Evolution, the theory that all life is the result of purely undirected processes, is probably false.

Overall, this has been a challenging but enjoyable debate. I would like to thank SnoopyDaniels (SD) for directing it my way. Although I am no expert in evolution, I do know that it is a fact, as do 99% of biologists. The problem that seems to plague SD is he cannot understand how the first information came about in cells. This question is not an aspect of evolution, and saying evolution is wrong because it does not explain the origin of life is akin to claiming an umbrella is useless because it doesn't predict hurricanes. But, I will answer some of the abiogenesis issues. His mathematical probability fallacy – SD states a number (1 in 10^65 ) that is the likelihood of an amino acid forming on its own. Then states later "Until the completely random process of mutation produces something useful, which is mathematically impossible, natural selection has nothing to act upon." He gives a number; very small odds, yes – then, since is is so small, he calls it impossible. The math is wrong, as I have shown in my previous argument – but honestly, this infinitesimal probability did exist, and was taken advantage of. (Thank goodness for us it was) The only thing that his math shows is the the first life on earth had to be a whole lot simpler than a modern day cell. It does nothing to disprove that simple cell, though. Granted, the first reproducing life was improbable, to say the least, but nowhere near impossible. A small chance is still a chance. SD wants me to answer the infinite regress question. (Where did the first information in cells come from?) But when faced with the same question concerning his Intelligent Designer, he does not answer. Why? Because now it becomes a product of his faith. But, SD, I need not rely on faith. These videos explain abiogenesis much better than I could. I implore you to watch them if you have the time. They directly answer your questions. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... SD - Who's talking about "making up" a designer? The evidence IMPLIES a designer. By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming gene sequences are information fitting that definition, SD defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning. Start with the answer, you can always find a question to match. (Man was intelligently designed. How was man created?) But start with a question, you need not limit yourself to one answer. AND, if later, those answers are found to be errant, you can revise, rethink, or throw them out. This is the beauty of science, and the Achilles' heel of Intelligent Design is presupposition. If we use a semantic definition for information, we cannot assume that data found in nature is information. We cannot know a priori that it had an intelligent source. We cannot make the data have semantic meaning or intelligent purpose by simply defining it so. SD- -If our audience takes nothing else away from this debate, remember that last point. Yes, please remember that point. But as I have said time again, evolution is not meant to explain life, just to show how we got here from there. To take a scientific term and add your own theories to it (abiogenesis) is contemptible. Evolution is a fact, has been observed, and the only difference between micro and macro is time. To evolutionary scientists, the macro and micro are irrelevant. Evolution is also a theory – we use the theory to explain how evolution works. For example – we know gravity is a fact – but the theory of gravity is the science behind it. The fact is the "what", and the theory is the "how". SD- Just exactly how are chance and time any better explanations than intelligence? OR How is evolution better than ID? 1.Well, because it can be tested, ID can't. 2.Because it doesn't answer the question before even posing it. 3.Because it contributes practically to the world. a. Development of antibiotics. b. Agriculture and animal husbandry. c. In computer science, genetic algorithms, that is, a programming technique that allows the program to consider a range of possible alternatives and then evaluate them all based on their relative fitness to the problem at hand, is becoming more and more relevant. Evolutionary computing has been used to solve problems in mathematics, molecular biology, robotics, chemistry, and astrophysics. d. Stem cell research. e. Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. More - http://www.talkorigins.org... SD - Intelligence exists all around us. There are approximately 8 billion of them on the earth at this very moment. Why does intelligence suddenly become magical and enigmatic when brought up in the context of intelligent design? Ridiculous example. Intelligence becomes magical and enigmatic when brought up in the context of intelligent design because it answers nothing. So you say there is an intelligence – the intelligences we know of are corpreal. Where does this Ider reside? What is he? In science – we try to figure out how stuff is made, we don't make stuff up. It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase "junk DNA" was coined.) However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function: Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy. The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives. Mutations in functional regions of DNA show evidence of selection -- nonsilent changes occur less often that one would expect by chance. In other sections of DNA, there is no evidence that any changes are selected against. Evolution has predicted that insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects. Evolution predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients. With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests. And there I will draw to a close. On first glance, the conclusion of an intelligent designer seems sound, but on closer inspection, including reading of the primary scientific-ID literature, some important points are not addressed, glossed over, or worse: misunderstood. Of course, this is the very reason why these papers are not published in mainstream scientific literature. It's not that the conclusion of an intelligent designer that is too radical for the data set; it's that the scientific basis of the work is not very well argued. It's so poorly argued in fact, that I have a hard time taking it seriously. Thank you.