Fine tuning/ programming

What in the world makes you say that? Actually, let me be more specific: What *evidence* makes you say that? 1. Explain what you mean by "intricate" and "complex"? A sand dune is both intricate and complex, but I suspect you do not consider it to be designed. It seems to me that you are assuming that a structural connection between points A and B would cause the heart to either cease to function, or to function in an obviously inferior manner. In either of those cases it seems the evolutionary incentive is clear.2. I don't consider it to be programmed by someone because there is no evidence to suggest it was programmed by someone. In fact your question shows how your entire outlook is flawed, as I will explain:I suspect you don't by default assume that things are designed by an intelligence; there are some things you consider naturally occurring. In fact this *must* be your position because the alternative is assuming your conclusion, and circular reasoning. You also appear to be using the argument "This is complex, therefore it must have been designed by an intelligence." However, as I noted there are things that you consider naturally occurring that are both intricate and complex, so there must be some other criteria on which you are basing your conclusion.The obvious answer is personal bias, hopefully unintentional given the alternative is deliberate deception. It would be wise to reexamine your reasoning to find out your actual reason for concluding an intelligence is required, and see if there is evidence to back it up compared to the evidence of its evolution from simpler organisms.

Think about two different mutations regarding only the heart of a rabbit. One mutation allows the heart to function at a greatly increased rate for twice as long as the previous generation, and one results in a halving of the duration it can function at that rate.A wolf attacks each of these hypothetical bunnies, and all else being equal which one is more likely to escape? Obviously it is the one with the "superior" heart mutation, and there is no intelligent observer required to acknowledge which one lives. Living bunnies tend to produce many more offspring than dead bunnies, so over time you would expect the bunnies with strong hearts to vastly outnumber those with weak hearts, if any of the weak survive at all.Obviously it isn't quite so simple in practice, it is more likely that the bunnies were never subjected to such clear natural selection. Instead the weak and strong heart mutations would spread out into the bunny population and there would be a slightly better chance that the strong-hearted bunnies would reproduce. Over a long, long time the mutations that are beneficial to the reproductive success of the bunnies would become more pronounced in the population.This is generally what people are referring to when they refer to "natural selection"; the survival of the "fittest" organism when subjected to the rigors of nature.

Exactly, perhaps Straggler can provide an explanation that does not include the instruction to "think".

You are correct, that was a needless snip.I suspect why I and Straggler are being somewhat short with you is that the basics of the Theory of Evolution is high-school level material, and it is clear you have not done the slightest research on the subject. As it is the central organizing structure behind modern biological study, it may be that the most helpful explanation this thread can offer is "Go read a book." This isn't intended as an insult, some understanding of the topic before starting a thread like this one will greatly aid the discussion.