why?
Well, to quote an evolutionist:
Richard Lewontin:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. "
The concept of a designer in nature and biology is not allowed,
because of the prior commitment to purely material explanations. IE, Lewontin and those who follow the same school of thought have a conviction, one could say a
religious conviction, that they 'cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'
Abiogenisis in particular has gotten more frustratingly mind-melting to pin down because avenues of approach keep turning out wrong because as it turns out backtracking things billions of years is a rather astonishingly difficult task, but evolution in existing life has only gotten more firm because we keep finding more intermediate stages and locating more examples of mutations proliferating in populations to cause them to be more adapted to their environment.
If it's provably true for life around now, able to be quite readily inferred with high logical coherence for billions of years back in increasingly-scarce bits and pieces, why wouldn't it keep going back to the start?
Because variation within a species is both a fundamentally different process than changing from a cat to a dog, and even more grossly different from life arising from inanimate matter?
To frame your question another way:
"If I can take a ball-peen hammer and chip a flake of stone off of a rock, why couldn't a man with a sledgehammer over time break down a mountain?"
He could, in fact, and in a specific case in India, he has.
But Abiogenesis is not a matter of mutation and/or adaptation. It isn't the same process just writ large. It is in fact a completely different thing. A better comparison would be:
"If I can take a ball-peen hammer and chip a flake of stone off of a rock, why couldn't a man with a hammer break down the Earth?"
Because while the Earth is big, and you can break a bit of rock from another rock, you aren't actually taking away part of the Earth. And even if you break down every bit of rock on the surface, then get an army of hammer-men that is arbitrarily large and hammer your way through the entire crust, going miles and miles deep, breaking it down into dust, do you know what your reward for that is?
Hitting the mantle. Which will melt and burn you and all that dust down into rock and volcanic gasses. And the Earth, quite frankly, doesn't notice even a single percentage change in its composition or structure.
If the Theory of Evolution as an origin of life and explanation for how it came to be as it is today is believed, it
must have a mechanism for Abiogenesis. If Abiogenesis is not scientifically possible, then the theory is disproven. Just because it can accurately describe one thing (genetic variation within a species) does not mean that the theory as a whole is true.
That would be like me telling you that gravity is real, and it operates at ~9.81 m/sec^2 on the surface of Earth, then demanding that you believe that the Earth is flat because I was right about gravity pulling things 'down.' Related, but not remotely sufficient to justify the second claim.
Also, I'd like to see some of these intermediary steps between species. Because last I checked, the library of 'missing links' is still painfully hollow.