1. Origins of life may not be within the scope of evolution but it is a necessary requirement.
A necessary requirement, for what?
For evolution to start? Yes. Life must exist for evolution to pick up. That's kind of stating the obvious.
Even taking life as a given, the order and complexity for evolution requires an explanation. Evolution did not evolve.
Evolution as a process is the only possible outcome of systems that compete for limited resources and reproduce with variation.
This process is not something that needs any "creating".
It's what automatically happens to such systems.
2. You don't know what first life looked life.
I'm not the one making claims about first life...
The problem is the evidence we do have for the first life we do know is complex and already shows apparent design.
We don't know what first life looked like, so you can't possible know what it "appears" like. Not that it matters what it "appears" like though...
3. Your subjective opinions are what you are expecting me to accept.
Which opinions would that be?
When no evidence can be presented it always helps to point fingers to others honesty.
I presented you with a simplistic example of a practical application of evolutionary principles, wich demonstrates how this process is capable of producing designs from non-designs.
Failing to recognise this is due to either unwillingness to understand or sheer dishonesty.
Exactly. A blueprint is not included in evolution according to materialists.
Yes, there is. Generation 0. First life.
These programs are "programmed".
Do you understand what "controlled conditions" are?
The programming is merely setting up the environment and the fitness test.
Things that are analogous to the planet earth and other real things that actually exist.
The programming is done to simulate an environment that can host an evolutionary process.
The point of the example is
the evolutionary process and the designs it produces. Not the world it simulates which plays host to the process.
Your argument against this, is frankly as silly as saying that the North Pole isn't natural because freezers are created in factories.
1. If we know from experience that "intelligent human" intervention in plants and animals leaves no trace in their genetic makeup how do you propose to claim that there was no intelligent agent needed to create the design that is evident in even the most simple cell?
Because nothing in the genome consists of things that can't be accomplished by evolutionary means. The entire nested hierarchical structure is an illustration of that fact.
Can we know that no intervention took place if it left no evidence? Nope.
But, obviously, it would be upto those that
claim intervention took place to come up with evidence in support of that.
So good luck with that.
2. Where is the evidence of the non-design?
In the program?
In the source code. It starts with a random chromosome. A random amount of polygons with a random amount of wheels attached to random vector.
When that first generation is then run through the loop of the evolutionary process, designs of cars eventually emerge. Without intervention. Just random mutation followed by selection.
3. Where is the evidence of the non-design becoming designed?
On your screen. When the object start to resemble cars and perform better and better on the track....... derp.
What paper in those 200.000 peer reviewed papers deal with the order needed for evolution the process to occur?
None, because the origins of life are out of scope for evolution. Derp again.
What in the 200.000 shows evidence for non-design becoming design? Please provide them.
You don't need those technical papers to have evidence of that. Just leave the boxcar website open for a few hours.
The evolutionary process. Producing designs of cars through evolution. By itself. Without "intelligent" help.
Life is needed for evolution, so is the order from which evolution starts.
no life...no evolution
no order...no evolution
Evolution did not evolve.
Nobody claims it did.
Try staying on topic.
You don't have to apply the label to yourself, but the majority of scientists today come under that label.
If you say so. I don't really care what scientists
believe any more then what you or Captain Kirk believes.