Does complexity require intelligent design?

But here's the thing. The drawings are based not on the same idea, but on two different ideas - the idea that you can infer heredity through genetics, and the idea that you can infer heredity through morphology.Now, they do share this concept of "heredity", and when two ideas intersect successfully like that - in other words, that the model of "heredity" we get from the first idea is pretty much the same as the model we get from the second idea - that's evidence that the "heredity" that they refer to is actually a real thing, and not simply an invention.Much as when two people who have never met or spoken describe the same purported event, you know that if they agree on the details, the event they're describing is not made-up. It's the same principle of corroboration. I don't know what information is, exactly, but mutations do produce novel genetic sequences. And its the sequence that determines the result of the gene. "Corrupted" information is new information. Anything that appears that wasn't already present is new. And DNA sequences don't really "corrupt", they simply change.

Variation within species leads to new species. So, yes, this is evolution. Well, changing allele frequencies over time is the only kind of change that is evolutionarily relevant. And that change in alleles leads to new species, eventually, so yes, this is evolution.We observe that what you call "microevolution" (the better term is "adaptation") leads to new species. That's evolution. I know what it is when they use the term, because they define it when they use it. On the other hand, creationists like you change the meaning of "macroevolution" whenever you want. It's a common tactic on your side, so that's why I asked you to define it - to pin you down to one definition. It's more than sufficiently complete. Unless you're saying that, because we don't know everything, we don't know anything? How does that make any sense?

Wow.So when do they fit this kid for his first spandex outfit? How old do you have to be to join the X-Men, anyway?

We're not talking about "materials", though; we're talking about genetic errors and mistakes being passed down through generations. There's no reason for a designer to copy his own mistakes from one organism to another, now is there?The shared function argument simply doesn't apply here because what we're detecting are homologous, plagarized errors. No, it really doesn't. Yes, it's silly. Natural selection acting on random mutation is considerably more creative than human intelligence. That's why we've learned to apply those processes to the design process.

This betrays a misunderstanding of cellular processes. "Information" does not control this function; rather, genetic sequences of nucleotides do, by chemically catalyzing the formation of the proteins in question.

I was under the impression that was the technical term. I'm amienable to correction on this issue, however.

Yeah, this context. Molecular biology. Like I said I could be wrong. I'll see if I can find the usage in one of my wife's textbooks later on.

For a four-year old? Jesus. Where did you go to day care? Charles Xaviers' School for Gifted Youngsters?

I just told you. Because its a polar molecule. That explains why water has such a high surface tension, why it exhibits capillary action, why its such a great solvent for polar/ionic compounds, why its specific heat is so high, and basically everything else.Now, it is fairly unique in being an inorganic polar liquid. No, wait, I take that back. Bromine is inorganic, at least weakly polar due to van der Waals forces, and liquid at room temperature. Unless I'm seriously botching the chemistry here. That doesn't follow. You assume that we're able to control or even be aware of all the myriad natural factors that would have come into play; this is clearly not the case. No, it pretty much does. Repeated trials make improbabilities certainties. Or rather, sufficiently repeated trials make the likelyhood that you haven't succeeded yet infinitesimal. It's mathematical fact, and not really disputable.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-09-2005 10:45 AM

Hm? How do you figure? All science is about making inferences from evidence. We have rules about how that inference is to proceed, and what degree of confidence we're to place on those inferences, but I don't recall ever saying that inference was invalid in any particular situation. You mean, this?This isn't "information"; this is essentially an arbitrary table that describes how almost every organism associates amino acids and tRNA sequences. Not so. A mutation might take an unwanted sequence and change it to develop a more useful product. Or a mutation might exchange one desireable component for an equally desirable one. Remember, too, that in a diploid organism, you have two versions of every gene, so a mutation in one is not going to affect the other. Functional proteins might be even further backed up by redundancy. So a mutation could easily provide new protein products without interfering with old ones.Moreover you can make even substantial changes to the end-result polypeptide with usually little change to its function. Plenty of example exist; some have even been given to you.

Why, you're absolutely right! Now that I look, I see that all human beings are identical twins of each other! We're all clones, identical in every way! How come I didn't see it before?Oh, wait. Sorry to be sarcastic, but the overwhelming condition of life is variety and variation, not resistance to change. It's insane to assert the contrary.