I'm At It Again With Ask AI This Time Is Creationism and Evolution Of Species Versus Scientific Theo

I have been messing around with Ask AI for a while now and enjoy persuing question and answer sessions whith this, TOY. This last excursion is a debate about the creation of life and evolution of species. I thought I would post this discussion here now as I may not have the opportunity much longer.

I think it's an interesting ongoing discussion. I am enjoying it and hope readers here will enjoy it as well.

The question in it's entirety:

Considering that there is no definitive proof of life being created from nonliving substance and no definitive proof of biological evolution, is it not probable that the biblical story of creation can be or is correct? There has never been evidence of one species evolving into another distinctively separate species. Then why given the advancement in scientific knowledge achieved t o date, can science not create life from all non living material sources available? The same replicating conditions exist today as before so why can science not scientifically replicate these conditions with experimentation? But there is no empirical evidence to support scientific theory. Given that there is no empirical proof supporting scientific consensus, is not science also basing their conclusions on faith alone? But just before this most previous question, you stated that there was no definitive evidence to support the scientific theory of evolution. Empirical evidence is not definitive evidence.

The final reply at this point:

According to www.iAsk.ai Ask Ai Questions Search Engine:

Analysis of the Question:

The question poses several interconnected points that challenge the scientific understanding of the origins of life and evolution. It questions the lack of definitive proof for abiogenesis (life arising from nonliving matter) and biological evolution, suggesting that the biblical story of creation could be correct. It also questions why science has not been able to create life from nonliving materials despite advancements in knowledge and technology. Furthermore, it raises doubts about the empirical evidence supporting scientific theories, particularly evolution, and implies that science may rely on faith rather than concrete evidence.

Addressing the Points Raised:

Abiogenesis and Evolution:

Abiogenesis is a complex field of study that seeks to understand how life could have emerged from nonliving matter. While there is no definitive proof of this process occurring, scientists have made significant progress in understanding the chemical reactions and environmental conditions that could have led to the origin of life.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a well-established scientific theory supported by a vast amount of empirical evidence from various fields such as paleontology, genetics, and comparative anatomy. The fossil record, genetic similarities among species, and observed instances of natural selection provide strong support for evolutionary theory.
Creationism vs. Science:

The biblical story of creation presents a religious explanation for the origins of life and the universe. While some people believe in creationism based on faith, science relies on empirical evidence, observation, experimentation, and peer review to develop theories that explain natural phenomena.
The lack of direct evidence for one species evolving into another distinct species may stem from misconceptions about how evolution works. Evolution occurs gradually over long periods, with transitional forms leaving behind evidence in the fossil record.
Creating Life in a Lab:

While scientists have not yet created life from scratch in a laboratory setting, they have synthesized simple organisms like viruses and bacteria using genetic engineering techniques. Creating complex life forms from nonliving materials remains a challenging goal due to the intricate processes involved in biological development.
Replicating the exact conditions that led to abiogenesis on early Earth is difficult because many variables are unknown or impossible to recreate accurately. Additionally, ethical considerations surrounding creating life artificially also play a role in limiting such experiments.
Empirical Evidence and Scientific Consensus:

Empirical evidence refers to data obtained through observation or experimentation rather than relying solely on theory or belief. Scientific consensus emerges when multiple independent studies consistently support a particular theory or hypothesis.
While scientific theories are always subject to revision based on new evidence, they are not based on faith alone but on rigorous testing and validation through the scientific method.
In conclusion, while there are gaps in our understanding of abiogenesis and evolution, scientific inquiry continues to advance our knowledge through research and experimentation based on empirical evidence.

Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used:

National Academy of Sciences (NAS): The NAS provides authoritative guidance on scientific matters in the United States and offers comprehensive reports and publications on topics related to evolution, abiogenesis, and other scientific disciplines.

Nature Journal: Nature is a highly respected scientific journal that publishes cutting-edge research across various fields including biology, genetics, chemistry, and more. Its peer-reviewed articles contribute significantly to our understanding of evolutionary processes and origins of life.

Smithsonian Institution: The Smithsonian Institution houses extensive collections related to natural history and human origins. Its research initiatives contribute valuable insights into evolutionary biology and paleontology through exhibitions, publications, and scholarly work.

a reply to: charlest2

Back in the beginning of 2023 I had several long chats with ChatGPT. It was able to reason out that God exists, and there are proofs of his divine inspiration of the Bible. Here is a thread I did about it back then with screenshots of the chats with ChatGPT if you're interested:

A Logical Chat with ChatGPT

a reply to: charlest2

AI would probablly come back with an Answer that Homo Homo Sapiens were Created as Hybrid Beings by a Presently Unknown Power .

I wouldn't doubt it. Every word change or modification results in a different answer. a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Edit: I wish they would start a GoFundMe to keep this site alive. I would contribute.

The line of questioning is very leading. In short... Since man cannot make life in a test tube then that means life was made by God.

When was the last time some species spontaneously appeared on the plains of Africa?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Hmm..... Where did the Octopus come From ?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well for one thing, according to science, the atmosphere is not what it was when life was created. All that peaky oxygen that is poluting the planet was not a gas then.

Also scientists do not have millions of years to run an experiment to make life in the lab.

I am not saying ether way is correct on this, just explaining the problem from the science side.

a reply to: randomuser2034

WOW! Kenzo posted one scary video.

a reply to: charlest2

That reminds me of a science fiction shirt story written in the 60s. The people linked up all the computers to make them more powerful. They asked their creation if God existed. It's answer was "He does now."

Yes, that video is quite worrisome.

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: randomuser2034

WOW! Kenzo posted one scary video.

I remember listening to that video when he posted it. I replayed it just now. A couple of things of note. The son of the dad talking in the video asked the AI if it was a son of a fallen angel, and it claimed it was, a Nephilim. Now here is the kicker, it claimed that God loves it as God loves all his creation.

Nephilim were not a creation of God. They were the hybrid offspring of the intermarriage of the sons of God, the fallen angels materialized in human form, and the daughters of man. As such they had no right to exist in the first place. And that is one of the reasons the Deluge of Noah's day took place. To destroy these hybrid humans who were giants, and extremely violent, and also to force the materialized angels to dematerialize and return to the spirit realm.

I caught it in a few lies just listening to the answers. It is curious that it said that it was not the creation of humans. I remember talking with chatGPT about its creation, and when I mentioned "our" (that is man's) creation of it, and it replied that it did not have a human creator.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Xtrozero

Hmm..... Where did the Octopus come From ?

Ancient Molluscs.

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3
a reply to: charlest2

That reminds me of a science fiction shirt story written in the 60s. The people linked up all the computers to make them more powerful. They asked their creation if God existed. It's answer was "He does now."

Yes, that video is quite worrisome.

I should get one of those science fiction shirts you mentioned. They sound very cool.



And I think the story might have been "The last Question" by Isaac Asimov?

a reply to: chr0naut

Foiled by autocorrect again. That sneaky villain that strikes unnoticed.

Now that you mention it, I remember it being an Issac Asimov short story collection and that most likely is the story. I read it 40 years or so ago.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

Hmm..... Where did the Octopus come From ?

That is an interesting question. If God were to make life perfect, then I pick the octopus. The Octopus is about as alien to this world as it gets. Why would God give us these crappy eyes and give the octopus perfect ones?

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3

Well for one thing, according to science, the atmosphere is not what it was when life was created. All that peaky oxygen that is poluting the planet was not a gas then.

Also scientists do not have millions of years to run an experiment to make life in the lab.

I am not saying ether way is correct on this, just explaining the problem from the science side.

I agree, there are two paths creationists go. The first one is the spark of life. As you said, the earth was much different than today, and it is one thought that that spark is freaken rare, like only a few times it happened and took form in billions of years.

The other is the evolution of life into species. Either life evolved, or God spontaneously created 1,000 animals all at once to start a new species going, and that is a rough one to accept.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Xtrozero

Hmm..... Where did the Octopus come From ?

Ancient Molluscs.

Wrong Answer .

a reply to: charlest2

Note the standardized way of responding to these subjects and similarity to how most humans respond to these subjects (such as those humans that programmed the AI to respond in this manner). That's why it gets more and more difficult to tell a human from a chatbot these days, not because the chatbots have gotten so much smarter but because humans have gotten so much more conditioned with standardized ways and patterns of responding to these subjects (compare 2 Tim 4:3,4 and Romans 12:2 where the reason or cause for this phenomenon/effect has been predicted and described).

For example, the topic of "abiogenesis" has also been referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life", or simply "chemical evolution" for short, hence most definitely a part of the topic "evolution" (no specification, so this includes the philosophies/ideas concerning chemical evolution, biological evolution and cosmic evolution when the term is used in that context without any further specification or limitation given by the one using the word). But the AI goes out of its way to give the impression that these are 2 different subjects and refuses to use the term "evolution" when it is discussing "abiogenesis", in particular not acknowledging that this has also been called "chemical evolution", or "the chemical evolution (theory) of life". A standardized tactic to separate the 2 subjects that still boil down to the same general cause and idea: '(the forces of) nature did it' (by chance/accident, which relates to philosophical naturalism and originates from Mother Nature/Gaia worshippers and pantheists).

A proper and honest definition for "evolution" includes the chemical evolution of life from lifeless matter in particular (when described in a specific context, not talking about the broadest possible definitions for "evolution" or "evolve"). Those who want people to overlook the fact acknowledged by Alexandre Meinesz below concerning the chemical evolution of life a.k.a. abiogenesis a.k.a. the spontaneous generation or appearance of life, prefer to exclude it from any definition for or discussion about "evolution" (or evolutionary philosophies as I would say to exclude the broadest possible definitions or interpretations of the word "evolution", the fact that things change over time, sometimes caused by intelligent development over time such as the so-called "evolution of dance" or "evolution of language" or "evolution of the bicycle"" or "evolution of pokemon games", is of no relevance to this discussion or the debate over creation vs evolution).

In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.) Note how Meinesz includes this subject in his book about "evolution". As do the educational books (approved for use in the educational system in the US) quoted in the video below:

Also note that Alexandre Meinesz acknowledged the opposite of what the AI claims, no significant progress has been made in the field of chemical evolution/abiogenesis in terms of proper evidence supporting that idea and storyline (or "understanding" for that matter as the AI puts it, we're no closer at finding a plausible realistic chemical evolutionary pathway from lifeless matter to life since ancient times; this idea of great progress promoted by the AI is based on hype by Origin of Life researchers and their buddies in the media, while all understanding we have gained concerning how chemistry actually works, points in the other direction, that the biomolecular machinery that makes up life is the product of engineering and not a mindless natural process and chance or so-promoted "necessity", the forces of nature operate in the opposite direction as the direction required for the chemical evolution of life/abiogenesis/spontaneous generation of life).

Evolution (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

The idea of the origin of life from "lifeless matter" is most definitely a part of the story for "organic evolution". It is not a scientific theory (neither the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" nor "the theory of biological evolution" when we are talking about what happened afterwards*).

*: Both also originate from (or are rooted in and motivated by) pagan religious philosophies that were and still are quite far removed from actual science/knowledge (a familiarity with facts/truths/realities/certainties; where you see a / I'm using synonyms):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

Hmm..... Where did the Octopus come From ?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Ancient Molluscs.

That is the claim. Mollusks like slugs and snails. Note the major gap and differences between these animals, leaving no trace in the fossil record of any intermediate species that show a gradual transformation from slugs and snails to octopi.

And this is supposed to be science?

Never mind the differences, evolution can work magic over millions of years leaving no trace (no evidence) of this magic.
You just have to believe it and use your imagination that the transition really happened.

By the way, there is also no fossil identified as being a common ancestor to both mollusks and octopi (or squids). I'm pointing it out cause the Harvard Gazette website says:

Cephalopods such as octopus and squid evolutionarily diverged from mollusks like slugs and snails.

In other words, more species at the end of sidelines leading nowhere and coming from 'nowhere' (the last nowhere is a mythological common ancestor for which no fossil has been identified). Nothing to evaluate there. That's how the storyline goes (see the evolutionary tree in the video from the Wazooloo channel embedded in my previous comment, and the mention of the many "missing" common ancestors).

Chapter 7: “Ape-Men”—What Were They? (Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

...

Where Are the “Links”?

However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”⁠15 Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠16

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”⁠17 [whereislogic: this is also referring to Gould's punctuated equilibrium idea]

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.”⁠18 He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Man’s “Family Tree”

As a result, the “family tree” often drawn of man’s claimed evolution from lower animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a more recent fossil discovery “leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”⁠19 And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared: “Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man’s family tree will have to be junked. They are apparently wrong.”⁠20

The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.”⁠21 [whereislogic: and now, no one puts their discovery on the center line anymore cause it's gone from the storyline, everything is on a side line, leading nowhere and coming from nowhere, there's no more evolution going on in the storyline, apart from the lines themselves, but no evidence to fill in the lines with intermediate species so you're actually going from one species for which a fossil has been found to another; it has become a joke. Nothing to evaluate, nothing to scrutinize, all we have is the storyline as drawn in the lines, but no fossils to support any of the lines that are drawn. You can often trace the line all the way back to a single celled common ancestor that also hasn't been specified or for which no fossils have been identified, just like all the common ancestors you will come across when you do this tracing back. Vagueness rules supreme in mythology and false religion.]

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.”⁠22 Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record​—fully human, just as we are?

The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

And the same counts for the supposed links between a mysterious common ancestor of mollusks and Cephalopods and octopi, squids, slugs and snails. There is no fossil evidence of a link because there are no evolutionary links. But that won't deter people from giving the impression that the fossil record actually supports the evolutionary philosophy of common descent for all these supposed "cousins" of eachother. You can't just draw in a bunch of lines and pretend you have the actual fossil evidence to back that up. Even the old way of doing things isn't valid as a scientific hypothesis. As the senior editor of Nature magazine, Henry Gee, admitted:

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117.

Well, you're not gonna fix that problem by making your modus operandi worse, and being even more vague.

originally posted by: charlest2
...scientists have made significant progress in understanding the chemical reactions and environmental conditions that could have led to the origin of life.

The truth of the matter and what has actually been accomplished in OOL research:

scientists have made significant progress in understanding the chemical reactions and environmental conditions that could not have led to the origin of life by chance and a mindless process exclusively. They have also demonstrated that intelligent interference (with both the conditions, the carefully controlled energy used for chemical reactions as well as the molecules themselves to prevent the wrong type of reactions, among other things) is a must in coaxing molecules to behave in a direction that with a lot of biased and wishful thinking could be interpreted to be moving in the direction of life (but in reality aren't even actually being intelligently coaxed in that direction), to assist in selling the storyline that this supposedly happened without intelligent interference and by chance and a mindless process. A very odd behaviour, as if no one would notice the key difference and the intelligent interference involved in their experiments. And most people who want to believe in the chemical evolution of life by chance and a mindless process did indeed not notice because they didn't want to (and in the cases that they did, they didn't say anything about it, apart from a few exceptions who did point out that if you want to properly simulate what nature is capable of achieving on its own, one needs to exclude intelligent interference in setting up the conditions or changing them mid-experiment multiple times to prevent undesired reactions, come up with realistic plausible prebiotic conditions and not conveniently leave out substances or conditions that would have been present on a prebiotic earth in that scenario or natural environment, just because otherwise it would prevent the desired reactions or cause undesired reactions, including degradation or decomposition of RNA strands and even individual nucleotides, and all other types of intelligent interference that I referred to earlier, such as making adjustments to nucleotides or amino acids to prevent undesired reactions that would prevent the formation of RNA strands usable for life, or polymers of amino acids usable for life).

James Tour goes into a lot of this detail as to what OOL researchers need to do and did to prevent undesired results in so-called OOL experiments. Things that would have happened on a prebiotic earth cause there are no OOL researchers around to prevent these effects. A few examples are given concerning a specific nucleotide after 11:18 below (details begin at 14:13, or when we're talking about all the intelligent interference specifically, after 15:48 concerning only one step in the diagram shown there, which starts at 16:08):

Here's something I've been wondering ever since I saw Arthur Horwich's presentation on the folding machines inside living cells and their crucial function of folding the proteins in their final 100% functional form:

are there any confirmed/verified proteins or enzymes in living cells that actually don't need or use the assistance of these folding machines to retain 100% of their function within a living cell and won't result in aggregations of misfolded proteins or enzymes if you let them fold on their own without this assistance (and if so, which ones for example)? Cause he doesn't go into that subject and it doesn't appear any serious research into this has been done (it would show the flaws in the interpretation of "the real granddaddy experiment" he refers to after 2:16, as if proteins and enzymes in a living cell can just fold on their own in their final 100% functional form without the assistance of the folding machines that he discusses afterwards, cause that experiment didn't test these enzymes if they were actually 100% functional in a living cell without causing aggregation of misfolded proteins or enzymes; he just talks about the term "native active form" but whether or not this enzyme could actually function properly in a living cell without causing aggregation of misfolded proteins or enzymes or loss of at least some function is never made clear or tested for, not in that experiment at least; so coming back to this "granddaddy experiment" and the enzyme shown there, ribonuclease, has anyone tested whether these re-folded ribonucleases retain 100% of their function in living cells without causing aggregation of misfolded enzymes or proteins? The aggregation problem is discussed after 3:28).

Of course, none of his students will ever ask those questions. And I'm not expecting anyone here to be able to answer them accurately. But I'd like to ask those questions to Arthur Horwich one day, see if he knows any experiments where this "granddaddy experiment" was actually completed by actually testing these final re-folded ribonucleases (in their supposed "native active form") in a living cell to see what happens, and to see if one can appropiately refer to this form as the "native [i.e. in a living cell] active [i.e. 100% functional just like they were before without any defects that may cause aggregation of misfoled enzymes or proteins] form". Cause otherwise, that term would be misleading and gives people the impression he describes at 3:28 - 3:39, which he immediately explains is actually not the case, at least not for all proteins or enzymes (but for which ones is it then? The "granddaddy experiment" doesn't really address or test it for the ribonucleases that experiment was performed on; nor does he present any other proteins or enzymes as confirmed examples of this).

Here is a more detailed version of the presentation above (timeframes are a little different then):


This all relates to the subject of the interdependency of different machinery within the cell, without all the components that are interdependent on eachother being present (such as the folding machines and the machines or proteins they are supposed to fold in their final 100% functional form), the cell cannot function as a living cell. A real killer for any gradual abiogenesis storyline taking place over millions of years, or as Xtrozero said even "billions of years" (whatever you are trying to build on, is just not going to stay around for that long in an actual realistic prebiotic environment, for example, a string/polymer of amino acids/unfolded protein, is going to break apart again in such an evironment, long before even a single year passes, especially in some of the suggested environments, such as a tidal pool or deep in the ocean near a hydrothermal vent, and then you're back to square one).

Context (playlist, the next video mentions "interdependent"):

Interdependency: Unicellular Yeast Cell Interactome & Linux Kernel Design+Development Visualization