Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

I don't understand what makes you say something so demonstratably incorrect, especially after you've been shown, time and time again, confirmed observation of beneficial mutations.It's funny how, after your arguments get trashed and you run away for a few weeks, you pop right up again with some kind of amnesia that prevents you from remembering that we've refuted your points about a dozen times. ID is wrong. Mathematically, the genomes of every recorded organism are very narrowly clustered in a tiny region of sequence space, such that you can get to any functional genetic sequence by one single change to another functional sequence. There are no "gulfs", there's no "barrier to change" - mathematically, there's no path from one functional protein to any other that requires you to pass through an intermediate, non-functional stage.And that's the mathematical truth. Case closed, as far as I can tell, unless you have evidence of organisms that aren't constructed from genetics and proteins.

Well, we didn't ask you. Your qualifications to assess the presence of faith in science are nonexistent. "Basically"? You're saying that we've "basically" never observed those things?So which is it? Have we definately never observed them, or have we almost never observed them, meaning that we have observed them? It's not surprising that you're still ignorant of the observations, since, everytime they're brought before you, you shut your eyes and mutter loudly about Heckel's drawings, webbed feet, and how dishonest evos are.But macroevolution has been observed. I myself have posted the proof a number of times on the forum. If a single-celled organisms evolving multicellularity isn't macroevolution, then evolution can explain everything we say it explains without "macroevolution" ever actually occuring.