Of course you're again arguing against a caricature of evolution where all functions must be in place simultaneously, while not taking things into account such as genetic scaffolding, or the fact that biological development during an individual's lifetime doesn't require this. Remember what you think does not matter.While one mutation (which I don't think will happen) is forming a new system another one of the many genes needed to make the system work could be mutating to a detrimental position and the chances of getting them all to line up is statistically what?
Done. Tell me why you didn't bother to look at it the first two times.Then tell me why orthology of human and chimp genomes are consistent with mutation rates, genetic drift and nested hierarchies, just as evolution predicted.
No you wouldn't. Every time evidence is requested then given you ignore it, only to repeat fallacious arguments based on your misunderstandings of the concept. Ultimately you will not be satisfied even if you were provided with a step by step, organism by organism, mutation by mutation account of the entire history of life on Earth for the whole 3.5 billion years. Therefore we do not have to adhere to your absurd demands, until you first start demonstrating an understanding of evolutionary biology without creationist caricatures, and then provide us with the function of each and every base in the human genome along with evidence that it performs such. And while you're at it, do the same for nylonase and Podarcus sicula, that way you will help backed up your assertion that the genomes switched on new functions just right for unforseable events which may never have even occurred. This is not an unreasonable request since we would still have more work to do than you would.I would like to see the numbers predicted on mutation rates and what evolution predicted specifically
No, that's your job. Note again that you still have yet to provide your alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.otherwise they could be shooting an arrow into the woods and then painting the bulleye around the arrow.