DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I read this towards the end to get what we're you're at now with this (I'm not ready through 1000+ pages).

"Irreducible Complexity" has been around for awhile.  I remember reading Behe's book when it first hit the shelves. There's some good insight in it in regard to systems and how they work together.  However, you're not going to win an argument using it, because it has been around for awhile, so there are layers of arguments that attempt to prove it's not necessary, even if we can't observe them to say "yay" or "nay."

Of course monkeys can pull fully developed eyeballs out of their buttocks and shove them into their skull.  And there you have it.  A spontaneous process of evolutionary wonder.

Now information theory on the other hand is a little bit more difficult.  Time + Mutations = Chicken, Elephants, Giraffes, Lemurs, and Goats.  Why not?

But then you have to deal with the nature of mutations.  This is problematic because you need positive mutations that unlock or expand into new genetic information.  Of course mutations cause things like deformities and cancer.  So assuming it's possible you need more time, and even if the mutation creates something new, it has to be useful, and it has to be introduced into the reproductive system of the parent(s).  Why?  Well if a fly develops a third wing, it won't be able to fly properly, and it will be more likely to be picked off by a predator.  Additionally it has to be passed along through the reproductive system so the offspring can carry the same trait.  If you manage to get the new species you have to cross your fingers that it isn't sterile.  And so on, and so on, and so on...

And this is just the beginning of why it's a waste of time to argue.  In a human life, there is not enough time to gather enough information to prove or disprove said processes and demonstrate it as a feasible explanation.

This sounds like "The truth is complicated so let's stop looking." Forgive me if I take a rockier road.

There's a simple way to do this if you don't want to expend the skull sweat necessary to pick up the basics. Nobel Prizes are awarded to the scientists that see further than their peers and overturn paradigms. Einstein picked up a couple Nobels for kicking the crap out of everybody's dearly held beliefs in physics. If this had happened in biology you'd be looking at a similar result. Instead you're watching Behe admit in court that the "scientific method" that he subscribes to isn't actually scientific. Anybody else could do the same, yet nobody has. Scientists have been working on evolution for over a century, and while several have won Nobels for refining the theory nobody has managed to refute it.

If you do want to expend the skull sweat then let me know. There's a plethora of evidence if you're willing to examine it impartially.

Sounds like deceptive thinking on your part.  I never said to stop looking it up, but anybody who says it's not complicated would be full of something, because it is.  That's why "science" establishes information through steps, then we refine those steps, add additional steps, and draw new data to interpret.

Also, I don't have a problem with the term "evolution", but first we need to define what we mean by it, because there are multiple types/versions floating around.  If you don't do that, then you risk "bait and switch" tactics, and there you go with things becoming more complicated again.  Why? Because we didn't approach something with care.

Best thing is to speak for yourself, and ask if you're unsure, because I'm more than happy to clarify my position for you.

Now we can have a friendly discussion.  Cheers.