So your an Athiest

[AAA]

No, there are a lot of functional sequences, but they have to have a specific order of the bases. And they are rare.

So according to your notions, Lenski just got insanely lucky, and it's never going to happen again?

The guy from the long term evolution experiment? He found that his bacteria could metabolize citrate after a while. However, the only reason they couldn't metabolize it before is because they couldn't get through their membrane. They already had the metabolic enzymes necessary. They still don't know what mutation caused the ability for them to metabolize citrate. Odds are it will turn out to just be a degraded structure of a membrane protein that allows the sugar to enter. Also the cit+ bacteria were inferior when compared to the original bacteria in terms of growth rate. I highly doubt any new genetic information was added, but we will have to wait and see.

---

I don't think that nothing in existence proves god, I said that was the impression I got from you. What counts as proof????

---

Yeah, but the fact that a universe like this even exists is unlikely if we are just going on random chance.

---

I don't know God's thoughts. But it seems like you are working harder to avoid him than you are willing to see if there is any truth to his existence.

---

I tried telling them that the evidence, and they simply said that's not proof. So I don't think that you will accept that there is proof of anything.

We asked for evidence of a designer and you gave us some babble about the way cells function. Your doing nothing but looking at things that exist and how they work, then your merely asserting that there is a designer behind the scenes causing it all. We as humans do not recognize design by function or complexity, we recognize design by contrasting it with things that occur naturally,  so all of this nonsense about you seeing design in cells and DNA is in no way evidence, it's just you plugging your god into the holes in your reasoning (God of the gaps).

Actually we as humans have very specific and universal ways to detect characteristics of design. Why is it god of the gaps and not naturalism of the gaps? when we see design, we should assume designer until proven otherwise. You are essentially saying we don't know the answer to how these complex intricate functioning systems developed, but we know it wasn't designed. Why is design not a good enough answer for you? You are assuming the answer and excluding the most reasonable possibility.