Michael Behe's "Billiard Shot" model

[T_aquaticus]

@stcordova

If that’s the case one has even less reason to assert as fact that abiogenesis and evolution happen naturally, one only appeals to faith because these things do not agree with ACCEPTED distributions determined experimentally and by inference.

For evolution, we can appeal to mountains of evidence, such as the nested hierarchy.

I can also point to the distribution of transition, transversion, and CpG mutations with respect to the human and chimp genomes. They match what we would expect from observed natural processes:

Mutations Are Consistent With Biochemistry

In a previous thread I discussed what science meant by random mutations and how this term is defined by experimental results and statistics. A lot of this work was done in the 1940’s and 50’s, and since then many new facts have been discovered in the field of genetics, such as the discovery of DNA. This gave rise to the field of molecular biology and allowed us to understand biology at the molecular scale. So what exactly causes mutations? We once again have to reiterate the the limited scope of science. What science can do is put forward hypotheses and see if the evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. What science can not do is make ontological statements about absolute truth. With that in mind, the next few posts will discuss the evidence that links mutagenesis (the production of mutations) with the biochemistry of the cell and why scientists aren’t simply assuming that mutations are caused by biochemistry.