your rebuttal doesn't make much sense because it has nothing to do with religious issues, it would belong in a strictly technical subforum. it is no different than pointing to the sun and saying 'there is the sun' or gravity exists. really? tell us something we don't already know. religion's primary reason for existing deals with issues of morality.
also, your idea of evolving 'perfection' is conjecture. it's really just about survival.
and? so? if a car with passengers rams into a tree, it will have a reaction and may even result in body parts flying around. if you fall off a cliff, you go splat. it's called cause and effect. if you acquire a disease and there is no cure, most likely you will die. people and lifeforms don't consider these things 'perfection' either. why? because they are trying to avoid it. and if that is supposed to be the case, then it's still imperfect because they don't see it or accept it as perfection probably because they are sane. perhaps not to you.
the issue that i brought up is that i see a difference between lifeforms and inanimate reality. i don't see that as a perfect relationship, some may.
also, there is a difference in how arguments go depending on how god is defined and what responsiblities are attributed to it.
it may be that what is inherently life may have nothing to do with the creation of this universe. perhaps the creation of the universe (big bang) is an accident. perhaps, there are other universes with different laws.
as for what one considers 'perfection', that would vary on people's opinion. you seem to place a lot of adulation on existing laws of nature. you think they are 'perfect' just because it exists or something is constant. human stupidity is also a constant. it is what it is but that doesn't mean they are perfect like that deserves some type of worship or high esteem. rapists, murderers and retards exist too and along this logic, it is perfect. maybe to you.
furthermore, if you have no conceptual issues with how the universe or life systems work here, then there really is no reason for you to be posing the question you do. even most theists view it just as you do, perfection.
so do you know why you pose these questions when according to your answer there is no reason or is this your way of coming to conclusions?
who's best end? what is defined as "best"? who defines it? it's all conjecture. everything we discuss on religious issues is conjecture except for what we can strictly observe. some arguments lean more to realistic than others but it's all mostly conjecture based on defined premise.
like i said, if a creator consciously is responsible for this system then it is predatorial at root. that goes against the supposed morality of a creator. that doesn't mean it did, that's the point. that is only if you attribute that responsibility.
why most theists arguments are weak is because they forget that the bible even makes distinctions between good and evil and that this creation is identified as being compromised by the "devil". these are are all metaphors but still a way to understand the universe in a certain fashion. they have a hard time viewing god as being responsible for immorality which has to be the case if it created it or allowed it. again, that all depends on how god is defined. how most theists define god, it is immoral. because they use poor logic, they can't or won't understand that. to theists, they can make up anything and it doesn't have to add up at all as long as their beliefs have no real consequence.
what's the point of this? a lesson on evolution? do you really think i don't know how evolution works? this is the religion subform. this statement has really no tie-in with evolution and morality. i pretty much think that most people are aware that dna is working the best it can under the conditions. there is also indication in nature that it's rather downright stupid at times, there goes your belief it is perfection. i really doubt this is an "undeniable truth most cannot get their heads around."
