Random mistakes over I don't care how long isn't going to produce carefully integrated design.
You are right in that we don't see design like humans do. That is the point our "design" is exactly the other kind of design.
See this thread:
Message 1
Our "design" shows that we are produced by evolutionary processes when we compare it to things we know are designed (cars) and things that we know are not (output of evolutionary algorithms).
Your approach of looking at our intricate details is one powerful way to prove that we are
not designed.
Until evolutionists can prove a mechanism for macroevolutionary change and tell us where the original genetic code came from, they are the ones doing the hand waving.
We have shown a mechanism for macroevolutionary change. This is about biological evolution so the origin of the genetic code has nothing to do with macroevolutionary change issues.
Evolution proposes that nothing but random chance did it.
False.
I'll go with intelligence.
Your own "evidence" shows that intelligence is not likely to have been involved at all.
you are right. The design argument can be taken to the thread I supplied.
™ Version 4.2
