Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

The studies are already done. If statistical analysis says the "random mutation" part of Darwinian evolution is impossible without modification, then modification is needed. ID is one possible modification. Any other modification is going to have to look like intelligence because we have no other alternatives right now.Do you know of any?

Could you explain how the fact that life has to adapt to its environment to survive, is evidence that it adapted without intelligent guidance. You are giving life an implied intelligence by suggesting "life took a direction change by introducing hard parts. It is implied because the difference between organisms that are single called and hard to complex and hard is brought about by an extremely large amount of additional of information in a sequentially sensitive way. I see lots of patterns of similar things happening today and intelligence is always involved. Let's look at one.

We assumed that because of lead and carbon monoxide pollution in large cities we needed to clean up our gasoline and the resultant exhaust emissions from burning gasoline in cars. We passed laws requiring the cleanup as a prerequisite to the manufacturing cars for sale. (The environment cares were operating in changed.) The manufacturers had lots of different options to adapt to this change in climate: electric cars, human powered cars, mass transit, catalytic converters, smaller cars, etc. . . If they chose electric cars the market or climate decided they were to expensive and didn't have enough range, the "natural selection" of the climate in the marketplace didn't provide enough sales for mass production of electric cars. Catalytic converters and smaller cars did survive in the market. A factory is a living system because humans add life to the system so that it is able to exist for generations and adapt to the limits established in the market. Somebody with intelligence built the factory so that it can adapt. Like a true biological organism whether the factory's survival is determined by natural selection dictated by the environment. The need for adaptation is the driver. That is not the argument, we all agree on that. We are arguing about, where did the factory come from and how did the factory know to build a car with a catalytic converter and simultaneously another industry design unleaded fuel to burn in that car? That required intelligence.
You keep saying that the evidence that life introduced hard parts is evidence against ID. That is not the question. The question is, how did life introduce "hard parts"? What is the mechanism behind the introduction of the complex hard parts, or the photosythetic plants? Can you make a nonphotosynthetic organism change into a photosynthetic organism today, without introducing intelligence through human intervention? What are the odds of it happening. To introduce hard parts life had to introduce new DNA in a very specific way that would be similar to my catalytic converter story above. There is a pattern there that can be statistically analyzed. What's the chances of random mutations providing the info for natural selection? We know that number is extremely close to zero. We also know every time we observe it today we did it through intelligence. Maybe there was somebody "like us" around back then that introduced it. I think it should be considered as a possibility because it fits the statistical analysis of similar patterns. What journal should they be introduced to? Have they been denied any serious dialogue in the review process because of philosophical differences (pragmatism verses neopragmatist or realism versus relativism)? How much effort has the scientific community put into fixing these ID theories so they might be altered to lead to something acceptable? If I or somebody else offered one would you review it and offer suggestions to make it more acceptable? In the end the evidence for ID is going to have to come from all historical records of very ancient times because, if it was ID, it happened a long time ago, and that Intelligent Designer should have left evidence. They always do, whether it is the pyramids, Stonehenge, a car factory matter, the Earth and living organisms. The most ancient are the hardest to find. Does that mean an automatic default to "no design"? Is it valid science to look for it?

I freely admit that the initial reason why ID is a 'thing' is due to theological questioning whether theological beliefs fit the scientific picture. ID advocates think they do.

My question to farmerman was whether he saw any reason that is not the case. He did not refute the proposition but also doesn't GAF which is fine. Like I said, I'm not trying to change his POV or yours, the question was all selfish desire for finding if I've overlooked some flaw.

You say the flaw is lack of testability. You are ignoring the fact that we can't test for evolution (macro) either. We see the results of whatever caused it but we can't demonstrate it in a reproducible experiment.

Same goes for stuff like Big Bang, dark matter/energy, abiogenesis, etc, but 'we' believe them nevertheless. You don't have your empirical proof of evolution because either you don't live long enough or it isn't possible without ID.

I don't understand why you insist on "intelligence." It's nature; it's what was there and how humans have managed to change it by our use of fossil fuels. When we impact the atmosphere, it changes the climate on this planet.
We can also alter the clouds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

I don't insist on intelligence, I suggest statistical analysis of the patterns in the data suggest it as a more likely explanation of the origin of the information for natural selection to use in evolution than random mutations. I believe for that reason it deserves rigorous scientific analysis. Why do you believe that isn't a valid reason?

Don't handle truth well??

Nonono... no! There's plenty of evidence for evolution and it is testable. What is not testable (yet) is whether or not it takes a "god" (understood as a supernatural designer entity) to make it happen.

If I could clarify for Leadfoot. I think he means there is no evidence suggesting that random mutations are the likely mechanism providing the new genetic information necessary for natural selection to choose from to provide the massive amounts of sequential information to the genetic code to cause macroevolution. Plus statistical analysis of that statement would suggest it is very unlikely. I don't think Leadfoot is questioning evolution here.

I understand. That's a fair point at this stage of our knowledge, but something tells me that if scientists were to find another natural cause of evolution, you and Leadfoot would still find it unconvincing. You're searching for a supernatural force.

How do you explain bacteria?

Do you believe your intelligence is natural? Why would a being that can manipulate matter on a larger scale than you have to supernatural. Or is it possible that your intelligence originates outside of nature and just enters nature by manipulating a small part of matter in the atoms of your mind, making your intelligence supernatural by definition? Is it possible to test for either?

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/change.htm

The same way I explain a snowman. With evolutionary step by step construction. First came the man then came the snow, then came the snowballs, then came the snow man. Somebody organized the snow. How do you explain a bacteria? How do you explain a snowman? How do you explain a Great Dane, and a Toy Terrier?

I have a single problem with all of that, and that's the use of the "Cambrian explosion" label. For those who think in geological time, it was an explosion. For those who blindly insist on thinking in thousands of years, as per the bobble, it is completely improbable, without their imaginary friend to intervene--in fact, to point his noodley appendage and "intelligently design" the new organisms. But in terms of the life cycle of a eukaryote, we're talking literally billions of generations. It is only with blurred vision and fuzzy thinking that the IDiots come up with their narrative, and they jump on a label like Cambrian explosion to cobble together their witless narrative.

I've become tired of them after about fifteen years of this **** on-line.

Unless you have an alien in mind, I would think the guy(s) who invented life as we know it also created matter itself, together with the rest of this universe. That would be a supernatural entity (ies), as in "out of this (natural) world".

Do you think your creative ability is caused by the atoms in your brain, or your creative ability is not natural and uses the atoms in your brain?

Unless the designer purposely avoided doing so.

Which raises an interesting scenario. How would you hide every clue from the intelligent creatures of your own making? Assuming there is a God, what we see around us is as perfect a setup as you can imagine for doing that. That Big Bang thing is hard to hide once their technology gets to the point where they figure that out, but that's just one thing, they'll rationalize that away with whimsical BS like multiverses or something.

It is not rationalized away by most people, just the leading academics and researchers in physics. But don't fear, they are on the verge of discovering the structure of space as they figure out how to tie what they are learning with Bose Einstein Condenants, and Entropic Gravity, together with string theory, relativity, and quantum mechanics. They will be able to explain how the structure of space makes gravity an emergent force. They might even be able to show us what they imagine a model of the structure of space looks like at its ground state. Of course the philosophers will argue if what they are imagining is real, but most phycisists will agree it is. This will force them to ponder who the designer is. Fortunately Stephen Hawkings knows where the answer to that question is when he said, "religion and philosophy are dead. Science is the new religion". Of course that makes him one of the high priests.

One thing which is obviously infinite in this universe is the capacity of the god-botherers for self-delusion.

Can't imagine how anyone today can believe in any god(s). Nobody has seen god, can describe the looks of god, or provide any evidence for its existence.
Religion is a powerful tool of men, because so many wish to believe in some superpower-creator. The best information we have available today on human evolution can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Where do you think matter came from?