I am told because we can see some things evolve to a certain point that infers that evolution of all things took place from a single cell life form to present day life forms.
No. You're told that because we see the processes of natural selection and randim mutation produce arbitrary complexity, they can be the explanation for how all living things could be descended from a single Last Universal Common Ancestor.
Were they? Observation of natural selection and random mutation offers no support for that hypothesis. To support that hypothesis, we turn to genetic and fossil evidence, which is overwhelming.
So can I ask for and demand the evidence for the parts of evvolution that has never been observed in the so-called process of evolution.
Sure you can. But right now we're talking about your contention that because some information comes from minds, all of it must come from minds. Don't change the subject.
This is well in excess of the amount of genetic information in any human cell. How are you doing this math? How do you justify a conversion between cell mass and data size?
The entire human genome is only 3,000 mbp (or 3 gbp.) One megabasepair isn't the equivalent of one megabyte; a byte is eight bits but you need only two bits to specify a nucleotide base, because there are only four. (2 to the power of 2.)
So we have 750,000 times the information stored in 1 gram of human DNA as can be stored in 1T hard drive.
No, we don't. You're just making things up, now. 3 billion base pairs can be represented by two bits each, since there are only four bases. That adds up to less than 750 megabytes, a footprint smaller than any hard drive produced since 1994.
The intelligent designer that designed the human DNA was a lot smarter than human designers are.
You're right that natural selection and random mutation is a more effective way to produce information and design than intelligence.
I am aware that all the cells contain two copies of the same information.
No, just one copy. (Some cells have no copies at all.)
Which does not effect the storage space available in human DNA that is in a body.
All your cells have to have almost same genome because they're all descendants of the same original cell. It's not possible to construct a human body out of cells of radically different genetic content.
Again, the human genome is only 3 billion base pairs long.
Would I be correct to say that the DNA is so small you would have to have a powerful microscope to view it?
Not at all. DNA can often be viewed with the naked eye:
Now if any of my numbers or figureing is wrong please correct me.
You've been corrected, already. The data necessary to store a human genome is 750 megabytes, which would fit on a CD. Certainly it's a lot smaller than a CD, I don't know anybody who would dispute that, but 3 billion base pairs in two-bit encoding is only 750 megabytes or so, no matter how you do the math.
Would I be correct to assume that the intelligent designer that designed the small footprint storage media would be a superior designer to the one who designed the large footprint storage media?
Would I be correct in pointing out that a one-terabyte hard drive is a lot smaller than a human body?
Excuse me Crash, but what I put forth in the opening of this topic is how you, Crashfrog, claimed that an example of an intelligent design was your opinion of how the eye should have been designed.
Indeed. Shouldn't a supposed infinite divine designer produce designs that are smarter than mine? "Smarter than Crash" seems a fairly low hurdle to clear, especially for God. Why was "better than nothing" the standard you decided, then, to defend?
Shouldn't "unimprovable by any human being" be the standard that we should be able to hold your designer to? If that's the standard you think is met why do millions of human beings need human-designed corrective eyewear or even surgery? Why are so many human beings unable to see at all?
Incidently, "your" version of the eye design would go blind in a matter of days due to UV ray damage.
It's amazing that in almost 700 messages you couldn't provide a cite for that claim.
Do you even know anything about designing anything original? I mean, what have you ever designed and then built?
Did you not see before when I told ICANT about some of the things I've designed and built?
I designed an electrochemical bioassy setup for Loxosceles reclusa for the USDA, for instance. Also I've designed and built a Java-based, collaborative isometric role-playing game environment including a chat client and a dice expression interpreter.
What have you ever designed? Please be specific.
What is your definition for a design that would qualify as intelligent?
By a supposedly divine, infinite intelligence? I've just made that definition: unimprovable by any human means. Does the eye rise to that standard? I think it's obvious that it does not. Otherwise what are glasses for?