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

what about at the dawn of life? (no "transmitters around for a few B years). Ws there any DNA at life beginning? was life separate from its bioinformatics.
I dont know, but If you do, can you explain upon what you base this knowledge??

Hey, I didn't call you misguided. I don't think I've ever characterized anything about you.

If he actually did know anything so arcane as biochemistry, and could demonstrate such a case, he'd be a Nobel laureate. However . . .

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

You can't make up sh*t this funny.

I agree chemical bonding does not require intelligence.

A computer does not require intelligence to beat me at checkers either. I would suggest both require intelligence to create the system they are operating in. If I want a computer to beat me at a more complex game like chess somebody is going to have to program it to do that. If the chemicals in DNA are replicating an organism without eyes and ears, and they eventually replicate an organism with eyes and ears I doubt random mutations through natural selection can do that because, it takes imagination and planning to add that kind of complexity to the computer game or biology. The reason is both are evolving information systems. They both follow the same rules when it comes to adding complexity. Because, all information and complexity is purely a mathematical process, and all mathematical processes follow all the same rules of math. Only intelligence seems to operate outside those rules.

If that's not true, lets simulate adding random changes to the checkers program, and simulate natural selection after the information is added, and see if we end up with "chess" or "Dungeons and Dragons" or "Donkey Kong". Who knows maybe all we might have to do is monitor it and keep it running maybe even add a more advanced processor and memory, and we could just get rich letting the computer create more advanced video games. (Here is another test for natural selection vs ID)

Do you think we can get a computer to do that?

Could you answer my questions about SETI and complex chemistry from my previous post to you?

Nature knows nothing about good and bad. It reveals the difference between them.

I would suggest nature was the receiver, and we should look for evidence of the transmitter. If there is information being receined somebody transmitted it. But some body built the receiver. That had to be the first step.

That's why we call it nature. Good and bad are human concepts.

Hrdly an answer to my question. Perhaps youve eliminated "classes" of various "intelligence" such as how chemicals join up based on their molecular and ionic properties.

Such a conclusion would require as much evidence as one could muster. How are chemicals required to have an intelligence when we find many of the nucleosides an nucleotides from outer space in meteorites and in star spectra??

You still haven't answered my question about seti and complex chemistry from my previous post. Why not? I am trying to answer all your questions.

Of course good and bad are human Concepts. Who else do you know besides humans that can conceptualize. God?

Do you think we can build a computer and program it to simulate macroevolution like I stated earlier with the video games?

The Pope said I can believe in evolution and God. He also said I should fight man made global warming. Everybody is admiring his scientific intelligence. He has more authority than you and I. I am not doubting speciation, or macroevolution. Can you believe in all that and not believe that random mutations through natural selection caused all those things?I didn't say God. I said intelligence. God is supposedly omnipetent and perfect. I have not provided evidence to support that, so I won't argue it. Why is the possibility of intelligence behind it so terrible that it can't even be considered?

good and bad is morality - morality is in the eye of the beholder

But, a dog knows good from bad. Do dogs have morals?

Possibly. What do you think?

The Pope has no more authority than is granted by those who chose to see him as an authority figure. He's no authority figure to me. The authority of which I speak here is the authority of someone whose credentials and life's studies confer authority on him or her. (I suspect you understand that, and you're just playing the weasel once again.) You speak as though you were an authority figure, and yet I know of no reason to consider you an authority on biology and biochemistry. In fact, your silly pronouncements here give the lie to any claim to authoritative knowledge on your part.

Once again, I consider you a liar. This is the weasel position of the entire ID crowd. If one were to examine your claim, simply for the sake of argument, you have provided no reason to consider that evolution is driven by any intelligence. By the way, the rise of life anywhere is going to be abiogenesis. Even if your imaginary friend does actually exist and started life, it was abiogenesis, because first there was no life, and then there was--abiogenesis.

BTW Sentana, did you know that NASA found from Cassini data returns all the elements necessary for life to exist on one of moons of Saturn? Remember, they have to prove it is a nursery in which life can begin!

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/enceladus/

If you mean Titan, it is the most likely other candidate in this star system. It's fascinating stuff.

I am not doubting speciation, or macroevolution. Can a scientist believe in all that and not believe that random mutations through natural selection caused all those things?

Why is the possibility of intelligence behind it so terrible that it can't even be considered?

Who said it was terrible? Got any evidence?