But you are: you keep insisting that there is such a thing as randomness (not chaos, that means something very different) as some sort of eternal trait of something. But all randomness exists only because of a certain degree of underlying order, and all order at some level is built on randomness. Both randomness and order are conceptual: neither is a true quality of a discrete thing. If you see the world in Platonic essential forms, then obviously it is beyond your imagination to think of something that you see as being essentially random “turn into” something that is ordered.
You’ve already been given several examples, and you’ve rejected them out of hand with nonsense objections. Any more at this point is a waste of time unless you take the time to re-examine the examples already given.
If we never go beyond 2+2=4, then we’re not going to get very far.
It is time for you to define information. You’ve already been shown (and have ignored) the mechanism for adding “information” to the genome. Assuming you accept that mutations exist, if a mutation turns off a gene, why can’t the reverse turn it back on? If you believe we can lose information, then you must also believe the genome can gain it.
We know how many genes the wolf has. Can you demonstrate there is enough space in the wolf’s genome to hold all the genetic information for all the breeds of dogs in the world? How come we don’t ever see a wolf with the coat of a Saint Bernard, say, or the ears of a cocker spaniel?
And, while we are at it, please present the slightest bit of archeological evidence for the Tower of Babel. You are aware that languages evolve, aren’t you? Why can’t they have evolved from the very beginning, and not have been created?
BTW, have you ever read any real evolution books, or do you get your information from church bulletins? Could you describe what the theory of evolution says, in your own words?
I can easily see how most creationists would hate you and your opinions, but what makes you believe that such a position would offend evolutionists? It doesn’t.
Evolutionists (i.e., rational people) don’t mind in the slightest if you wish to believe in deities or that you wish to believe that one or more deities were the “motive force” “behind” “creating” the Universe such that naturalistic biological evolution would take place. Such beliefs are outside the scope of evolutionary theory. Believe whatever you like on such matters; evolutionists won’t mind in the slightest.
Unless you meant to imply that you believe that your alleged deities magically/supernaturally intervened in the actual process of biological evolution. In such a case, you’d be arguing against scientific evolution and arguing for creationism.
I’m not a scientist, nor do I have a scientific background, but I can envision how this would happen without “adding” information:
The hairs that cover a pigs body (yes there are little hairs there) slowly develop into larger structures with multple branching hairs. Eventually they get larger so that the central hair is still and strong and the offshoot hairs are soft. Then the forearms slowly change over time into winglike structures. The pig goes on a diet and hits the treadmill, slimming down over the years, and his bones start to become hollow to reduce weight. Again, we haven’t added any information, just changed what’s there.
Of course the pig has to have a NEED to fly first. If they find everything then need at ground level then why evolve into something that flies?
I don’t think scientists would even find that view counter to their observations. The important thing is the consistency of the observations and the use of them to form testable theories. Whether there’s magic at work or not doesn’t change what’s observed. And in the event it ever DOES change it, theories will be altered to account for it. The only way to deny evolution is to deny what’s observed and confirmed through testing and come up with another explanation for modern day genetic relationships. One can say God played a hand in there somewhere, but that doesn’t trump the ability of scientists to reproduce their observations and tests.