DNA, Where did the code come from?

Within the realm of science it is already proven because there are only natural forces (which is a given by Naturalism upon which the scientific methodology is based) and we believe we are intelligent. So it is proved by demonstration.

All these are pretty much NON GOOEY shelled animals from the time BEFORE the Cambrian Explosion.

Quote:

Within the realm of science it is already proven because there are only natural forces (which is a given by Naturalism upon which the scientific methodology is based) and we believe we are intelligent. So it is proved by demonstration.

Nice job of restating part of my post in different words.

leadfoot quote:
By looking around themselves and seeing that we are indeed here, that will be sufficient proof [of universe creating intelligent life] to the anti ID side.

A gooey worm in a shell is still a gooey worm.

Even the high end estimate of 45 myrs is 'overnight' for all those vertebrate body plans to appear.

So you agree with me that its possible to evolve a bauplan in a "measly 45 my"

Fossil fuels pollutes our planet. Your toys aren't going to help our children and grandchildren.

Since 1965, a dramatic increase in publications which document worldwide occurrences of Precambrian life forms discloses that, by the end of the Proterozoic, organic evolution had produced diversified assemblages of relatively highly developed macroorganisms and microorganisms. Some of these organisms have generated crude oil in the Nonesuch Shale of northern Michigan and kerogen (which yielded hydrocarbons) in stromatolitic carbonate rocks in Africa. Kerogen has been extracted from ~2,300-m.y. old Transvaal (Africa) stromatolitic limestone containing coccoid and complex filamentous cyanophytes (a type of algae). Also, aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons have been obtained from the ~2,800-m.y. old Bulawayan stromatolitic limestone of Rhodesia.

Quote:

leadfoot quote:
By looking around themselves and seeing that we are indeed here, that will be sufficient proof [of universe creating intelligent life] to the anti ID side.

Just curious. Other than using the metaphor of 'looking around themselves' instead of 'within the realm of science', What do you see in that quote that is different than what you said?

I've never understood where you get that I'm 'anti science' BTW.

Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time
Some species are evolving far more quickly than Darwin ever imagined.

By Jane Braxton Little|Thursday, January 22, 2015
...
A century earlier, Darwin had assumed that evolution takes tens to hundreds of thousands of generations to produce new species — a plodding path so slow it is essentially invisible. That theory still held sway when Reznick began grad school in 1974. Scientists had studied evolution in controlled laboratory experiments, but watching it happen in a natural setting in a human lifetime was considered improbable at best, more likely impossible.
...
Undaunted, in 1981 Reznick returned to Trinidad’s swift streams to test his theory. He transplanted guppies from a site where they had to fend off cichlids, an aggressive, wide-mouthed fish, to a new site with no predators and no other guppies. Reznick also introduced cichlids to guppy sites without predators.

He found that within four years — a mere six to eight generations — male guppies had significantly changed their reproductive patterns. Those transplanted from a high-predation site to a stream without predators were larger, matured later and reproduced more slowly. Where Reznick had introduced predators, the guppies adapted by maturing at an earlier age. Survival became a race to produce more babies.

“The risk of death alters the ways organisms allocate resources for survival,” Reznick says.

The results of his federally funded study prompted what he calls one of his proudest moments in science: a National Enquirer story with the headline, “Uncle Sam wastes $97,000 to learn how old guppies are when they die.” Actually, Reznick chuckles, “I learned a great deal more than that.” His work with the guppies changed his thinking about how quickly species can evolve. And it helped launch a paradigm shift in scientists’ thinking about evolution.

In the decades since Reznick’s first trip to Trinidad, other studies have demonstrated a fast drive toward adaptation that scientists have come to call “rapid evolution.” Researchers who once assumed evolution required millennia are documenting species adapting in mere decades, or even shorter time frames.

His work with the guppies changed his thinking about how quickly species can evolve. And it helped launch a paradigm shift in scientists’ thinking about evolution.

And it helped launch a paradigm shift in scientists’ thinking about evolution.

. . . the guppies adapted by maturing at an earlier age. . .

FBM wrote:

. . . the guppies adapted by maturing at an earlier age. . .

WO W!
So, what did they name the new species?

neologist wrote:

FBM wrote:

. . . the guppies adapted by maturing at an earlier age. . .

WO W!
So, what did they name the new species?

What are you talking about?

It's a common misconception that evolution requires millions of years:

science doesnt have a worldview (or at least it shouldnt if its for real)

The 2005 decision by Judge John E. Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was celebrated by all red-blooded American liberals as avictory over the forces of darkness.

The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory. Skeptics about the theory are seen as so dangerous, and so disreputably motivated, that they must be denied any shred of legitimate interest.

Most importantly, the campaign of the scientific to rule out intelligent design as beyond discussion because it is not science results in the avoidance of significant questions about the relation between evolutionary theory and religious belief, questions that must be faced in order to understand the theory and evaluate the scientific evidence for it.

From the beginning it has been commonplace to present the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection as an alternative to intentional design as an explanation of the functional organization of living organisms. The evidence for the theory is supposed to be evidence for the absence of purpose in the causation of the development of life-forms on this planet....Its defining element is the claim that all this happened as the result of the appearance of random and purposeless mutations in the genetic material followed by natural selection due to the resulting heritable variations in reproductive fitness. It displaces design by proposing an alternative.

No one suggests that the theory is not science, even though the historical process it describes cannot be directly observed, but must be inferred from currently available data. It is therefore puzzling that the denial of this inference, i.e., the claim that the evidence offered for the theory does not support the kind of explanation it proposes, andthat the purposive alternative the denial of this inference should be dismissed as not science.

The contention seems to be that, although science can demonstrate the falsehood of the design hypothesis, no evidence against that demonstration can be regarded as scientific support for the hypothesis. Only the falsehood, and not the truth, of ID can count as a scientific claim....When Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection, neither he nor anyone else had any idea of how heredity worked, or what could cause a mutation that was observable in the phenotype and was heritable. The proposal was simply that something purposeless was going on that had these effects, permitting natural selection to operate. This is no less vague than the hypothesis that the mutations available for selection are influenced by the actions of a designer. So it must be the element of purpose that is the real offender

So the purposes and intentions of God, if there is a god, and the nature of his will, are not possible subjects of a scientific theory or scientific explanation. But that does not imply that there cannot be scientific evidence for or against the intervention of such a non-law-governed cause in the natural order. The fact that there could be no scientific theory of the internal operation of the divine mind is consistent with its being in large part a scientific question whether divine intervention provides a more likely explanation of the empirical data than an explanation in terms of physical law alone.

To ask whether there are limits to what can credibly be explained by a given type of scientific theory, or any theory relying only on universal physical laws, is itself a scientific question. An answer to the question that asserts such limits on the basis of empirical evidence is still a scientific claim, even if it also proposes an alternative cause whose internal operation is not governed by the kind of natural law that science can investigate.

The claim that ID is not a scientific theory implies that even if there were scientific evidence against evolutionary theory, which was originally introduced as an alternative to design, that would not constitute any scientific evidence for ID. We might have to give up evolutionary theory, but then we would be constrained by the canons or definition of science to look for a different scientific, i.e., nonpurposive, explanation of the development of life, because science prohibits us from even considering ID as a possible alternative explanation...

Unfortunately it also seems to undermine the scientific status of the rejection of ID....the assumption that there cannot be a scientific argument for the presence of a cause that is not itself governed by scientific laws. In any event, a purely semantic classification of a hypothesis or its denial as belonging or not to science is of limited interest to someone who wants to know whether the hypothesis is true or false..

The denier that ID is science faces the following dilemma. Either he admits that the intervention of such a designer is possible, or he does not. If he does not, he must explain why that belief is more scientific than the belief that a designer is possible. If on the other hand he believes that a designer is possible, then he can argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the actions of such a designer, but he cannot say that someone who offers evidence on the other side is doing something of a fundamentally different kind. All he can say about that person is that he is scientifically mistaken.