The Evolution of Evolution: How our understanding has changed

Can you point me to something that produces reading and writing that didn't have a mind involved?

So childish and immature. No one "repeated the theory." All I did was redirect you to a scientific review article that I've given you many times over the past years and yet still refuse to read and digest in its entirety (while trying to maintain that no one has given you any evidence). A professional review that documents hundreds of empirical studies that provide the evidence you seek while you continue to refuse to read and digest the article, because you can't be bothered with actually learning anything about the topic you're trying to debate, and because you also wouldn't be able to maintain your fictitious narrative and state of ignorance. 

I'm complaining about chance and necessity it talks about random variations as if it were factually sufficient to do what it claims and you say, I'm childish and immature, just so I know, childish and immature are those words a step up or down from you from being dishonest and whatever other insults you spewed out.

It's childish and immature (and dishonest!) to mockingly imply I did something ("repeated a theory") that I never did. I redirected you to read an article that you still refuse to read. And your reply? The sarcastic, "Yes, repeating the theory proves it." Childish, immature, and dishonest 

Yes, there you go, more of the same.

Do you not see how often you change the subject and don't stick to the topic at hand?

I'm involved in several discussions, I can lose track, apologies when I do, but just a word can fix that.

Oh, alright. That makes sense. No harm no foul

I appreciate your grace 

And vice versa. I appreciate yours! 😀 We're all just trying to figure things out

Suggesting this is what is required without getting into the mechanisms of how it does it, is really only creating a nice plausible story that is until details are required. Adapting to change both internal and external to life without a programmed means to accomplish that right off the bat and have that means get pushed down time in other life is a huge feat. Skill sets for knowing when changes are made and what is to be kept sounds more like a choice than a random mutation even followed up by natural selection. I am reading it, and so far this is all of the types of things I'm seeing, watching life act out its programming doesn't explain the programming codes' origin or even speak to mindlessness over mind.

Whatever the mechanisms, comparative genomics is a fascinating scientific field. Genomes are historical records that leave genetic "imprints" of changes over time. Whatever mechanisms one uses to explain these changes, it's amazing and fascinating how we are able see and study the genetic changes that have occurred over time because this record of changes is preserved in genomes.

I agree, from what I understand computer programmers who have studied the genetic code are blown away by the level of functional complexity there are in the layers of embedded code doing rather complex work.

It took billions of years to reach that level of complexity.

Stating the beliefs isn’t proving anything, which is why saying how log it took to happen isn’t proof it happened that way!

You're partially correct. "Time" by itself, does nothing, and solves nothing. But the YEC/ID accusation that evolutionary biologists just "throw" time at it to "solve" problems is incorrect. The billions of years time scale has been established entirely independent of and separate from any considerations of evolutionary biology. In fact, geochronology is a completely separate scientific field of study that evolutionary biologists have no say in. 

Very true, but they have a great deal at stake in the assertion nonetheless, if there are not billions of years, then the processes that supposedly took billions of years could have not happened the way they claim. It doesn't matter to me mainly because it is not great amounts of time I have issues with, it is the timing of processes, all of the material requirements, the environmental conditions required, and a huge list of factors that get spoiled by large amounts of time, not enhanced by them.

Evolutionary processes don't take billions of years. While the history of life on Earth occurred over billions of years, it didn't require billions of years. Scientists don't throw "time" at it. It's actually the other way around. Today, scientists wonder, "What took so long?" because evolution didn’t need all those billions of years. We have billions of years during the Precambrian (which is 90% of earth's history) where it seems little to nothing is happening. The origin of life is the biggest problem and the greatest gulf to span. Next is the origin and diversification of 2 of 3 major branches of life within only a short time after the origin of life. Those are the two biggest problems. The origin of eukaryotes (single cells with a nucleus) is not as problematic as once thought, but would still be the third biggest jump. Then, *everything* else---*all* the rest of the history of life on earth from invertebrates and the Cambrian "explosion" to fish and reptiles and dinosaurs and mammals and everything in between: that's only about 10% of Earth's history. Billions of years weren't needed for all that. Evolution is clearly episodic, so scientists don't need more time. We already had plenty of time. Instead, scientists ask "Why did X happen then, and not earlier? What was different? What was different about the conditions?"

Also, it's simply not true that scientists "have a great deal at stake." That’s false propaganda by YECs/IDers who can't attain scientific legitimacy on their own, so instead they try to bring evolutionary biology down to their level by claiming it's not science at all, but "religion" and based on old age, uniformitarianism assumptions, and motivated by anti-God sentiments. That's what I was raised to believe. But then I met and got to know and work with these "evil, atheistic, anti-God evolutionists," and discovered it's the YEC/ID caricature that is the lie. Not all scientists are atheists. Many are religious. And with a few rare vocal anti-religion exceptions (like Dawkins) most of them are not even thinking about such philosophical issues, but are just, regular, normal people busy about the job of scientific research, and following the evidence where it leads. There is no "evolutionary conspiracy." If there was legitimate evidence against billions of years, then scientists would endorse a young earth. If there was legitimate evidence against evolution and that the fossil record was the result of a one year global flood, then scientists would abandon evolution and endorse a global flood. They have no "stake" in the matter, because evolution is not a religion or faith-based dogma or "crusade cause" that requires apologetic defense. By contrast, YECs/IDers do have "a great deal at stake" if their assertions are wrong.

Please stop throwing YEC at me, if there are not billions of years what arguments go away?