We can not create the simplest life form, so it is premature to say it is simple.
You might want to think about that one for a moment. Where do you think babies come from?
The argument against a designed intelligent universe, but definition, must claim that it arose by fortuitous accident. By accident I mean no intention, no plan, like a car hurtling through a copse of trees, it will gather leaves, smash it's windscreen, puncture a tire - all arbitrary. I believe that is the position of current evolutionary theory.
In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, you aren't even wrong.
First, accident implies that one outcome was intended, but another occurred. For example, when you accidently drop you keys you intended to hold on to them, but didn't. "Accident" is a very poor term to use when discussing nature and evolution because there is no intention.
What we see now in nature is just one outcome of many possible outcomes.
"Wind back the tape of life to the early days of the Burgess Shale; let it play again from an identical starting point, and the chance becomes vanishingly small that anything like human intelligence would grace the replay."--Stephen Jay Gould
The gestation of a baby once embedded in the uterine wall is only possible because a system of growth predates the egg's arrival.
Yes, a system that evolved through random mutations and natural selection.
I argue it is the same for life on Earth, a system of development is in place before the first cells on Earth first formed.
The same system that developed Earth also developed Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, etc. All of those places do not have life. Obviously, this system you talk about is not designed to produce life. If these systems were in place to produce life sustaining planets then why does it appear that life is so rare? In fact, I would wager that black holes are more common than planets with life.
One last thing - our fossil evidence better supports the theory of Punctuated Equilibria which states that biology was static over large periods of time (Equilibria) and then something happens (punctuation) and biology takes a great leap forward in complexity and diversity. Please refer to the Cambrian Explosion as one example.
Not sure what you are trying to state here. Punctuated Equilibria is evolution. It uses evolutionary mechanisms. Gould and Eldredge went to great lengths explaining how evolutionary mechanisms produce the pattern of punctuated equilibria. I would agree that the fossil evidence does support evolution, but I don't think this is what you meant to say.
Also, the Cambrian Explosion is given more "explosive" power due to taphonomy. The first hard body parts evolved in the Cambrian so we get an explosion of fossils since hard animals fossilize more easily than soft ones.
Current theory (which you fail to properly identify in your post) states that random mutation is the method by which new information is introduced in the genome. Like saying new computer programs are developed by random mutation in the computer code of existing programs - like saying my media player will one day evolve into publishing program simply by me using it.
Strawman argument. No one is claiming that computer programs evolve.
However, we do observe that species evolve. We do observe that offspring are born with changes in their DNA, and that these changes are random with respect to fitness. We also observe that beneficial changes are passed on at a greater rate than neutral or detrimental changes. These are all OBSERVATIONS.
What you are erroneously stating is that evolution can only happen one way - through arbitrary mutation.
That is not what has been stated. What we are stating is that this is what we OBSERVE. Yes, it is possible that evolution could occur through mutations that are not random with respect to fitness. However, this isn't the case. We OBSERVE that mutations are random with respect to fitness. The two best examples are:
These are the classic experiments that demonstrated the randomness of mutations. I even ran these experiments when I was in college to help us better understand what is meant by random mutation.
We should not be content to accept a collection of theories to explain the evolution of the solar system, another for the beginnings of life on Earth and yet another for evolution of life. It is a poor patchwork quilt of life and Nature does not work like that.
Actually, yes it does work like that. Planets and species evolve through different mechanisms.
The definition of evolution on this site is narrowed down to a single interpretation - a theory of development through mutation. I will not accept, nor use that definition of evolution - it is an insult to Nature.
Then please use a word other than "evolution" to describe what you are talking about.
Nowhere in Nature does life develop through mutation.
See the two experiments in the post above. They directly disprove your claim.
It is the primary scientific philosophy of evolution, it is time to name accurately.
Perhaps you could develop that definition here and we will see if it is accurate.
What you identify are minor mutations in bacteria, what you claim is that this indicates the construction of new digestive systems, respiratory systems, circulatory systems - whole new biological organisms. These observations cannot be extended to that degree.
Larger changes are only the accumulation of what you call "minor mutations".
Let's look at humans and chimps. We share a common ancestor. Why do humans and chimps look different? It is because our DNA is different. But how can this be if we both come from the same ancestral population? It is because we accumulated different mutations over time.
The differences between humans and chimps is not because one of the species is stuck in a certain developmental stage like your caterpillar and butterfly example. The differences are due to different mutations. The differences are due to the accumulation of what you call minor mutations.
For example, you observe me write a sentence and you say that this minor observation is convincing evidence that I have written everything that has ever been written, I am the font of all knowledge, I have constructed all buildings, I am the author of everything that ever was and will be - its absurd! Can you not see that?
The only absurd thing is how this relates to biology in any way.
Experiments have indeed shown mutations can provide benefit to an organism in a particular environment (Lenski's famous 50,000 EColi evolution) but the benefit is achieved by a loss of information.
Then evolution can proceed with losses in information as you define it. Why is this a problem?
You are giving mutations abilities far beyond what has been shown - we are talking about the evolution of all life on Earth - life which we have yet to define, yet to develop - how can you be so certain how it formed when we haven't yet figured out what it is.
Are the differences between species due to a difference in DNA sequence? Yes or no?
No scientist, in fact no person in authority, wants that authority undermined, overturned, quashed.
This is the biggest eye roller in quite some time. It is the dream of every scientist to overturn the current consensus. Was Einstein against the idea of overturning 300 years of Newtonian mechanics? Apparently not, and he was rewarded greatly by his peers for falsifying the consensus.
I could list famous scientist after famous scientist that falsified the consensus. You are so far off base on this one that it isn't even funny.
Many university departments, careers and book sales are based on upholding the current theory of evolution.
No, it isn't. It is based on doing solid research. As it turns out, using the theory of evolution allows you to turn out quality research.
No one is using ID to do research. No one. You know why? Because it isn't science. Evolution is science, and it works. That's why scientists use it.
Too many people in this forum have decided that the theory of mutation as the driving force of evolution is the only acceptable scientific theory. That myopic view is what I argue against.
It is the only EVIDENCED theory which is why it is the only accepted theory. When you provide evidence of a different mechanism then it can be accepted. That is how it works. Evidence first, then acceptance. So where is the evidence?
If we could replace a multitude of theories with one, wouldn't it be better?
Only if it leads to a unification of explanations that makes sense. As for the evolution of life and the evolution of stars there really isn't too much to connect the two. Selective pressures on anaerobic soil bacteria are occuring through different mechanisms than nuclear fusion in the middle of stars. I don't see why keeping these two things separate hurts either one, do you?
But we now know variance in phenotype will not create new biological structures and systems. So we've declared it is mutations in DNA - this is not natural. Nature does not develop life in this way. Nature develops life through systems and processes - no ad hoc mutations in sight.
You need to provide evidence for these assertions. Please show that the differences between species is not due to differences in DNA. That would be a good start.
If the truth of life were found out and it did not agree with current evolutionary theory could you put aside your beliefs?
Absolutely. That would be a very exciting day. However, I really doubt you are going to be the one to do it.