Ah, but you forget (actually twist the idea) that the sequences always fall within certain parameters within the original design ("design parameters", as engineers would call them). This is really, really important for the continuation of life.

You have to remember that the mechanisms that enable adaptation complicate the original design dramatically, and therefore make evolution less probable than without it (if this is possible). Yes, adaptation is complicated, not simple.

Your argument is counterproductive to your cause if you understand what you are really saying (but it looks appealing to the layperson).

I find this often with people who have not done engineering work. They have a habit of having the "hit the television on the side to fix it" mentality. In other words, sometimes, really complex things look simple when you don't understand them.

When you mention combinations that never existed before, you are neglecting to admit that rarely are these adaptations harmful, yet, all (competent) evolutionists admit that the processes that are claimed to be evolution are based on processes that produce harmful mutations almost always.

Do you see the contradiction here? You are confusing 2 entirely different things.

This is another example of maintaining mutually exclusive faiths in your mind at the same time. A necessary attribute of evolutionists. (no offense, just a fact; a word to the wise)


Part of this lecture will help clear it up for you


"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "

—David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].