Can you give an example that would falsify the theory of intellectual design?

There are lots of body parts that are jury rigged for new purposes from some pre existing part. Evolution has to make do with what it has.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Yes, true, everything is evolving. New 'hybrids' emerge, and old ones die off. Theories present this data very well, however in the case of 'evolution', the data is being extrapulated backwards to the unknown to help explain and presenting it as fact.

Such as the dog. We have data out the ying yang for modern dog evolution due to domestication and breeding. Humans 'intelligently' domesticated the wolve, and 'intlleigently' breeded to obtain desirable traits for a purpose, sled dogs, sheep herding, running, hunting, guarding and lap dogs, those with most 'desirable' traits thrive, while others slowly become 'extinct'. Some of the dog breed sites will give short history of the breed, along with the purpose. Ofcoarse they did not exist genereations ago. Same goes for domesticated animals such as horse and cow, they're breed to race and produce more milk and beef. Remove the 'intelligent' element of selective breeding and what do you get?

Yes,. did you read post 161 were I quoted the page and looked for explanation to the 'rhetoric', comparing it such 'rhetoric' found in religion.... It sounds as if theory is fact as defined by science, or atleast as defined by TalkOrigins.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms: THEORY: [SCI TECH] An attempt to explain a certain class of phenomena by deducing them as necessary consequences of other phenomena regarded as more primitive and less in need of explanation

"theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution"...."the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact"

That Part.. That is 2 seperate issues... FACT- evolution occurs, THEORY-evolution links all species to common-ancestors...

Just pointing out that 'theory of evolution' is not fact. Think about like this, you have a product that is 99% tested and company is ready to sell it and/or selling it. You find a 1 small glitch that could cause major problems, both for customer and company, but it would take some time & money to resolve. Somehow you are told to overlook it, that such small issue may never happen and you are being contrary. So you the product goes out and everyone is happy, customers love it, company makes money. Then something happens, it is revealed you knew about the issue, but did nothing.

Look at the many things doctors/FDA/science claimed was good, bad, or neutral for or health. Eggs, growth hormones (BGH), drugs (Paxil), or the many ingredients FDA approves everytday (HFCS). Then everyone jumps on a health plan thinking they are doing the right thing, only later to be told to do/believe somehting else.
Don' think it is allowed, don't want to start 'religious' debate, maybe later as I would like your 'scientific' viewpoint of 'findings', but for now, one thing at a time.
Been busy, work, kids, yardwork, and working on truck doesn't leave much time to sit down and read. I plan to..

Gotta get back to work... would like to address everyone when I have time...

Lonest@ar, you simply cannot understand what science is all about by philosophising. You need to get your hands dirty with science, if only a little bit, to truly understand how it works. And it's the simplest thing, really, each one of us uses it every day, in a simplified form, as Feynman explained better than anyone.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

I think that is an accustation of my misunderstanding.....

I may not fully understand 'biological evolutionary science' but I have plenty of 'scientific' experience...... Masters in Engineering and I worked at university for 2 years developing 'simplified' theoretical FEA models and learned about other models (such as cosmology and meterogocal ozone) before entering the 'real' world. That's how I know universities still obtain grants to further their studies and build theoretical models that often do not adequately represent real world, allthough it gets 'close'.

What more could you ask of them? Seriously? Prophetic powers? A mystical 20/20 insight into reality?

Here's another interesting thread.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Engineers aren't scientists.
It always seems to be Engineers who have problems with Evolution.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

So, do you deny the existence of the fossil record? Do you deny that Tiktaalik was discovered because evolutionary theory made a prediction about where such a "transitional fossil" would be found? Do you deny that human DNA is littered with retrovirus fragments, many of which we share with other species (if you read nothing else I link to, read that one!), including chimps, and that this knowledge can help us fight diseases? What is this "unknown" that you mention? Again I ask you: do you have any actual evidence that evolution is getting something wrong?

Everything else. I don't understand where you are confused, so please stop me when I say something you don't agree with, and explain why. Do you agree that nature exerts selective pressure at the organismal level? Do you agree that small changes at the organismal level due to genetic mutation can give that organism a slight advantage? Do you agree that, over time, the organisms with that advantage will produce more children? Do you agree that this will cause changes in the entire population of that organism over time? Do you agree that, given enough time, this can cause significant changes in a population?

That's really all there is to Darwin's insight about evolution. Not too complicated. If you have a problem with any one step, can you please detail what your problem is, and provide evidence for why standard evolutionary theory gets it wrong? If you can't provide evidence, why do you persist in believing that evolution is wrong. If you don't have a problem with any of those steps, then why are you arguing that evolution isn't correct?

Yes I did, and I don't really understand your complaint. Maybe rephrase it as a question, and I'll try and answer?

Do you deny any of the various things I've mentioned previously (which are just a tiny snippet of the whole of the evidence for evolution)? If not, then why do you have a problem with both the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory? If so, what evidence do you have that they are incorrect?

And that "1 small glitch" in evolutionary theory is????

Where is your evidence, besides the facts you didn't know about evolution and the parts of the theory that you don't understand? You keep stating these vague misgivings, but you haven't provided any evidence to back them up. I've given plenty in support of evolution. Can you show that the facts are wrong or that they don't support the theory?

What does that have with evolution? Do you actually have evidence that evolutionary theory is wrong, or that the facts of evolution are incorrect or misinterpreted?

Once again I ask you: do you have any actual evidence that evolution is getting something wrong?

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Why am I so easy to ignore? Seriously. I've begun thinking that it's because so many of my questions are unambiguous. If answered plainly, it shows the faults of the answerer's thinking.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Gillianren: I haven't been ignoring you! I think it is an excellent question, which I will also repeat:

Now we can be ignored together...

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

----^

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

Sorry--I realized after I posted that he'd claimed to have answered the question but failed to answer the questions in my next post, so I went back and changed which post I quoted. I apologize for any confusion. However, if JesusSaves comes back, the question may be passed on.

Note that I want why "microevolution" cannot become "macroevolution," since both have acknowledged changes within species--as, indeed, it is hard not to do when pondering the mastiff and the chihuahua.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Engineers too? Maybe because Engineers are logical, and assume nothing sorta the mediator between theory and reality...as I said 'it works on paper'. As you point out 'Occam's Razor', we tend to follow 'Murphy's Law' "if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong".

Not ignoring, as I said I'm busy, I don' thave time to sit for hours reading and typing. It will take some time, a couple of days and the thread grows 2-3 page and tne topic changes.

BTW, I think I answered just fine....
What exaclty are you looking for. I admitted evoloution does occur, just not to the extent at which it is being predicted. I also stated as science reveals more complexties, it increases the need for intelligence, that is my belief, as evolution (time and chance) is your belief.
FACT- evolution occurs,
THEORY-evolution links all species to common-ancestors...

Again, were did wolf come from, some earlier wolf-like ancestor???? You (evolutionists) point fingers and say that no matter how many transitional fossils are discovered, that creates 2 more 'phantom' transitional steps for ID'ers, however evolutionists keep pointing to some 'mysterious' ancestor. Somehow we jump from single celll organisms to complex life with the assumption of time and chance..... That maybe oversimplifying it a bit, but thats the jist of it, time and chance.

NO, how can I deny fossils.... But what says it's 'transitional'. Similiar to the mule example. Or is a tadpole transition from fish to frog? Assumming all were extint, only fossils, could a mule and a tadpole be mistaken as 'transitional' fossils?

Can science create complex organism given only simple organisms, ie. grow a human from bacteria or flagellum, according to the theory.. Or create a bird feathers from fish scales?

I think we have veered far away from cosmology & abiogenesis...

Everything is a Transitional to something else.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Hey!

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Yes.

And yes, it pushes the step one backward. Too bad for your argument that we have transitional fossils that follow almost all of those steps, and what gaps that exist are being filled in again and again.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov