That is nothing more than a tacit, or not so tacit, admission that evolution by blind chance cannot be true. Because you and others recognize that complex living things could not possibly have arisen by means of undirected, random events, you have to come up with some other excuse to avoid the Intelligent Design issue. So you invent things like the Anthropic Principle to cover over the fact that you cannot reconcile the actual observed fact of complexity with random, undirected mechanistic processes.
Sir, in my lifetime I would imagine the number of generations of E. coli that have lived and died all over the world is so astronomical as to numb the mind. Yet in all that time I am unaware of any E. coli bacterium that became anything but an E. coli bacterium. And I have to remind you that you are starting with ALREADY PRESENT biological mechanisms for the metabolism of lactose, or else the genetic material that could mutate and allow for that digestion. Nobody is arguing that genes do not mutate and even develop new (or rather altered) functions. I'm arguing that the materials and mechanisms that would allow for that mutation were ALREADY PRESENT, and not something that just appeared out of nowhere as something totally new. You cannot deny that fact. It's like the bacteria that developed the ability to digest nylon. The genetic material that allowed for that mutation was ALREADY present within the bacteria. And yet, the bacteria were still bacteria. They did not start changing into human beings. If that were happening we certainly should have enough evidence to witness it in process right now.
Further, this is just one more pathetic example of how evolutionists strive to find the most minute so-called "proof" of evolution, like always appealing to antibiotic resistance, which as I'm sure you well know, has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution from nothing to human beings. How does that ability or inability to metabolize lactose demonstrate that an E. coli turned into J [you]? That is what I would like to know.
Yes, I understand that fact. What I don't understand is how it demonstrates that evolution has "intelligence."
I believe what is happening here is not that a favored outcome is being selected by genes, but rather that it is being selected by YOU, the observer. You are seeing pretty much what you wish to see in the "outome." And further, while the genes are "selecting the favored outcome" there should also be myriad FAILED outcomes that we should be able to observe (without changing anything - just plain observation of the facts) and the fossil record shows no such thing. That is, unless the genes ALWAYS "selected" the most "favored outcome," in which case I think any honest person would have to exclaim, "That is a miracle!" And miracles are not allowed in "real science," correct?
