I worded that poorly.
don't worry about it, we all do the same thing every once in a while.
Mainstream science tells us the human body is constructed of tens of thousands of proteins that are very long, unique sequences of amino acids precisely folded to perform particular functions that are necessary components of larger components, which are necessary parts of larger components, etc.
i'm not sure about the exact number of proteins, but the above premise is essentially correct.
How did any of those proteins evolve? They don't work until they're complete and Darwin's rule of natural selection removes non-working stuff.
there are 2 different scenarios here.
first is a matter of abiogenesis.
science has no plausible scenario for how all of this came together.
it won't be solved anytime in the near future, and it's likely it will never be solved.
the second deals with life proper (after the arrival of the first life)
the cell contains a large repository of "ready made" genetic sequences called transposons that it can use.
by using a sandbox concept, the cell can "mix and match" these sequences to effect the changes that are needed.
the cell applies these sequences upon the next cell division (if they work).
epigenetics allows the cell to switch on or off sequences.
Worse, a component won't work without all of it's sub-components working, so like a domino effect rippling up the functional ladder, natural selection removes everthing before a protein can complete it's evolution. That's functional coherence interfering with evolution.
again, this is a matter of abiogenesis.
the cell was complete upon the arrival of life, epigenetics, transposons (or HGT in the case of bacteria) and the sandbox concept. everything was already there.
IOW, the cell has undergone very little "evolution" (i'm using evolution here to denote the acquisition of new information)
IMO, sight would be such evolution.
Even without considering the probability angle, the rules of evolution plus the information that mainstream science gives us makes evolution impossible.
the modern synthesis is worthless as a evolutionary theory.
there is no evidence that natural selection encourages complexity.
Now consider the "extremely small odds". I just googled "mathematically impossible odds" and five of the ten results dealt with the odds of life evolving. Interesting. I was actually looking for Borel's Law and the 10^-50 estimate of the probability which makes "unlikely" become "impossible". But various estimated probabilities of protein evolution (ignoring natural selection) are astronomically smaller than that.
That's much more verbose, but worded a little better.
i'll agree, abiogenesis may very well be an unsolvable problem.
another problem is how does a diverse metabolism arise from a homogenized group of cells.
It sounds like you're defending ID, . . .
but i don't get foaming at the mouth stupid when i hear the term though.
. . . which allows all the animal phyla to arrive at once. If the rules of evolution allow anything quick, then clearly I've missed something.
that's only half of it.
it's becoming apparent that each phyla had it's own abiogenesis event, they did not descend from one another.
the above leads me to the following conclusion:
evolution is driven by catalytic events, not by any kind of gradualism.
a significant number of my sources can be interpreted that way.
"also, the picture you have in your mind about how evolution works is probably wrong."
I believe you're right.
But it's difficult to get an accurate picture of evolution. ID authors tend to give very specific molecular biology examples, naming proteins and specifying their functions, as agreed by mainstream science. Evolutionists tend to give loose heuristic arguments based on biology and detailed arguments based on fossils. The problem with that is that no fossil has ever ruled out individual acts of design and creation.
the problem with ID/god is that no one has been able to identify what or where this intelligence is.
what is the nature of this "intelligence"?
What is "god/ID"? ID is science.
you have now put yourself in the unenviable position of proving your "ID is science" claim.
good luck, humanity has been trying to do that since time began.