Engineering

So the simplest lifeforms didn't change into other creatures over time? At some point there were no plants, correct, there were no animals, correct, but over time they didn't show up due to changing from one thing into another? What happen, they just sprang up fully formed out of the dead dirt?

Now you've changed the question into a sensible one! But if you want to understand evolutionary theory better, you should read up on it.

I'm not a Biologist so I'm not best equipped to explain the detail.

I didn't change any detail, body plans would have had by necessity change if we had common ancestors it would have been unavoidable.

"...if we had common ancestors" - I think you mean 'ancestor', singular?

But there's no if about it because it's demonstrably the case.

All life would have come from a common ancestor, singular, correct! Therefore every body type there is would have had to change from that into other types through time, and do so in such a way that when the species split into males and females these changes would have to complement each other down the revolutionary path. Much harder when you think of the coding that had to be in sync.

Let's not forget the many millions of years those changes (by evolutionary processes) took to produce multi-cellular life and then more complex life!

I believe you are putting the cart before the horse here, the years of evolutionary changes are the problem, not the solution. Altering one thing due to an unguided process, without a goal, by instructional code I believe is impossible on its own especially given that the instructions have to be inserted into life to do that in the first place.

The physical changes in any species will not happen due to outside factors, they occur to the code in DNA. Making those changes must be a direct result of the code, the primary cause of any evolutionary change would be the byproduct of the code changes.  All change has to be a direct result of informational changes directing those changes.

You are proposing as if it is a given that millions of years of change occurred without being able to talk about the start of this informational-driven process, or how the code in life gets altered through time, you don't have a mechanism that would allow for that. The information is primary in this, not secondary, there isn't change in the life, then the instructions change, it has to be the other way around, the instructions must change for there to be a resulting alteration in life.

This brings us back to saying timing, not time is the main issue.

I think you mean it's a problem for those who believe in a creator?

I keep reminding you of the huge spans of time involved in both the creation of the elements essential for life, the formation of our planet and then the emergence of life, because these things strongly suggest naturalistic processes, not created outcomes.

You are assuming a great deal, I can even grant you a great period of time, but that is as far as I'm willing to go. Without a mechanism to direct the work, you don't have anything for either the emergence of life or the mechanisms for life's ongoing processes. The information that directs the processes is of primary importance even more than the material itself that life is made of.

Without information directing the work, there isn't anything that would cause the specified work to start or continue, let alone continue to get more functionally complex evolving. Information is immaterial exactly how do you propose that came about, not by chance and necessity, how would that play a part in the immaterial nature of instructions? 

A mind who writes code isn't an issue with me, a mindless code writer is, and that is your problem.

"You are assuming a great deal"- not really, more a logical inference based on the evidence we have to date.

There is no 'code' as such. It's a metaphor to describe the very complex interactions that occur at a molecular level.

I think those proposing non-natural explanations for OOL get too hung up on the concept of biological code.

The more logical inference based on what, that mindlessness can put into life instructions so that life must perform specific functionally complex tasks without concern one way or another about the outcome? How exactly is that logical?

It's a metaphor describing exactly what is going on in life.  Do you have some other explanation for the interaction at the molecular level of what is going on? Right now the more we study things thing the more complex it all gets, so you think this is the end result of mindlessness with no intent at all in play?

Does a furniture maker plant a million trees in the hope that at least one will gow into a shape resembling a table or chair?

That's what I'm referring to when I say the entirely naturalistic process of the creation of heavier elements, from the Hydrogen and Helium of the early Universe, points very forcefully to the conclusion that life, however it emerged, did so as the result of natural processes.

However it emerged, is the question, and saying it emerged therefore it was done as a result of a natural process because it is, is circular, it isn't saying anything, it is therefore I'm right. When I say life reacts to instructions, we know what happens when no instructions are given, the natural outcome is things wind down and degrade, and that is natural. So counter that with things getting more functionally complex doing very specified work, isn't natural, that is acting with cause and purpose, logically how do you reconcile these things?

Within the context of 'design', how do you reconcile a process of element-creation that took many millions of years within exploding stars, not to mention the billions of years we know passed before our solar system even began to form?

If it waddles and it quacks ....?

I don't sense this conversation is going anywhere.

A common ancestor means everything started with the same ancestor, a single beginning, and diverged into other things. Exactly how do you know, what mechanism can you point to that would ensure that was not the case? You seem very emphatic that it couldn't happen when it is the process, one thing changes into something else, then changes into something else, ad nausea.

DNA analysis suggests very strongly that all living things that exist (and have existed) descended from just one ancient ancestor.

That and other evidence is how we know.

So they did exactly what I said, they changed from one form to the next according to the theory! That is much more complex than life's operating system operating from instructions guiding all of the processes in a single lifeform we witness today.

Still, no one can point to a biological mechanism that can direct these types of things outside of the instructions in life. Natural Selection requires something to be selected, and even with that, it is after the change has been done that can it weed out the bad, it cannot direct anything. This means these things are equivalent to saying "God did it" by saying "Evolution did it" so it must be so, simply a statement of faith. The bottom line is that even if evolution is true it is even more complex than what a creation event describes, because of the constant changes over time from one life into another.