You have obviously convinced yourself that you have disproved evolution. Meanwhile scientists will continue to make discoveries by applying evolutionary theory regardless of your claims. The gold standard test of a scientific theory is prediction leading to discovery. It's all about discoveries.
How do scientists make discoveries relating to the prehistoric past? Do you think archaeologists just start randomly digging around willy nilly without any idea why?
Here is a shining example of an evolutionary discovery pertaining to the prehistoric past. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik
quote:What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.
So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.
So evolutionary theory leads to discoveries.
What discoveries have you made by applying your bio-functionality idea? If the answer to that question is "none" then I'm afraid that there really is no contest here.
The theory of evolution has successfully led to discoveries. I have given you a specific example of such.
Other than your own somewhat premature conclusion that evolution has been disproven, what has your little idea led to? I will tell you - Nothing.
that by changing positions of molecules in the bacteria like creature, you can ultimately end up with a heart, liver, eye, kidney, brain, ear, etc., which has been disproven time and time again
Firstly - Changing positions of molecules....?
Secondly - You are aware that the development from zygote to fully formed body comprised of heart, liver, kidney, brain etc. does occur in the womb, has been observed and that you would not be here but for that fact.
How does your idea of molecular arrangement and the statistical likelihood of specific arrangements explain that?
So the theory of evolution has led directly to predictions leading to discoveries. As demonstrated. Your idea has lad to nothing of the sort.
Waffle about "subconscious feelings" is not how competing theories are assessed in science. Competing theories are assessed by their ability to explain, predict and discover. So on that score you don't have a leg to stand on here.
Prenatal development occures due to the pre-existing information written in the DNA, while the discussion in this thread is about the origin of this information.
You asked about the formation of functioning bodies from single cells. I gave you an example of that being readily observable.
If you accept the role of replicating molecules (e.g. DNA) accept the role of variations in those replications (e.g. Genetic mutations) and accept selection based on environment then you have all the ingredients for accepting evolution.
Take a simple organism, apply the above over numerous replications/generations and you end up with a (potentially much more complex) organism highly adapted to the environment in question.
Which part of any of that is refuted by this 'statistical likelihood of molecular arrangements' notion you are presenting here?
Your issue seems to be with the origin of life rather than evolution per se. If you are claiming the origin of life is too unlikely to have occurred naturally then what alternative are you proposing?