What semi-related theories might those be? What point do you think scientists are trying to prove?
Although I suppose you have never tried to categorize a list of objects, I'll assume that you, like most humans, are at least somewhat familiar with the process. In any case where you have several similar objects that need categorizing, some criteria for doing so is necessary, is it not? What is so strange that scientists have developed different techniques for categorizing living organisms? In what way does a categorization process mean scientists can't prove their point?
"“species concept”? A “scientific philosopher”?
Are you saying that philosophy is unimportant in developing criteria for categorization? Or perhaps you are saying that philosophy itself is unimportant?
"The probability of creating one single blood protein by chance from inorganic matter is 10 to the 850th power.
And the probability of the genome you yourself possess is 43,100,000,000, that's 4 to the 3,100,000,000th power (now that looks really big doesn't it?, I could make it look even bigger if I use binary), yet I'm not going to suppose that you could not possibly exist.
Why you might ask? (then again you might be one who never asks why) Because you (and your genome) are just a slight modification of something similar. Now things (objects, numbers,... genomes) can change not only through modification of what already exists but through addition or subtraction, ... or we can do both at the same time.
Would you believe that some very complex things can be the result of adding a number of less complex things together? I do! An artist does it when creating a painting out of single simple brush strokes, a mechanic does it by mating simple bolts with simple aluminum castings, birds do it by building some rather complex nests out of simple twigs and 'shiny things', a star does it by building ever larger atoms, compression waves and collisions in space do it by building larger atoms than even stars can build, and chemical reactions do it by building ever more complex molecules.
What would you say if I told you a blood protein could be built of less complex molecules by simply adding them together? What would you say if I told you the length of the protein has nothing to do with its complexity and that all your probability calculations are made more dramatic by arbitrarily increasing the length of the molecule?
What is the number of possible (based on chemistry) molecules which could do the same job as your blood protein? What is the number of possible molecules which could do a similar job with only a minimal change? How many additions are necessary to adapt a smaller molecule to the job of a larger molecule?
Did you know that some seventy amino acids have been discovered in space and on meteorites? They are the result of supernovae and collisions in space. We have even duplicated their production by smacking simpler molecules together. Did you also know that that blood protein you are so fond of probably uses some of those very amino acids? What's the probability of that? Jeez, it must be pretty high.
Or it [the probability calculation] must be pretty unimportant.
I'm afraid that your probability calculation is nothing but a lot of hot air and doesn't in any way address how science understands the evolutionary process.
BTW, where did you ever get the idea that a specific blood protein needs to appear all at once and by chance?
"The latest scientific figure on how many atoms there are in our universe is 10 to the 85th power.
What exactly does the number of atoms in the universe have to do with the development of complexity? As you should know, that number is just a tool used by creationist propagandists. They have many more tools available. In fact the number seems to be growing.
Is it more logical to believe that God created us or philosophize against absolutely ridiculous odds with zero proofs.
You show me some realistic probability calculations and then we'll talk. You might also build one showing the probability of a God existing, just for laughs.