An email I sent to an evolution prof at my alma mater

[@ttechsan]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science. They just don't seem possible. I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design. Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329




So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine}

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373


I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote


This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew




As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

 

[Politesse]

As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think.

I can see why you're a former teacher.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's TLTR, but I noticed the claim that evolution (creating complexity can't be replicated.
Not only is it replicated, but it's an important biomimetic tool for engineers.
Some basic info.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

 

[Altfish]

Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain.

Well, proving that you do not understand evolution in the first paragraph is a worry.
We are NOT top of the evolutionary chain. Can we run as fast as a cheetah? Fly as well as a bird? Can we see as well as an owl? Can we swim underwater like a fish?

We have the most advanced brain (I think) but am struggling to think of other evolutionary traits that we are ahead of other animals (I'm sure there are some)

 

[Politesse]

Well, proving that you do not understand evolution in the first paragraph is a worry.
We are NOT top of the evolutionary chain. Can we run as fast as a cheetah? Fly as well as a bird? Can we see as well as an owl? Can we swim underwater like a fish?

We have the most advanced brain (I think) but am struggling to think of other evolutionary traits that we are ahead of other animals (I'm sure there are some)

There's also the other areas of linguistic production; there are few animals that can claim to be able to control sound in quite the same way we do. In particular, our vast array of consonantal stops and modifications.

 

[Parsimony]

What exactly do you mean when you say "evolve the article?"

I see some strawmen, argument from incredulity, and false dichotomy in there.

 

[@ttechsan]

I can see why you're a former teacher.

 

[metis]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science. They just don't seem possible. I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design. Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329




So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine}

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373


I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote


This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew




As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

This has been dealt with and refuted on these forums many times over, so there really is nothing new above. Frankly, the basic ToE is just plain old common sense: everything changes over time.

 

[@ttechsan]

I'm a former teacher due to so many non at fault wrecks causing 19 surgeries & disability. How dare you judge w/o knowing facts! You want to change health w/me?

Read the articles & tell me how using your intelligence you'd evolve first article randomly w/o Intelligence.

We are top because of what we can do above others. If you can't see that you are beyond help.

Dont use usual non science evol answer of well over time it just occurred. Use lab & prove randomness can produce order, complex Design w/o Intelligence! Burden of proof is on you! Logic & common sense shows the above can't occur randomly w/o Intelligence! Evol teaches it as fact Thats how evol produced all that exists! You must explain from the very start w/o Intelligent Designer by Randomness all the order & complex Design seen that exist!

 

[@ttechsan]

Dealing with & actually answering well are separate things all together!

 

[metis]

I'm a former teacher due to so many non at fault wrecks causing 19 surgeries & disability. How dare you judge w/o knowing facts! You want to change health w/me?

Read the articles & tell me how using your intelligence you'd evolve first article randomly w/o Intelligence.

We are top because of what we can do above others. If you can't see that you are beyond help.

Dont use usual non science evol answer of well over time it just occurred. Use lab & prove randomness can produce order, complex Design w/o Intelligence! Burden of proof is on you! Logic & common sense shows the above can't occur randomly w/o Intelligence! Evol teaches it as fact Thats how evol produced all that exists! You must explain from the very start w/o Intelligent Designer by Randomness all the order & complex Design seen that exist!

I don't know whom you are referring to with this, but do you honestly feel that insulting people is going to somehow convince them that you're right? So, if I call you all sorts of names, which I won't, then that must make me right?

Also, the ToE does not in any way either posit a theistic creation nor deny it.

 

[Laika]

This is essentially a God of the Gaps argument. You seem to be assuming that there the only choices are intelligent design or 'randomness', whereas there is ample evidence that there are natural laws in the universe (which you could well argue God created if you want; science alone still can't take that away from you).

The question therefore is why this particular gap in our knowledge can only be filled by God, whereas historically, others have been filled by naturalistic explantations.

Welcome to RF.

 

[metis]

Dealing with & actually answering well are separate things all together!

Please specify whom you are responding to.

 

[Kirran]

No such thing as 'at the top of the evolutionary chain'.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

At least we can see that creationist spam was not intelligently designed.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science. They just don't seem possible. I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design. Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

So to give you a chance. I've sent you an article that goes into this fairly well. I mean if I walk upon a beach and find an abandoned or lost computer, iphone etc. My first thought isn't look at what evolved over time given the right circumstances etc. I immediately recognize an Intelligent Designer.

Cells- "Design Modules" Possible by Macro Evolution & Randomness?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1367&topic=329




So, after reading this linked article. I"d like an explanation as to your theory of how this could be explained by evolutionary steps done randomly by trail and error over how much time you need and in the order you think makes sense if YOU were the Intelligent Designer you claim it didn't have or require!

Then explain how you can demand all your students be committed evolutionist to leave your class and not be given all the information. See they may like you. How would they feel if they knew what you weren't telling them? Is the goal of education to teach HOW TO THINK or WHAT TO THINK?

Here is an article from a fellow evolutionary college professor. He admits to the techniques used to teach evolution and even says college students aren't prepared to Think for themselves. Of course as all evolutionist do, he couches it in science vs religion despite all he admits to in his improper presenting of the "science" of evolution. Yet admitting he likes and appreciates independent thinkers as students. Which as he also admits is really the goal of education. So why Dr. Dini are you so different than he is about this. You must download the Physics Today June 2000 article PDF to read it.

Teaching- Brainwashing & Propaganda (His words not mine}

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373


I have some additional books I will send you called, Censored Science, Brilliant, Search for the Truth if you want them. I doubt it but hopefully you have actually looked at and read some in the other books I've sent you illustrating how evolution (macro) really breaks down once you get specific & aware from evolutionist generalities and assumptions they force students to draw w/o demonstration. You know from the quote about the true agenda of evolution from Dr. Richard Lewontin.

Amazing admission Dr. Richard Lewontin quote exposing true agenda of evolution isn't science

http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote


This doesn't count the Scientist Dissent List, which I can send if you want it, and all the admitted and proven frauds of science still used in Texts to teach evolution when there has been more than enough time to remove them! So much for the integrity of the evolutionary science community!

Ironically, a few yrs ago, when I physically could work out. I worked out at a YMCA health club in Rockwall Texas. There was a retired Electrical Engineer that had two Dr.s from Geo Tech. He was atheist and we used to talk over and over about many things as we walked side by side on the treadmill. We would read each others material and answer questions and this went on for yrs. Ironically as an Engineer the easiest part was convincing him of an Intelligent Designer and God. As such an Intelligent Designer himself he knew that Intelligent Design only comes from Intelligence and Randomness and esp w/o Intelligence behind it doesn't have the capability to produce the Functional Complex Intelligent Design we see in creation. The next few yrs we spent on was Jesus who He said He was etc. I won't tell you that whole story as you won't care.

Intelligent Design it what finally persuaded one of the top debating atheist of all time Anthony Flew to convert from atheism. This occurred as more and more science proved the complexity behind all of the quote "simple" cell etc. He didn't become a Christian but did leave atheism and wrote a book on it and after being attacked was forced to write another book to silence and discredit his critics.

Anthony Flew

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew




As former teacher myself and understanding the true goal of education is to teach How to Think not What to Think. I do pray someday your eyes are opened. Like I told you before. Some of your former students told me you are a great teacher. Effective too as I cant get them to even look at nor read any science problems dealing with evolution as the profs article indicates how you evolutionary teachers do that to build a wall around your students so they never listen to any other teaching but evolution. Sadly even those that claim to be Christian. So you are good at the brainwashing propaganda aspect of your goal and Dr Singhams per the article.

It look like this been answered several times now. But just to say it again.

Evolution is not an "exception" to the rule of design. It is totally apart from it all together. Complexity does not mean design. Many designs are simple. What matters is if it is not found naturally occurring. If it ca be naturally found then it is not designed. If it cannot then we know it is designed or at least we can infer it is designed.


We have replicated evolution in a lab. I don't know why you think we haven't or that we cannot support claims with evidence.

 

[Laika]

(Aftering a search on wikipedia) More specifically, you're dealing with the question of abiogenesis ("the natural process of life arising from non-organic matter" as wikipedia puts it). Many (untested) theories were developed on the origin of life by the Soviet biochemist Alexander Oparin in the 1920's. In the Miller-Urey Experiment first conducted in 1952 they attempted to simulate the environment of earlier period in earth history to create amino acids. In a 1996 Interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."

So yeah, I'm not a specialist in this and admittedly it's not definetively answered by current scientific thinking, but we were already half way there in the 1950's.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary. It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

Okay - like many before me, I didn't read all of the original post either. It is just too fraught with error to be taken seriously. I'm not trying to be mean or spiteful, honestly - if you want to be taken seriously, then write seriously.

Ignoring the technical issues with what you've written (your use of punctuation is extremely troublesome), I wanted to point out a few obvious flaws in the "logic" of the set of statements I quoted from you above. There are millions of things we can't reproduce in a lab. Let's just take, for example, something relatively simple - something you might take for granted - like the chemical makeup that produces the distinct flavor of a banana. Now, can we attempt to formulate some sort of approximation? Sure - like that fake, candy banana flavoring that tastes almost nothing like real banana. But only the tree itself is able to produce the fruit that contains that particular chemical makeup that truly represents a banana's flavor. Otherwise, if we humans were able to simply reproduce the chemical compounds that a banana formulates within our labs, then banana-flavored stuffs that don't contain banana would still taste like banana. But they don't. The banana tree does an enormous amount of complex and specifically tailored work to get the thing done that we can't even begin to reproduce by chemical and mechanical means.

Now, extrapolate our inability to create the exact flavor of a banana to something much more complex like evolution - something that takes so long to occur that no single human being would ever see a trace of it "occurring" within their lifetime, and you see why our inability to "reproduce" in a lab means absolutely nothing.

Let me just end with a rather famous quote usually pointed in another direction, and usually by people other than those of my particular belief on evolution: "Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is a great pity that you do not understand Evolution.
there are hundred of Threads on this forum discussing the subject.
many of those that have put forward the Creative design misconception, have done so rather more clearly than this attempt.

Fortunately a majority of Christian denomination now accept both Creation and Evolution and see no dichotomy.
Few Moslems join in these discussions as almost all believe in Creation as given in scripture, and do not care to consider the implications of Evolution.
Most other religions, in the same way as Christians, do not see a problem with accepting that Evolution is a process that has been in place since the creation of the universe. It is how living things got to be in the form they are found today.

 

[dust1n]

Woo!

Any evolutionist the challenge is for you too! Since we are the top of the evolutionary chain. Use it to explain how you would evolve the article attached by random w/o Intelligent Design. Of course Im challenging you to use your intelligence to do it randomly anyway.

I'd really like an scientific evolutionary explanation as to how this is scientifically possible. When I look at the world around me and compare it to the premises of evolutionary science they just don't seem possible.

Let's go!

I never see or hear of any experiment in a lab proving that randomness can produce complexity & precision of Functional Design.

"Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ – and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/

I never understood why a creator could produce some random diseases that plague humanity and show a failure of a complex mechanisms that are supposedly precise and function.

Take Tay-Sachs:

"Tay–Sachs disease (also known as GM2 gangliosidosis or hexosaminidase A deficiency) is a rare autosomal recessivegenetic disorder. In its most common variant (known as infantile Tay–Sachs disease), it causes a progressive deterioration of nerve cells and of mental and physical abilities that begins around six months of age and usually results in death by the age of four. The disease occurs when harmful quantities of cell membrane components known as gangliosidesaccumulate in the brain's nerve cells, eventually leading to the premature death of the cells. A ganglioside is a form of sphingolipid, which makes Tay–Sachs disease a member of thesphingolipidoses. There is no known cure or treatment.

Tay–Sachs disease is an autosomal recessive genetic disorder, meaning that when both parents arecarriers, there is a 25% risk of giving birth to an affected child with each pregnancy. The affected child would have received a mutated copy of the gene from each parent.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay–Sachs_disease#Genetics

If the intelligent designer only makes precise and functional parts, then what exactly is the function of the precise genes that will kill a child in agonizing pain before the age of 4?

Everywhere I look all over the world today and in history. When I see complex of any Functional Designer I see an Intelligent Designer. The only difference is evolutionist tell me evolution is the exception yet can't reproduce it in any way form or fashion in a lab or anywhere validating it. That isn't true science now is it?

Okay, so look at Tay-Sachs disease and tell me this complex and precise genetic function of killing the child, do you see a Functional Designer, needing an Intelligent Designer?

Since man is the top of the line evolutionary.

We aren't. There really is no such thing.

It would seem to me that with all the knowledge we have now learned. Mankind should at least be able to come up with viable theories of how evolution did its thing so well before man evolved and so much better than man still can't match it even today! Its not logical or of any common sense.

They have.

I'll read the rest of your post and reply to all of the OP as the day progresses.