Article on The origin of complex life

How are you "pretty damn sure" and please help me understand your expertise in this regard.

Because the probabilities aren't there. It doesn't fit the patterns I observe living. When ever I see something complex that could have been made by an intelligent man, it always was. (or an alien or something) Not even stone hedge. But when farmer answers my last two questions, it could change my mind.

People who constantly attempt to hammer on randomness and macroevolution ought to have "I'm really stupid" tattooed on their foreheads. When there are literally billions upon billions of iterations, events that the god botherers like to call random occur with almost boring regularity. Macroevolution takes place without more than inferential reference to genetics. Any trait which confers upon individuals a higher level of reproductive opportunity will, over long periods of time (you know, "macro-"?), become a commonplace in a species' genome. That can confer evolutionary success on a species over very long periods of time--unless, of course, it is too closely tied to climate or resources. In those latter cases, reproductive success from exploitation of an environment can result in species collapse when and if conditions change radically--you know, such as an ice age, the end of an ice age or long-term warming or cooling?

Really, these are just dull-witted dodges of the god botherers and others who peddle that ID bullshit.

Sounds like Set is a 'random denier'.

What are some of the billions upon billions of iterations. And please don't give me more fossil evidence or examples of micro-evoultion, (which usually ends up being selective breeding of traits already in the genetic code.

Macro evolution requires massive changes to the genetic code. Little changes can add up to big ones but they have to be in sequence much too long to get the reproductive edge. (for example a partially formed womb, or leg or eye will not give a competitive edge till it's at least close to fully formed. I feel like I am talking to somebody who says our next baby is going to be a girl because we already had three girls. The chances for the fourth are still 50/50. The chances of the next gradual evolutionary steps for the macro evolution of an eye, leg, or womb evolving to completion with the next gradual evolutionary step being provided by random mutations for macro evolution are always the same, unlikely. One or maybe two or three steps maybe, but the many to provide the necessary of advantage for survival is unlikely. That is not complex mathematics or complex information technology. It is almost intuitive, to me anyway.

So, quit assuming myself and anybody that agrees with me is stupid and provide me with some statistic analysis of a model or (living proof), where random generation of bits of new information can provide the correct information, sequentially and over a long period of time, for natural selection to develop that organ and store the information with no apparent reproductive advantage till the mophology is complete, and thus ending in a more complex DNA code leading to macroevoultion like a new organ or change in species. I would love to review it and discuss it with you.