The Theory of Evolution

Pro:"A true watchmaker has foresight:"And Dawkins has used "aliens seeding Earth" and "reality being a possible computer simulation" to explain away and theorize certain complex components of our reality.Pro:"Why the Evidence Reveals a Universe Without Design"And yet the complete DNA instruction book, or genome, for a human contains about 3 billion bases and about 20,000 genes on 23 pairs of chromosomes.DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. To carry out these functions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.During DNA replication, DNA unwinds so it can be copied. At other times in the cell cycle, DNA also unwinds so that its instructions can be used to make proteins and for other biological processes. But during cell division, DNA is in its compact chromosome form to enable transfer to new cells.The genetic code consists of 64 triplets of nucleotides. These triplets are called codons.With three exceptions, each codon encodes for one of the 20 amino acids used in the synthesis of proteins.Our genetic makeup is a complex and vast "code" of information. In infinite monkey theorem, the probability of a universe like ours deriving from an exo-reality full of monkeys typing is equivalent to them typing a complete work such as all of Shakespeare's writings, and it is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is virtually zero. And in this case we don't even have the monkeys. One very strong argument against Darwinian theory is that a computer with the computational power to accomplish and fully simulate the same process in fast forward is still impossible without a human made algorithm, yet we are to believe nothing or an inanimate unknown variable randomly did it unguided. Teleology in nature is the very thing Darwinists abhor. Random mutations cannot have any prescribed goal. This is extrinsict vs intrinsict constructs. For life to evolve this way, what preexisting model (algorithm) is it emulating? This proccess can have no goals or logic behind what happens, just like the monkeys randomly typing. They never punch out a long diatribe of coherant thought. Why? There is no guided proccess. Even computers which can randomly select and spew out information in infinite quantities cannot type out long coherant thought without a human guided algorithm. And even with a human guided and programmed algorithm, the thoughts are hardly cohesive, typing out things such as "The fox crawls suns and hamsters talks bowels from fun."So, as far as intrinsic and extrinsic goals, how is "MFLDHNLS ITJIQWHTZREZ MECS P" better than "WDLTMNLT DTMBSWIRZKEZLMQCO P"? After presenting this idea, Dawkins admits in his book, "Life isn't like that". (Pg. 50)No it isn't. "Blind and random" is simply "blind and random" with no goal nor objective. This debate isn't about how that process would have come to be in the first place, so I'll leave abiogenesis-like theories alone.The point? A computer with a programmed algorithm struggles to emulate vastly simplified versions of random coherancy, yet we are to believe a reality with no algorithm, no computer, and no mind to create a computer, blindly guided us through a process trillions of times more complex than any simple experiment that cannot emmulate any coherant diatribe.Con:"We've found several transitional forms for several organisms."Have we? Such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus of "whale evolution" involving Philip Gingerich?Rodhocetus was the "whale intermediary", and looked mildly convincing in the illustrations. The problem is...many of the characteristics drawn were not anywhere on the actual skeleton find. The flippers, fluked tail, and blowhole were "assumed". Nevertheless, this is sill an intermediary, still shown at museums, and still in books.The problem Darwinists side step is that:1)Intermediaries are assumed to be intermediaries, and we all know what ssumption is the mother of... Example? If future humanoids found Mini Me, Andre the Giant, and Brontoraptor, millions of years from now, would they figure out that all 3 of us are the exact same species or assume us as 3 intermediaries? I mean obviously, Mini-Me intermidiaried to Brontoraptor, who intermediaried to Andre the Giant, thus this is how we got bigger. But it's not reality in reality. We had nothing to do with each other in any way shape or form. We are simply variants with 3 very unique variations of characteristics available to the human species. 2)Technically there would be billions of intermediaries (in theory)between getting from simple organisms to human supermodels and/or geniuses, not one, not two, not 3, but billions...Imagine a squid. Now imagine writing down every "gradual change" it would take to get from the squid to Christy Brinkley in her prime. The number of theoretical intermediary changes would be unsermountable.Darwinian Theory's greatest problem is it meets zero standards of the scientific method. It cannot be tested, measured, witnessed, seen, etc. Thus it does not even meet the bare minimal qualifications of the scientific method. To adhere to it simply as the truth, we must blindly make assumptions, which is not science, but a dogmatic and ideologically based worldview. I am Darwinian Evolution Agnostic. I need prove. I need tests. I need measurements. I need transitional intermediaries out the wazzu to dare say we have an adequate sample size to even begin to theorize or make assumptions about an theoretical gradual change. Showing me an Angus bull and a Texas Longhorn skeleton, then claiming they evolved into each other is a guess, and a wrong guess. Showing me a poodle and a Black Lab skeleton as intermediaries to one another is a guess and a wrong guess. And in the case of these "ancient finds", we don't have the luxury of knowing with any certainty that 2 finds are related in any way to one another in a Darwinian manner, just as future descendents cannot assume Mini-Me, Andre the Giant, and Brontoraptor have anything to do with the "evolution" of one another. Finally, finding one "supposed" creature in China, a 2nd in the U.S., and another in Antartica is not safe in assuming the 3 are somehow related when they lived in different parts of the world. On the other hand, finding 3 creatures in the exact same general location does not mean they evolved into each other. They could simply be 3 creatures who existed in the same place together. And with assumed traits rather than actual found traits on these finds, the process has become untrustable, defamed of its character, and undependable. I rarely trust illustrations to be what they show because rarely do they match the actualskeletons found.And...Darwinian theory sidesteps massive cataclismic events as variables, non-fossilizations of probably most creatures ever to have existed, and ignores infinite possible variables that can skew our current assumptions. *https://www.genome.gov...http://www.cbs.dtu.dk...http://www.biology-pages.info...https://en.m.wikipedia.org...https://en.m.wikipedia.org...https://en.m.wikipedia.org...http://programmers.stackexchange.com...https://en.m.wikipedia.org...https://en.m.wikipedia.org...http://www.thegrandexperiment.com...