DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[pocaracas]

Anyway, I never asked for an education on evolution.  I'm very aware of what it is considered. 

From what follows, you are clearly misinformed... so that's why I tried to educate you on such a general way... I have such bad memory!

I don't think that CDF's claim goes against scientific consensus.

The part of it being obviously created does go against scientific consensus, you know?

  Also, saying something "evolved" is a rather generic way to state something. 

It is indeed generic. But it doesn't make it any less true (to the best of science's ability).

IMO, it's more important to ask "how", because evolution as a process is limited to how we can refer to it as a "theory" since much of it isn't and is contrary to what is known as science. 

Care to substantiate this claim that evolution "is contrary to what is known as science."?

The processes claimed are often detrimental to organisms, and there are always problems with making jumps in information for organisms.  For example, saying it happened through mutations would go against what is known scientifically, because we know the likely result of a mutation is disadvantageous. 

Here's your problem.
Yes, there are disadvantageous mutations. But there are slight mutations (most we wouldn't even call them mutations, more like variations in the population) that are just slightly advantageous. Like being a bit taller, or having a neck that's a bit longer, just 1cm can be enough. And what happens when the trait is propagated through most of the population?

Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy?
It represents what happens when people with a low IQ breed much more than those with a high IQ, leading to a population dominated by low IQ people. There was a genetic change in the population, based on an initial variation within the population.

Make such variations exist concurrently, produce differing advantages in different habitats, and spread out through hundreds of millennia, thousands of generations, and you can glimpse how species can differentiate. No need for those harmful mutations.
But, yes, there are also fortuitous mutations that confer exceptional breeding and survival abilities and which easily spread to a population in not so many generations.
The Modern Synthesis (that I linked to the wiki article on a few posts ago) details on several mechanisms that have been proposed to explain all the diversity that is observed in the timescales that appear in the fossil record.

Thinks like cancer occur because of cell mutation.  Additionally, when mutations add a new feature, it often isn't functional and will often get the organism killed.  Like having a fly grow a third wing.  It loses its efficiency in flying, and is more likely than not to die from its dysfunction or get picked off by a predator due to its inability to escape.

Isn't it amazing that no evolutionary biologist ever proposes such a thing as a viable mechanism?
They always harp on about "gradual change".

  Throw in that "positive" mutations would also need to develop in the reproductive system of male and female in most species, and simultaneously so that they can reproduce, because if not those new traits won't be passed down to offspring.  Even when we do see "evolution" happen, it's mostly speciation, and the genetic information is just being passed on, but not increased. 

I wonder, what is this thing you are calling "speciation"?

Also, a mutation that presents itself in the organism, the so-called phenotype, is included in that organism's DNA structure and, as such, will pass on if that organism reproduces. It will definitely pass on if the reproduction is asexual. If it's sexual reproduction, then there is a chance that the new trait will be regressive and not present itself on the offspring... like blue eyes in humans.

Sometimes this works, and sometimes this causes offspring to be sterile.   Like when you cross a horse and a donkey.  You end up with a mule, which most end up being infertile due to the differing chromosomal makeup between the horse and the donkey that birthed it.

Hybridization, while a potential mechanism for evolution, seems to mostly produce those sterile offspring you mention. That is why it's not a major avenue for evolutionary processes.

  So I can accept the bits and pieces of "evolution" that are true and observable, but the rest of it is nonsense.

So tell me what you see when you are faced with the fossil record. That's observable, although it requires a few more fields of science than just biology... some radiological background, which requires some physics and Quantum mechanics... oh... weren't you the one who also refuses to accept quantum mechanics?
You see why I pointed you to the super broad Nature journal? You have a serious problem with your background information.

So back to CDF, as I've stated I'm not siding with him or anyone else.  If someone has something, they can show it.  Let facts speak for themselves.

The fact seems to be that you are missing large chunks of information that would allow you to make more informed assessments. I'm sorry, but it is getting clear that you do need to learn quite a few things.

---

So... care to remind me what the claim was? I think that's the best way to move forward... if that is of interest.

Honestly, I'm lost too at this point.  I think it was about 50 pages and 4 days ago.

hehe... thought so!
Let's start over with what I mentioned above.