So your an Athiest

[GrandizerII]

You think you're so smart don't you. You are acting like you have this elite knowledge that I can never attain.

You can attain it, but it's a matter of what ideals and principles you adhere to as well. It's not always about smart or education. It's also about intellectual integrity.

[AAA]

It is a good design. From the DNA to the actual anatomy, all the parts work together well. We are modifying organisms, but we aren't designing it. We aren't even designing our new DNA, we are just taking DNA from one organism and putting it into another. Also I think the evidence is more consistent with a top down design for life. Our genome is slowly being crippled by mutations from generation to generation, we are not becoming better. We are becoming a more disease stricken species. I do not think he sat by and watched for billions of years. I think that it was made good at the beginning and is slowly getting worse. So your whole condescending statement about his crappy plan is just putting words in my mouth.

Can you provide immunological or wider medical data to support your above claim please?

Thank you.

Cancer rates are expected to increase by 75 % by 2030, and by 90% in developed countries.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/246061.php

Cancer arises when mutations in the DNA that codes for enzymes that regulate the cell cycle accumulate. When you lose the ability to regulate the cell cycle, you get cancer cells. As mutations accumulate, so do diseases. This is just one example.

[AAA]

You think you're so smart don't you. You are acting like you have this elite knowledge that I can never attain.

You can attain it, but it's a matter of what ideals and principles you adhere to as well. It's not always about smart or education. It's also about intellectual integrity.

Ok, so what do I have to do to attain it?

[LastPoet]

I have a mediocre knowledge of Biology. Still vastly more than you AAA. Intelligent design huh?  The cosmo constant as perfectly designed for life. Ass backward idiocy. Its like seeing a hole in the ground and when rain falls, water filling it, you conclude that the whole was perfectly designed to form a puddle.

You sir, are doing it wrong.

[Alex K]

If you really want to fully understand it yourself on a technical level, you need to get a PhD in speciation or a related topic. If you can't do that (and it would be completely understandable if you can't) you need to trust the experts to a certain degree. But you need to at least read what the best of them have to say on the matter.

[GrandizerII]

You can attain it, but it's a matter of what ideals and principles you adhere to as well. It's not always about smart or education. It's also about intellectual integrity.

Ok, so what do I have to do to attain it?

If you're sincere, I would advise you to learn first what science really is about. Forget evolution for now. Most people who argue against the scientific consensus on scientific topics tend to be ignorant on what makes science one of the best (if not the best) methods to attain knowledge about how the world works.

Key words to consider while studying: peer review process, credible journals, replicability, falsifiability, pseudoscience vs. science, and theory in the scientific sense.

[AAA]

No, I don't think I have that elite knowledge. Also, if I thougj you can never attain it I would not recommend that you keep studying it. Odd that you would think that, are you really studying biology? But I know some elite biologists who really know their stuff, and they don't think that evolution does a poor job of explaining new genetic information.

I agree that a lot of scientists believe evolution does a fine job. But there ARE scientists who know their stuff who also disagree with it. I do understand it. The point you seem to be making is that because I have a different interpretation of the evidence than many scientists, I am wrong. Also biologists tend to give the answer that new genetic information arises from mutation, but mutations occur so infrequently within a cell, and they lead to a decrease in function or no change at all. 

If you know of a better explanation to add genetic information please share it so that I can maybe get on board with the theory of evolution.

[Alex K]

Where did you get this information?

[Mermaid]

I can say anything I want and claim that it is a fact. That doesn't mean it's actually a fact.

I agree, but they are facts, if you want to know just go look up: plasmids, bacterial conjugation, bacterial transformation, and transduction. These are mechanisms to ensure the survival of bacterial colonies. Don't trust me, go look it up for yourself.

---

Awesome!

[AAA]

Ok, so what do I have to do to attain it?

If you're sincere, I would advise you to learn first what science really is about. Forget evolution for now. Most people who argue against the scientific consensus on scientific topics tend to be ignorant on what makes science one of the best (if not the best) methods to attain knowledge about how the world works.

Key words to consider while studying: peer review process, credible journals, replicability, falsifiability, pseudoscience vs. science, and theory in the scientific sense.

I appreciate the advice, and I am sincere, but I think I already know how science works. I have tremendous respect for the scientific method as it has led to the advancement of humanity. But one key thing about science that you left out is that the advancements are always made starting with disagreement in the evidence. Then you carefully weigh the evidence and accept the theory that best explains the evidence. Most of what I have seen on this page is me trying to lay out the evidences that lead me to conclude design, and other people telling me that I need to go back and study it again. No one is really presenting evidence.