As I suspected, you are just a poseur and have requested nothing.
"As I suspected, you are just a poseur and have requested nothing."
OK, idiot, give me a probabilistic analysis of the development of the eye. Dawkins never did it, nor did he ever cite anyone else who did. All he does is repeat over and over that random mutation combined with natural selection can do amazing things and give the "appearance" of intelligent design. Ya? How amazing?
Suppose I told you that I am going to develop a computer operating system according to the NDT model. I'm going to start off with random bits and distribute it to millions of "users". Then I'll have them randomly change bits on occasion, and if some benefit results we'll "select" that "mutation." What do you suppose the chances would be of coming up with a functional operation system? Not very good in the short term, eh? How about the long term, say the next 4 billion years?
Just for the sake of argument, let's say we start off with a functional operation system, say Linux 1.0. Now, what do you suppose the probability is of a randomly flipped bit actually improving the function of the operating system? Is it 50/50? Of course not. The probability is probably less than 1 in 10,000. So ask yourself which will happen first: will it "evolve" to Linux 2.0, or will it go "extinct"?
The theory of evolution says that life itself, which is infinitely more complex than any computer operation system, "evolved" by a similar mechanism, with absolutely no "intelligent" input. Yet, no evolutionist has ever even bothered to compute the probabilities. Dawkins waves his arms and you chumps are all amazed at his brilliance. He doesn't even understant the problem -- and people like you have no clue. But you are very good at browbeating people with the scientific "consensus" -- because you are either incapable of thinking for yourself or unwilling to do so.