Isn’t it just? I got an email about some last minute cuts on top of a surfeit of other matters. Helps to externalize.

>>17010646
I don't think it is. Evolution is actually very easy to grasp.

>>17010667
it is if you ignore almost everything about it and just say its random instead of saying god did it

>>17010690
Chaitin already proved that random mutation + selection can produce any emergent system of information that intentional design could in the same time complexity (poly time). So no, you don't need a god at all or an "intelligent designer". And mutations are random but selection is not random. There is nothing that needs to be ignored, you just don't actually know what evolution is.

It is even more difficult to accept that a singular being personally designed and fine-tuned every protein of every cell of every organ of every organism that ever existed.

>>17010772
So you're saying that the conditions of the world cause natural selection to act upon organisms? Do you realize how absurd it is to suggest that there's a collection of chemical instructions that you can just plop down in the world and it auto-configures into a new form to exploit the specific terrain and temperature and other properties around it, its like having magic planet-sculpting drones from sci-fi that just end up optimizing to whatever conditions they are deployed in.

There's no way life is that impressive or robust, i'm pretty sure it was designed actually since there's yet to be any evidence of life outside of Earth, so it must be pretty fragile and not robust like i'm saying

>>17010772
random anything is not science

>>17010772
No trannie, your jewish soientist did not disprove God.

>>17010772
How are mutations random but selection isn't? The factors that drive selection to preclude certain arrangements from sustaining while others get to live are ultimately of the same nature as the ones that cause mutations to occur in the first place, i.e. happenstance.

>>17010772
Threadly reminder that it's been known for decades that mutation isn't random and it's 100% confirmed that you're part of a cult shitting out nonsensical and empirically falsified pseudo-arguments.

>>17010646
>It is difficult to accept that complex dynamic systems spontaneously develop in nature by what are essentially cumulative errors, without a guiding hand
It's not so hard to grasp that it's possible in principle, nor is it hard to grasp that there was no intelligent designer guiding it. Therefore it must have happened and it's just a matter of figuring out how.

>>17010863
Stochastic processes btfo with this simple argument

>>17010945
>T gets turned to a C randomly
>organism immediately dies because it fucked up protein folding
>both these processes somehow have "the same nature"

>>17010945
Selection isn't random because a predator for instance systematically targets the slowest individuals or a drought systematically targets the most drought vulnerable plants. There's some randomness in the process of course but there's much less randomness there than in mutations, DNA is largely self similar and no part of it is particularly reinforced against being mutated by random radiation or copying error nor being swapped for another bit by the various duplication, deletion and swap mechanisms in the copying process.

>>17010949
>Threadly reminder that it's been known for decades that mutation isn't random
Not really. The hot spots of mutations are due to the slightly differing distributions of chromatin structures, it's not due to any sort of epigenetic mechanism or environment input or something. Mutations that happen are independent of any sort of "need" that the organism has in the environment, this has not been refuted nor has it "been known for decades that mutation isn't random". The independence won Luria and Delbrück the Nobel in 1969, and nothing has refuted this since. I suspect you don't actually know what you're talking about given your reply.