@royism
You do understand what objective evidence is right? It's evidence that is outside of the mind, that can be tested and get the same results. Do you understand what subjective evidence is? It's evidence that exist only in the mind. All you faithfools have is subjective evidence that a god exist. None of you have ever given any objective evidence that a god is real.

Oh look. Time to raid the ordnance bunker again ...

Yes, life is chemistry. But the puzzle regarding life has more to do with ‘information’ than chemistry.

Already dealt with creationist canards about "information" here. Did you read that?

To be more clear, it’s not so much the chemicals that’s hard to fathom, rather it’s their arrangement.

Oh, you think magic is needed for this? Hmm, tell that to the world's organic chemists.

Studying about ink will not tell you how a poem was written…

Bad analogy time.Yawn.

for that you need to understand the process that led to the arrangement of the words in the poem.

Already covered that in detail here.

Evolutionary algorithms differ from the Darwinian model in some very fundamental ways.

Oh really? Hmm, this is going to be good ...

One of them is that these models work towards an end goal set by the programmer.

Actually, what happens is that the fitness criteria are selected artificially instead of naturally. At any time, those fitness criteria can be changed, and indeed, one of the more interesting aspects of evolutionary algorithm theory, is what happens when such changes are implemented.

Whereas, to give that attribute to nature is too great a foresight you are placing on a blind undirected process.

And here we go with the apologetics again.

Fitness criteria exist whenever [1] replicating entities exist, and [2] the success of those replicating entities at producing copies, is subject to definable factors present in the environment. The sum total of those definable factors is the fitness landscape. The fun part being, of course, that said success of those replicating entities can act to modify the fitness landscape. Ecologists have been aware of this for decades.

The Miller-Urey experiment makes some assumptions meant to facilitate the emergence of life’s building blocks.

Wrong. What actually happened, if you read the actual paper, is that the chemical composition of the gases in the experiment was formulated to replicate what was then known about the composition of the atmosphere of the early Earth. This wasn't an "assumption", it was a decision based on data. Indeed, the original paper opens with these words:

The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life were formed when the Earth had an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and water was suggested by Oparin (1) and has been given emphasis recently by Urey (2) and Bernal (3).

Indeed, one of the reasons that the early Earth was regarded as having an atmosphere devoid of molecular oxygen gas, was because the earliest dateable strata contain banded iron formations, which can only form as sedimentary strata in the absence of molecular oxygen. The differential solubility of iron compounds in water, according to whether or not molecular oxygen is present, has been known by inorganic chemists for some time.

Hydrogen was included and oxygen was taken out of the mixture just to attain this end.

Wrong. The decision to formulate the chemical composition of the gases in the apparatus, was taken so as to replicate what was considered at that time to be the atmospheric composition of the early Earth, based upon data available then. Your insinuation that the composition was manipulated to achieve a desired end result a priori is duplicitous. Not least because the experimenters did not know in advance if the experiment would be successful, even with the gas composition chosen. However, it transpired, when Miller's samples were analysed after his death, using modern GS-MS tools, that Miller's original claim to have found just five amino acids in the samples was an underestimate. Modern analysis revealed that 22 amino acids were found. But, of course, back in 1952, Miller didn't have access to 21st centry GC-MS analysis.

While the early earth’s gravity would have been too weak to hold on to hydrogen, and oxygen must have been present, especially since water vapor was there.

You do realise there's a considerable chemical difference between water and molecular oxygen? Oh, and by the way, water is present in a ubiquitous fashion in the universe. Its presence in interstellar gas clouds has been detected spectroscopically, and in quantity. Molecular oxygen, on the other hand, is a considerably rarer species, not least because it is reactive, and forms compounds with a wide range of other chemical species readily, the moment it comes into contact with those species.

What I am saying is that we find specified complexity or information (arrangement of primitive parts in a specified order) in nature.

Big fucking deal. This in itself doesn't point to an imaginary magic man poofing things into existence. You do realise that such assemblages can arise via testable natural processes, and demonstrably so?

Every mutation is an example of design flaw, one can argue.

You mean assert. There exist demonstrably beneficial mutations.

But what if the designer had meant it to be that way, because in his scheme of things life is not supposed to be perfect

That's a fucking huge assumption straight out of the gate. And one that is in direct contravention to the assertions of creationists and the ID brigade. Indeed, several of them would regard you as a heretic for suggesting this.

On the other hand, the emergence of relevant structures from testable natural processes, far from requiring "sweeping assumptions" as you assert, has been demonstrated to take place time and time again. Appearance of novel features in living organisms is the subject of thousands of relevant papers documenting this - everything from de novo genes and their gene products, to the emergence of entire anatomical features, such as, for example, the emergence of quantifiable morphological changes in the digestive tracts of Croatian lizards transplanted to a new island. I have the relevant papers. There's also a nice paper in my collection demonstrating how evolution can reverse previously instantiated changes, when the requisite fitness criteria change.

Would it be possible for you to summarize the argument and put it in let’s say a few condensed bullet points, so it’s easier to comprehend the points without trawling through a lot of literature.

If I can exert the effort required to peruse 4,000 scientific papers in detail over a decade, you can exert the effort to read a few posts.

But what is not observed is their chance emergence through a series of similar accidents through two evolutionary pathways that are totally unrelated.

You need to get out more. The actual scientific literature documents this occurring with respect to numerous features of interest. The eye evolution literature alone runs to about 20,000 papers.

But the observed existence of similar traits in unrelated species should have actually falsified the hypothesis of common descent.

Poppycock. What magic process exists to prevent two lineages from acquiring similar features?

2 cents

Evolution is established fact. No argument .

An observation about evolution. (not mine). Nature is a lousy engineer. In nature, 'good enough' tends to be good enough.

A couple of examples:

The dragonfly nymph breathes through its anus

"This tiny insect, barely larger than a grain of rice, is a baby mayfly (a mayfly nymph). It spends the first years of its life entirely submerged, then crawls up into the air, and flies off. We couldn’t help wonder, how does it breathe down there?

If we opened our air passages (our nose and mouth) in a tub of water we wouldn’t last a minute. We’d drown. In some (less friendly) circles, this is called ‘waterboarding’, but you can’t waterboard a mayfly nymph. Dunked, it breathes easily. It’s solved this problem. But how?

The solution is looking right at you. If we move in a little closer, notice what looks like a set of feathery objects, protruding out on this animal’s left and right, down toward its butt…"

http://noticing.co/the-thrill-of-the-gill/

There are was also a creature which lacked an anus.

" A huge mouth and no anus – this could be our earliest known ancestor
This article is more than 2 years old

Thought to have lived 540 million years ago, the discovery of Saccorhytus coronarious fossils sheds light on the early stages of evolution"

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/30/huge-mouth-and-no-anus-e...

Those designs work, which is all that is required of evolution. The designs of many things in nature show no evidence of anything approaching an intelligent design. It's function over form