I don't see wisdom as irrelevent, nor any viability whatsoever where there is no wisdom derived program to justify a result. The phenomenon you describe and aspire to, is non-existent outside darwin's novella. It is worth diverting to define 'wisdom' - this is NOT an autmatically evolved phenomenon, and requires equal defining as anything.
There is no intelligence guiding the process. Hence, wisdom is irrelevant.
Nor do I see the human body as idiotic or flawed, just because we do not see yet what a particular organ's function is: if anything, positing idiocy to life's mechanism only negates your own premise: your jitterbugging particles are the idiots. Nor does it mean if there are really some errors in the human body - that it signifies anything other than, or negates, wisdom. We have medicine only because of some wise imperfections in the system.
When the appendix is removed, absolutely no harm results unless complications occur in the surgery (infection, etc - irrelevant to the appendix itself). The human eye has a blind spot other, more distantly evolved creatures (octopi and birds, for instance) lack. There can be no purpose for a
blind spot in an eye.
And of course the "jitterbugging particles" are idiots. The only one ascribing any intelligence to any process is
you! Not I. The genetic code is not intelligent, nor does anyone claim it to be so. Again, you're attacking strawmen. You clearly have no concept of what evolution DOES say.
The criteria for random is where an intelligent source is not involved;
That's not a definition for the word "random." No intelligent source governs the evaporation of water, but we know that it's not random whether water will evaporate or not. It's a direct cause-effect relationship based on ambient temperatures, humidity, and the basic physical properties of water. No intelligence, not random.
using the placebo of natural selection from random mutations is totally contradictory of its own premise.
How so? I see no contradiction.
There is no such thing as NS - this is a recent term to not have to explain the inexplicable - the instant we find an intelligent program behind it, the term NS is discarded - gravity becomes the new buzz word - and gravity is based on a premise resultant from 'wisdom'.
There most certainly IS such a thing as natural selection, and it's an obvious, direct observation. You don't seem to understand that the process of evolution has actually been
directly observed in a laboratory. Some of the very members of this board have been involved in such research. We KNOW that random mutation happens. We KNOW that beneficial and neutral mutations survive to reproduce while detrimental ones fail.
Look, Joseph. None of your responses make any sense whatsoever. I'm done here - this discussion is off topic for this thread anyway, and I have no desire to attempt to understand your ramblings about "wisdom" or any other irrelevant topic.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2