For those who do take evolution at face value, I have a question that I would like your help with.
Ready? Here we go…
On one hand I hear and read science oriented people talk about evolution. Sometimes they will be asked a simple question about the current lack of new life forms or the observable presence of transitional forms. Generally at this point the discussion turns to statistics and probabilities and they will usually talk about the incredible odds on life having every started the evolutionary process at all let alone for that to be an ongoing experience here and now. Sometimes they will point to micro-evolution (ie. people getting shorter, taller, losing wisdom teeth, etc.) but these are not transitional forms.
Then, on the other hand, when I read or hear other science oriented people talking about life in the universe they’ll, in the absence of data, will turn to statistics and probabilities and insist that it’s highly probable that life has sprung up in some other part of our universe.
So here’s my deal – which is it? Life springing up is highly likely or it’s not? And if it is, why don’t we see new forms or transitional forms here and now where conditions have already been proven to support life? Or are these two branches of science completely at odds in the way they use statistics and probabilities? If it’s not highly likely, why do we talk about life beginning on other planets as if it is?
Please feel free to link some articles/sites/books that could shed some light and offer as complicated an explanation as you’d like! Similarly, feel free to explain to me why my question makes no sense or is a ‘bad question.
Note: this is a real question, not a veiled shot at evolution or in support of “intelligent design/creationism”. Looking for an answer here, not an argument.