rationalskepticism.org

Your answer doesn't make sense, please elaborate. What do you mean, results? How about evidence of that limiting mechanism you keep claiming exists, got any?

Simple. If you want to evolve more FSC you need more probabilistic resources, if you want lees, you need less.

Quote directly where anyone claimed humans and horses could interbreed or shut up. This is getting increasingly hilarious...
It is becoming painfully obvious you haven't got a clue about molecular phylogenetics.

If you claim that humans and horses were once something else and were one species then YOU are the one claiming they were able to reproduce.

No it's not. There is no evidence to suggest that all ncDNA should be assumed to have function. Provide evidence to back up your assertion or retract your claim.
And yes I have a better explanation : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Read it and educate yourself.

Where did I say that ALL of them have a function?

Wait a minute, above here you just asked why it shouldn't be assumed... but now you admit that it's not? What exactly is your position? Do you even know?

Some of them do, not all.

Neither was it a preplanned event with conscious foresight. None of what you said changed the fact that there was genetic change, resulting in phenotypic change and nature had the opportunity to select upon it. The level of goal-post shifting and obfuscation you employ is pathetic.

It was produced by a mechanims. It doesn't count as a simple random mutation like it does when you have a copying error.

Simply claiming it as fact doesn't make it so. Evidence please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_redundancy

And I'm asking if you have direct empirical evidence that evolution is guided by an intelligent agent. Do you?

In the case of scientists selecting specific individuals it is guided. And that's intelligent design.

Obviously not since we know the flagellum evolved.

Evolution does not imply it was not designed. Plus, we do not know it evolved.

Do you have any evidence of design taking place in the construction of the flagellum? Do you have any evidence that RM+NS could not produce it?

Why should I have evidence they could not produce it? You still have to show me the relevant probabilistic resources that it could have happened.

I'm not evading anything. You are the one ignoring my request for a mechanism that would prevent nature from producing the results achieved in the laboratory.

We first have to agree on a definition. Do you agree that what happened in the lab was a case of intelligent design?

Of course I can. All have have to do cite empirical evidence by experiment. We can simply sit our asses down and see evolution happening. You are under the burden of proof here and the burden is to provide a mechanism that would prevent observed evolution from accumulating over deep time. Put up or shut up.

No, you can not. If you claim that RM + NS can do something, than provide the relevant probabilistic resources that will acount for that.

The evidence shows they evolved. The only way you are getting around that one is by showing evidence that refutes this. Got any?

What evidence? Even if they did evolve, that doesn't mean they were not designed.

Arbitrary calculated limitations are irrelevant when empirical research easily demonstrates the evolution of functional sequences by quite small and mediocre populations of bacteria in laboratory experiments. Please provide a mechanism that would prevent such observed evolution from accumulating over deep time or shut up.

They are not arbitrary, they are estimates observable phenomena. If you don't agree with them, produce a better model. If you don't you can't claim that RM + NS can do anything.

There you go with that idiotic claim again. Evolutionary postulates relating to molecular phylogenetics are not contingent on a claim of possible interspecies reproduction. Why do you keep bringing this hilarious straw-man up?

So common descent is true even if all species are not related?

It is theoretically possible for a shuffling, duplication and frameshift event to take place multiple times at every generation of replication, it's unlikely but possible. You can work from there.

Ok, how many would you say can happen in a given time?

3.5 billion years, minimum.

Great. How many mutation events could have taken place in that time?

The maximum number of mutations in theory is staggering. In your own immune system, B-cells are maturing antibodies at a mutation rate of around one million times the one taking place at reproductive replication.
Additionally your calculation would be meaningless since the number of mutation events says nothing about the type or functionality of the mutation. A frameshift or shuffling event would have many orders of magnitude higher capacity for the generation of novel function than a substitution event.

Well, make an estimate the highest possible estimate.

Because I'm not an idiot I know that your fallacious calculation is structured to argue against the propability of producing a functional protein from scratch with your X number of maximum possible events. If not, then I don't even see how your maximum number of quantum transactions is even relevant. Please elaborate.

It takes into account production of everything, not just proteins.