Is there a legitimate argument for design?

All I'm saying is that the "code" that's "embedded" in DNA is its structure - and that every other molecule has its own structure too, so every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way. I'm assuming that you got the quotes accurately from Crick and/or Watson. I don't know where you got your misunderstanding of those quotes. They don't mean what you think they mean.Since you don't understand chemistry, you can't expect to understand quotes about chemistry.

"Group think" is actually related to objectivity. If the group comes to the same conclusion, chances are they've overcome their biases. If the odd man out disagrees, chances are it's because of his individual biases. Again, if one person sees pink elephants and the group doesn't, chances are the odd man out is hallucinating.

Did you understand the one from the University of Washington? How about explaining it in your own words? As I've explained several times, all molecules react with other molecules based on their structure. If you take a beaker full of B and throw in some ABRACADABRA, you'll get some BABRACADABRA and some ABRACADABRAB and some BABRACADABRAB. Bs are less likely to bond to the other As becacause they are "shielded" by neighbouring atoms - i.e. it's harder for Bs to approach.That's how all chemistry works. There's nothing special about DNA.

It contains the code for building of salt crystals. It's exactly the same kind of code as DNA; only the details are different.

That's like asking if I have any citations to back up the statement that the earth is round. Few papers have been published on the subject lately because it's something that every schoolboy knows. If you understood the sources you were quoting, you'd know it too.

Sometimes a defect is a "feature". Just ask MicroSoft.

Insects have six legs and they're arguably more successful that humans. The reason we don't have six legs is because we evolved from tetrapods, not because it's a bad "idea".So what's your point? Flaws indicate design?

Evolution explains such anomalies quite nicely. How does ID explain them?According to the Theory of Evolution, if there is a survival advantage to six legs - i.e. if the baby lives long enough to reproduce - there is a chance that the trait will be passed on to future generations and eventually there may be a species of six-legged humanoids. But there doesn't seem to be much of an advantage.According to ID, what?

How does a lion "decide" which zebra to eat? Simple: the one he can catch.The slow zebras get eaten. The zebras that happen to evolve more speed get a chance to pass it on to their offspring. No intelligence needed, just natural consequences.Edited by zombie ringo, : Splling.

That's it. I've been on the "wrong" side in a couple of debates here, going against half a dozen or more - but I try to be gentle with them. Just keep shooting and ignore the bullets whizzing past your head.

So you can pick them up like a six-pack.Jokes don't have to make sense; they just have to be funny. That's why ID is more of a joke than a sensible argument.

We get a lot of people here who "have doubts about evolution" (without knowing the first thing about it). They have never been to a creationist website (yet they know all of the creationist rhetoric verbatim). They are not religious (though they believe in a miraculous origin of the univere rather than a scientific one).Are you really different from "the group"?

The question is: Do you doubt evolution because of what you know about it or because of what you don't know?For example, it makes sense to doubt that there are any Volswagens on the moon because we hava a pretty good idea of what human constructions are on the moon. However, it would be foolish to doubt that there are any Volkswagens in Bolivia unless you had some pretty concrete information about it.So what do you know about evolution that causes your doubts?

Nobody does. Science, by its very nature is "adjustable". Everybody who accepts science expects the theory of evolution to be modified on an ongoing basis.However, we expect the modifications to be relatively small. By analogy, we might expect to see some different ideas arise about the history of France between the World Wars. However, we would not expect to see the history of France beginning with some woo-woo "design". Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition.

You tell me. What earth-shattering changes in the theory of evolution would that discovery cause? Pertinent to the topic, how would it point toward design? It's not even a real hypothesis until you propose a way of testing it. Because "design" suggests "designer" and "insert miracle here". But it isn't simple, is it? Nobody seems to be able to tell us what "design" would look like if it was there. The only tests for "design" that I've seen are the equivalent of, "If it looks like an elephant it must be designed." Why not? What's the difference between designing France and designing DNA? That's odd. I consulted Merriam-Webster and I found:

quote:

---

1: marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience link

---

"Experience" would be evidence.