It is quite obvious that the human body, as an example, is an incredible design.
Indeed I agree it is not credible that it is design. If it was, you would fire the designer.
Even one of your staunch atheist allies, Richard Dawkins, says that life has "the appearance of design". He's not alone in that accurate evaluation. Then he goes to great lengths to attempt to show how it's "not really design". He and you are blind.
Well, I am in esteemed company, aren't I. Maybe the flaw in Richard Dawkins's otherwise superb writing is that he would give creationists the credit for having the capacity to concentrate for long enough to get through to the end of the essay. But it looks like you have at least reached the part that discusses the illusion of design. It is very well argued by him. What would be your criticism of his point about that? Or do you just not like him very much?
The built-in design has many ways to removing and limiting change.
So why did you mention mutation accumulation then?
Baloney! According to YOUR model, life began as a "simple single celled organism" and evolved to a man. That is most certainly what any intelligent human would call an uphill change.
I think we might be considering your model of who feels most special, not the model of which species are best adapted to their environments. We are something that the universe made that allows it to observe itself. But there never was a guarantee the we would evolve, or even that multicellular plants and animals would appear. Indeed humans were nearly wiped out by the effects of a volcanic eruption about 75,000 years ago. The population may have dropped as low as 3,000 individuals, dangerously close to unrecoverable numbers.
As for what species are at the top of this mythical evolutionary hill, all species alive today are
equally 'well-evolved'. Perhaps those going extinct aren't doing quite as well as the rest.
I understand the existing theories just fine. They are anti-science.
You don't really know how evolution by natural selection works, or how genetics gives rise to inheritance. But then you don't feel any responsibility to represent facts accurately. The alt-facts are what you want for your religious lifestyle.
Stuu: But what does that have to do with your creationist strawman
'Far better than random accidents creating complex designs.'?
It's no straw-man. Apparently you don't know what that means either.
I could demonstrate my understanding by making some strawmen of your beliefs. Would that help?
Accidents do not have creative power.
Accidents most certainly do have creative power. But they don't have selective power.
Just as soon as you give a reasonable explanation of how dirt comes to life on its own.
You give up so easily.
You're just a silly person.
Thank you for your helpful feedback.
Stuart
/spoiler)