You're Equivocating the colloquial "theory" (Speculation) with "Scientific Theory". Scientific Theories are...
A Scientific Theory summarizes
a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with
repeated testing. {emphasis mine}
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
A Scientific Theory consists of
one or more hypotheses that have been supported with
repeated testing. {emphasis mine}
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/
A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been
CONFIRMED through
REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine}
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
You can't have a Scientific Theory without it
ALREADY being Validated (Proof) by Experiment.
Scientific Theories "Explain"....
The HOW (mechanism/process) Specifically.
There is no evidence that supports spontaneous generation/abiogenesis. You heard of the Law of Biogenesis?
1. Look @ the definition above for Scientific Theory, is this an Actual Scientific Theory ??
2. So the mechanism is "change as a result of changes"?
3. Natural Selection...
Is a Contradiction in Terms. To be able to "SELECT" you must have the ability to REASON; Sentience and Intelligence...is "Nature" Alive??
Natural Selection is a "
Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial. "Concepts" aren't Mechanisms.
It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was the Mechanism for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.
William Provine Cornell University Professor, evolutionary Biology.....
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust.
NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
"
Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography.
Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself.
It is not a mechanism."
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-woodstock-of-evolutio/
4. Begging The Question: where'd you get 'heritable' i.e., Genes?
1. Software isn't 'Patterns', Software is "Information".
2. Assuming?? It's a tad bit more than an Assumption...
"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines.
All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {emphasis mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/10/24/2013/dna-the-software-of-life.html
"DNA has two types of
digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410
Nobody is claiming that DNA isn't Chock Full of 'Contingencies' (your 'versatility") and is one of the quintessential attributes of
Purposeful Design.
Method discovered? It's not even a Viable Scientific Hypothesis because you have no "Independent Variables". You (they) also skipped the First Step of the Scientific Method:
Observe a Phenomenon. It's not "Conjure a Phenomenon" then make up "Just So" Stories.
What can you see in the recent past?
You mean there are several Scientific Law Violating "Blind" Speculations.
"Mutations"...of what? That wasn't part of the "theory" you proposed above.
Ahhh OK.
You're reading the wrong material.
So 'we just don't know'? So the support for your position is:
1. Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy).
2. Argument to the Future (Fallacy).
??
We
DO KNOW, it's Physically and Chemically Impossible for the Hardware: "The Physical Molecules needed for Life" AND even More Importantly...for the Creation of
Information.
Information/Code/Software is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!!
Correct. There is no Software/Information in atoms. Software/Information is Semiotic; i.e., it's
assigned to it. Atoms/molecules are merely "The Medium" used to convey Information. Like Ink and Paper in a Book.
So we use Math...(Abstract Concepts), to "Describe" the Physical? That's all good (to a point) but if you need "Explanations", it's of No Use.
As mentioned previously, Scientific Theories "
Explain" they don't "Describe"...Scientific Laws do that.
You're in a simple category error.
Have you read through this thread? You do understand that DNA contains Metric Tons of Information/Software, right ??
It's not an Analogy; SEE Dr. Venter and Dr. Hood above and...
"
Genes are not analogous to messages; genes are messages. Genes are literal programs. They are sent from a source by a transmitter through a channel (Fig. 3) within the context of a viable cell. They are decoded by a receiver and arrive eventually at a final destination. At this destination, the instantiated messages catalyze needed biochemical reactions. Both cellular and extracellular enzyme functions are involved (e.g., extracellular microbial cellulases, proteases, and nucleases)." {emphasis mine}
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29
1. What "theories" ??
2. You're using Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacies).
3. My points are based on what
WE DO KNOW, not what we don't.
True.
It does, One has Purpose (End Goals and Contingency), the other is Deaf as a Post.
Nope. I'm a Christian.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Outstanding!!
How can Creation be Chance? Creation doesn't speak to our Free Will.
We do know some things and I agree there is much we don't...but the 'much we don't know', doesn't negate or preclude what we do know.
Like what it actually is for starters.
It's not and it's not a "Scientific Theory" as illustrated...it's a "Just So" Story, In TOTO.
regards
One less Argument from Utter Ignorance to deal with. 
!
!
