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

I'll try to provide a list of sources in my final argument. Problem is, I don't remember where I read half of this stuff. The article I posted by Stephen Meyer is excellent, though, and cites dozens and dozens of sources (including evolutionists) in its own right. I'm sorry you disagree with the resolution, but the definition I introduce therein is a common and widely accepted one. I also made it clear in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH that by "undirected" I meant "not guided by intelligence." Natural selection is not random, but I'm not questioning the role of natural selection, I am questioning the ability of RANDOM MUTATION to produce traits that natural selection can then act upon. Parroting evolutionist propaganda does not constitute an argument. Evolution is not a fact. It is a fact that I have a guitar in my room. From this fact you might reasonably infer that I like music. However, the presence of a guitar in my room could just as easily be the result of a lack of storage space forcing my dad to keep it in my room. No matter how reasonable an inference may seem, it can never constitute fact, especially when other evidence demonstrates it to be untenable, which is the very issue we are debating here. Evolution may be true, but it cannot be fact. I have not "lumped" abiogenesis in with evolution. Any comprehensible theory of the origin of life must include a theory of how life began. Indeed, one of the possible definitions of evolution IS abiogenesis. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not we include abiogenesis in our definition, the same problems that plague abiogenesis plague evolution, so your case would not be any easier. You have nothing to complain about. Since you have so conveniently numbered your albeit failed attempt to boil down my arguments, I shall use the same system of numbering my responses. 1. First of all, I never said that scientific theories are subjective. What I DID say was that the process of determining which theory best explains a phenomenon CAN be subjective. Science is not a matter of trust. There is no reason for any of us to take scientific propositions at face value, and indeed, the whole discipline of science DEPENDS on skepticism and questioning current scientific assumptions. That is certainly what Darwin did, and what he is so revered for. The idea that we should somehow believe everything scientists tell us because of the peer review process is preposterous. Peer review is only as objective as the peers that do the reviewing, and the scope of their knowledge limited to what they've been taught and believe to be true. They are every bit as susceptible to bias and prone to error as you and I. 2. The fact that intelligence is the only source we've ever observed to produce information is INTENSELY relevant to evolution. Until he goes searching for more exotic and complex explanations, it is the duty of a scientist to exhaust simpler explanations. That's where the quote by Chet Raymos comes in. In other words, evolution is not necessary to explain life, since we already know of a force that can produce the information required for life: intelligence. 3. Unfortunately, current theories of abiogenesis--and biology classrooms--still draw heavily from the work of Dean Kenyon. Besides, I never said that his erroneous theory DID disprove evolution, (there you go twisting my arguments again) only that one of the best theories of abiogenesis to date has been discredited by the very man who pioneered it. 4. True, natural selection is not random, and I never said it was. However, natural selection CAN'T SELECT ANYTHING until a COMPLETELY RANDOM PROCESS, mutation, produces something of reproductive value. This fact renders Hardison's experiment completely void because his program did something that natural selection cannot do, which is to select random mutations that represent progress toward a useful protein. Natural selection can only select for completed useful sequences, not sequences of DNA that an INTELLIGENT AGENT would recognize as progress toward an evolutionary goal. Natural selection does nothing to overcome the mathematical hurtles presented by random mutation. "It also implies that there is a set number of proteins, with set sequences for each protein, that are required for life. There is neither." Both constraints do indeed exist. It is a demonstrable fact that a vast majority of DNA sequences do not result in successful protein synthesis, which means that there is a set number of useful sequences of any given length that will produce proteins. Even evolutionist scientists recognize this. I'm having to delete arguments in order to make all of this fit, so I'll respond to the talkorigins article later if need be. 5. You are correct that the phyla in the Cambrian did not necessarily represent modern organisms. That's not the point. The point is that life went from being almost exclusively single celled to being enormously complex and diverse, relatively speaking. Consider a hypothetical but realistic Cambrian organism that has just four different types of cells. Let's be ridiculously conservative and assume that each cell required just five unique proteins of 150 amino acids in length. Since each of these proteins represents a conservative 1 in 10^77 power probability then the overall probability of this organism arising by random mutation would be 1 in 10^1540 power. To put that probability in perspective, scientists estimate that there are only 10^127 power atoms in the ENTIRE KNOWN UNIVERSE. In other words, you have a ten-fold better chance of picking one atom out of all the atoms in the universe than random mutation has of producing just 20 new functional proteins. Even if we incorporate the number of trials based on an extremely liberal but arbitrary figure representing the number of organisms on earth at the time, let's say 1,000,000,000,000,000, you still have only a 1 in 10^1525 probability, which is STILL more than ten times less probable than choosing a single atom from all the atoms in the universe. 6. While it is true that body plan is produced during ontogeny by chemical relays, these relays depend heavily on the womb or egg in which it develops. For example, the position of the head in relation to the body of a fruit fly depends on chemical exchanged between the corresponding part of the fly's body and the tissue of the surrounding egg sack. This is to say that, in order for an organism to develop its characteristic body plan, it requires an organism of the same shape and genetic makeup. DNA can produce tubulin subunits and centrisomes all day long, but it will never dictate the arrangement of either, and it is that arrangement that dictates the shape of the cell. It is interesting that you refer to controlled gene expression. Where did the proteins that regulate the genes that produce the proteins that regulate the genes come from? The protein inhibitor can't exist exist without the DNA to manufacture it and a cell can't survive producing useless proteins in excess. So far the only explanation you and your fellow evolutionists have been able to offer is "It was a very slow process that began with simpler organisms and gradually progressed to more complex ones." Similar explanations are offered for the gradual evolution of other complex biological structures and organisms. The terms "functional pathway" and "cooption" are thrown around frequently, but evolutionists have yet to present ONE SINGLE SOLITARY step by step process by which, for example, a land mammal could evolve into a whale. One would think, though, that before a theory can be considered viable, it would have to explain these kinds of problems in detail. One would also think that with all of the in-depth hard-hitting research that evolutionists apparently do (as opposed to the lazy ID proponents) that they would have come up with a more satisfactory and thorough answer than "