Theory of evolution is valid

You state: 1)And of course, Con brings up "coding" in DNA. As if his arguments didn't already have enough creationist cliche's already. DNA is not "coded" into organisms. The below are lines of code.." Whereupon you show examples of a form of code. Code, which is by its nature, sequences of data, which are able to be written and stored, read and understood. However, one code, can be very different from another. I will use YOUR example as one type of code. Another is language. It can be written, understood by others, and then even conveyed into words, a completely different code based on sound waves and frequency. Also music. Its so perfectly coded that musicians of today are able to play the great works of Wolfgang Mozart perfectly to the T. Not just the notes themselves, but the intricacies of timing and volume level, all from the written code of a sheet of music. Forms of language, able to transverse from lifeless ink on paper, into 3d sound waves in our lives. I wonder what else can be coded in 3d besides sound waves? Apparently, DNA is so perfectly sequenced, at least one company even offers scarves for sale, which have the precise coding of your DNA in a beautiful pattern. http://www.livescience.com... But, how would one derive a pattern from DNA? "A DNA sequencer is a scientific instrument used to automate the DNA sequencing process. Given a sample of DNA, a DNA sequencer is used to determine the order of the four bases: G (guanine), C (cytosine), A (adenine) and T (thymine). This is then reported as a text string, called a read. Some DNA sequencers can be also considered optical instruments as they analyze light signals originating from fluorochromes attached to nucleotides." https://en.wikipedia.org... So here we have the beginnings of our ability to translate a chemical language from one form to another. Decipherable in text, math, even light, and, realized in our world, as the 3d things all around us which we call life. The perfect organization of every cell, and nervous system in all its complexity.. the information for the design and development of the brain, such a complex thing in itself we are only beginning to understand it. All of this of course, once mapped, will someday all be able to translate into electricity, and manifest itself through 1s and 0s on a computer screen as a complex code. And I suppose this brings us to the question of rather men created math, or only discovered it, if math is already an inherent part of the universe. Your small mind, only able to see the here and now, the facts, the data, the spreadsheets.. has no sense of greater vision, or depth of thought. A lesser developed mind only able to manipulate concepts for the purpose of achieving some practical end. The chimpanzee-- who puts the two sticks together in order to get at the banana, has intelligence, something you have in common, yet does he have reason, attempts to understand more deeply than whats on the surface? How deeply do you consider the facts right before your eyes, or, is it possible that reason is also on a bell curve such as intelligence, the short sighted on the lower end of that spectrum? Again, I quote your statement: Also, your point about droughts on the Galapagos leading to a thinning out of the population, leaving only thicker beaks, is silly. Again, I give you the same source.. https://ncse.com... If your reading comprehension is poor, and that's why you ignored this, I can explain it to you, however, assuming your intelligence, I will copy and paste directly from the pdf, so you can easily read why you are wrong. "The Grants" team has found that beak size is heritable. Roughly 65 percent of the phenotypic variance in beak length, and as much as 90 percent of the variance in beak depth, is attributable to additive genetic effects of alleles (h2=0.65 and 0.90, respectively; Boag 1983, Grant and Grant 1993). In other words, big-beaked birds tend to produce chicks with big beaks, and small-beaked birds tend to produce chicks with small beaks." "The Grants found that the size of a finch"s beak could make the difference between life and death. In 1977, Daphne Major was hit by a major drought. Most of the spurge plants died, leaving the medium ground finches without any small seeds to eat. Many of the birds died, most likely because they couldn"t crack open the big seeds from caltrop. The Grants discovered that within a few years, the population of finches had recovered. But now the average size of their beaks was deeper." Next, you bring up my Darwin quote, which you post: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." Again, I would ask you to Highlight brightly in your Origin of Species copy, Darwins first sentence. "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." You State: That journal goes over how early organisms evolved photoreceptors --> image forming eyes formed in Cambrian Explosion --> ospins --> eye-cup --> development of retina etc. and this is specifically talking about the evolution of eyes in vertebrates. A more correct statement would be: "That journal "PRESUMES" how early organisms evolved photoreceptors.." Every step has still not been found for even one species of life on the planet. If you disagree, Link. Even if you can find one example, its one in 8.7 million different species on the planet, minus ones without eyes of course. https://www.sciencedaily.com... Yes, I understand that soft bodied fossils are presumably more difficult to find due to the process of fossilization, however, the burden of proof lays on you, and as of now, an unproven scientific idea which is currently still theory. You also downplay the complexity of the eye and its individual components, all the way down to the cone cells at the microscopic level. Your example of "Ospins-->eye cup--> development of retina ect." is so juvenile in understanding Darwins probably rolling over in his own grave. Most of your debate, as an obvious belittling egotist, is more indicative of you suffering the Dunning-Kruger Effect, than you having any true depth of thought. This is ok though, as everything in the universe is fine tuned to perfection, and the top of the bell curve will always exist to create and innovate around intellectual monkeys, via depth of reason. Interestingly enough, In his book, "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking describes how the universe could not exist without quantum gravity, and that quantum gravity cannot be possible without a timeless wave function of the universe which enables spontaneous creation. This, self collapsing wave function mathematically, is the same thing which happens in our minds when we think. Is the spontaneous creation of the universe into instant perfection, by atomic weights so perfect that if one was even slightly off, that stars would not even exist, due to an intangible mathematical principle, whos only other similar wave function defines the actions of consciousness? If so would this master equation Hawking plotted mean that EVERYTHING in nature stems from mathematical equation? Translation from one language to another, the code of the mathematics of the universe giving rise to stars and planets, and then the life on them as well. Perhaps well never know, but, to keep an open mind, to not wholly subscribe to the most popular theory, because you know, deep down, it is only one theory of many, is to truly do justice to science, the most noble search for truth ever endeavored by man. The chances of our earth forming to support life may have been 1 in a billion, I'm sure with your intellect you can find the exact number, a number so high it violates the Law of probability multiple times over, yet, we exist, mathematically and physically so. In an alternate universe their scientists would look at that data and say, no, thats so unlikely it would never happen, yet this miracle did happen. Think on that over your tea and crumpets. The biggest question on my mind now though, is, Are you triggered?