“Intelligence,” OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

[Esquilax]

At many occasions, I disputed that CHANCE has no scientific value. There is nothing in nature, which has no cause for its existence.

Tell that to quantum foam.

If we do not have, appropriate scientific evidence that does not mean CHANCE prevail and outrun the scientific reasoning by mere axioms and postulates.

Wow, there's a lot wrong here. First of all, you don't have any evidence on your side, so there's no reason to preference your claims; at least we know that nature exists. Secondly, your "everything in nature" claim is idiotic to begin with as you have no evidence that things outside of the universe constitute "nature" or adhere to the same rules as the things within it... which also don't follow the rules you're demanding they do.

This claim is literally wrong at every conceivable level.

In case you are not a promoter of CHANCE, then what proposition you have to explain the origin of complex structures such as DNA code?

Chemistry. I mean, that's literally what DNA is: chemicals reacting together.

I’ll give you few quotes which perfectly fit to the intelligent design argument:

And I'll run through them real quick:

First quote: argument from ignorance based on faulty assumptions. No matter how unlikely abiogenesis might be that doesn't mean god is real by default, and more importantly, how the fuck is this guy deriving calculations of probability when he has no idea what things were like in the past, nor what is required for life to form naturally at all? His probability argument is based on nothing but bullshit, as he doesn't have enough data to form a calculation of probability. Also, 1981? Really? Thirty year old science is... well, out of date. By thirty years.

Second quote: again, argument from ignorance. "It seems unlikely" is not evidence for a designer, you actually need positive evidence for that. Interesting how you fail to present any. And again, you present a thirty year old source! Got anything from this decade? Incidentally, did you think I wouldn't check your source, and find the enormously negative reception it got from the scientific community, many real members of which declared it unable to pass even softball peer review? I also see that, curiously enough, the only positive reviews seem to come from creationists...

Third quote: and again, argument from ignorance. Change the record!

I had discussed two types of mutations, injurious and Positive mutations. In both cases, I argued that mutation does not produce anything new. I intentionally not touched neutral mutation, as it has no positive or negative effect on the organ. Neutral mutation happens when different triplet of nucleotides, codes the same protein. In the genetic code, each protein has three nucleotides, which identify a protein, but there are several other triplets, which can identify the same protein as well. Therefore, if a different triplet identify same protein that means there is no change at all in the protein formation.

Neutral mutation like other types of mutations do not add anything new to the organ.

Here's a mutation that confers a resistance, bordering on outright immunity, to HIV. That's new, in that it wasn't present before, and is now, especially if one inherits the gene from both parents. You're wrong again.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action are only postulates, which have no significance in the world of laboratory. Natural selection cannot justify these examples, as it is no more than a postulate whereas mutation adds nothing new and thus it goes in opposite direction to evolution.

If you're just going to say "nuh uh!" and not back up your assertions at all, I'm just going to dismiss them out of hand. Either provide some evidence as to why you say natural selection can't "justify," whatever that means in this context, these mutations, or kindly be silent.

These 5 seconds examples satisfy only naïve people who have no idea about evolution and they normally avoid going into the hassle for having scientific proofs.
To cut a long story short I will address the example of peppered moth only. This is one of the most popular among followers of Darwin, which they often bring to justify evolution in action.

Only one out of eight? Interestingly limited scope: I wonder how many fallacies I can spot here? Lemme just load up talkorigins before I go on.

It is discernible in nature that population of the same species have variations. If fragment of a population get isolated in some different environment then that fragment lacks some typical variants. This fact means that isolated fragment has lower diversity and it does not represent the whole population. In other words, an isolation itself is the cause of differences. The differences in populations are the result of genetic drift.

Don't forget natural selection, but that's basically correct otherwise.

When isolated population grow due to favourable environments, the genetic differences also grow due to genetic drift alone. This is how races are formed.

The mutations are random, but their persistence in a population is informed by their evolutionary benefits or detriments. That is evolution, that you're describing so far, so I'm a bit weirded out as to where this is going.

Therefore,

• Loss of variation (genes) does not give anything new.
• When isolation discontinue, recombination of genes return. Some variants may be reconstituted, but nothing new results.
• Race formation is the reverse process to evolution because evolution requires new genes.

This is just babble, and again, it's baseless assertion type babble that you haven't provided evidence for, and will hence be summarily dismissed. Feel free to go find some science- peer reviewed, mainstream, and up to date - that supports you. Otherwise... meh.

Black peppered moth is different from the white peppered moth because of isolation, genetic drift, and natural processes that cause reduction of genetic information.

However, in evolution, bird is the selecting agent for moth to be black or white. This postulate has no scientific foundation and it is ridiculous to count this postulate equivalent to an established scientific fact.

Why is it that you think just saying "that's ridiculous" counts as a rebuttal?

All right! Here is another one form the same Lee Strobel.

Don't bother. Lee Strobel isn't exactly educated on this issue. As to the quote... just describing what irreducible complexity is doesn't count as confirmation of it. You'd need evidence for this, something that you can't have, as irreducible complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance itself, and based entirely around negative claims: "evolution can't do this, therefore designer."

Besides, irreducible complexity already got roundly laughed out of a court of law for good reason. You got anything better?