Why would that have to be the case?
It could be beyond science ability to investigate - I don't know.
But you pretend like you do know. So how have you determined that it is?
Science can only deal with what can be observed or experiment with. If it’s beyond the ability to investigate, it’s necessarily beyond the jurisdictions of science.
A system has to exist before it can be experiment with. Science stops at the beginning of the universe at the Big Bang. similarly evolution stops at the last universal common ancestor or last universal cellular ancestor (LUCA).
You mean "ex nihilo"? Isn't that what creationists believe?
I simply mean that beyond the point when the physical realm/the universe came to existence, the causal influence for such event has to be non-physical. Being non-physical, then our approach to understand it has to be different than our typical approach to understand any other physical entity.
How have you determined this?
If a chemical process exists that results in viable self-replicating organic molecules, why would it be impossible for science to discover such?
These are serious claims you are making. But so far it's nothing but bare assertion.
Abiogenesis does not provide answers of how the first cell emerged other than wishful speculations. We agree that non-living matter cannot evolve, simply because it's neither alive nor can reproduce (can't pass gradual changes to offspring), there is no mechanism or route through which non-living matter can be transformed into a living cell.
Under abiotic conditions, there is no process to create the required biomolecules let alone assembling it. The argument that million of years allow the process to somehow take place is false. Time is an enemy of the process since the required chemicals will degrade/decompose in a relatively very short time. If some molecules somehow emerged through an unknown process, it will not wait millions of years to get the other essential molecules. It will simply decompose.
Science cannot demonstrate how nature fabricated the world's first digital single celled/information processor, let alone the impossible demonstration of how this extremely complex molecular hardware got to write its own extremely complex software?
The complex info encoded in DNA is an absolute prerequisite for the simplest single-celled form of life, natural selection didn’t play any role to develop the encoded info of the alleged first cell (LUCA) that emerged from nonliving matter. Nonliving matter can neither evolve nor adapt.
That is why scientists such as Richard Dawkins assume that the origin may be seeded from outer space. It is a ridiculous wishful thinking. It only shifts the problem to somewhere else. It’s not an answer.
You mean like "god did it"?
What are the logical reasons to exclude that option? Is it because we cannot experiment with God in a scientific lab? Is this our rational means to understand God? See # 1034
If observations show evidence of a causal influence as manifested in the intelligently guided process that controls the universe live and all variables in nature, why can’t we accept it.
Isaac Newton had the notion that the laws of nature are manifestation of constant spirit action that imposed upon matter the order that can be perceived by the scientists, which we can be described mathematically as laws of nature.
Isaac Newton said in his general scholium to the principia, "Though these bodies (the planets) may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
If scientists who identified the laws of nature had the understanding that these laws itself are evidence of higher influence that not only controls these laws but also allowed it to come to existence to begin with. All of these laws are contingent beings not a brute fact, its own existence and behavior is dependent on a cause. If that was the understanding of such scientist, then what is your logical reason to dismiss it? Is it only because you said so? State your reasons.
How is this a viable hypothesis?
How can it be tested and how can the premises / assumptions be shown to be correct (the biggest one being that there even is an intelligence in the first place to do said guiding)?
Simple all what we need is to find entities that exhibit intelligent design in nature. Which is actually everything, from the universe itself to a single atom or a single living cell. No exception.
A single living cell is the most complex designed system man has ever witnessed.
"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see is an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man"
Your Body's Molecular Machines - YouTube
DNA animations by wehi.tv for Science-Art exhibition - YouTube
False dichotomy.
Evolution (just like chemistry and physics) is neither "guided" nor random.
They might have random input, but the result is NOT random.
The circumstances by which O and H atoms meet each other might be random, but that the result is H2O is NOT.
No, logically any change can be driven by a random process or intentional non-random process.
The characterization of a process being random or not is not dependent on internal partial components but rather
the overall process whether it emerged as a product of randomness or not.
Let me tell you, even randomness has conditions/prerequisites. A dice with six sides may settle on a specific side on a surface as driven by the influence of gravitational field and friction.
If you don’t have dice, surface, gravitational force or frictional resistance, what are the random options you have? Absolutely none.
If no physical material, natural laws, not even space or time existed before the Big Bang? What are the random options possible for the universe? None. There is no randomness involved in the process.
I agree. The problem is that no observations support such.
As explained, all observations do. We didn’t touch on the fine-tuning of the universe itself. I assume you would be familiar with it.
If you haven’t seen previous posts about directed mutation, then you may focus on the example of (AMR).
(Copied multiple times from #781).
We all know that microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is repeatedly seen and cannot be disputed.
Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold. The mutations actually started much earlier with varying levels of resistance till the 1000 fold resistance was achieved in 11 days.
See the link and YouTube video below (same video is included in the article).
Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance
The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube
