Summations Only

You don't know what a Designer would do so you shouldn't claim to.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, that is all microevolution.

Or ...

Define "microevolution" and contrast it with "macroevolution."

Well, people have seen anteaters mating, giving birth, etc, we know how sex works.Unless you can produce an example of an anteater being produced any other way, I'd say that pretty much wraps it up.

Being able to point to the manufacturing of a designed item misses the whole point. The evidence of design is in the design itself. A better arena to explore for this sort of evidence is archaeology where we don't often find a factory for the items dug up and have to recognize that they were designed by human beings by the characteristics of the objects themselves.

Of course you don't. That's because you don't understand evolution.More to the point, you have demonstrated that ID/creationism has no answer to this question. That's why ID/creationism is not accepted as science--it can't explain reality.As to evolution, the answer is easy to come up with. Here is the phylogenetic tree that we will be using: The proposed evolutionary relationships have chickens at A, mice at B, and humans at C. As you can see, mice and humans are more closely related than chickens. Also, and most importantly, if you trace the mouse and human lines back to where they meet with the chicken line, THEY MEET AT THE SAME PLACE. Since mice and humans share the same common ancestor with chickens, it means that humans and mice should be genetically equidistant from chickens.Going back to the cytochrome c comparisons, the human and mouse gene differs by about 10%. The human and chicken gene differs by about 20%. Since humans and mice are equidistant from chickens, the theory of evolution predicts that the difference between the mouse and chicken gene should be 20%, and it is.Evolution is able to predict these patterns when we compare DNA. ID/creationism can not. That is why evolution is used in science.

Er ... Dawn keeps not defining it.

If you put two shards of pottery together, do they produce little pot shard children? If not, they are not comparable.

Intricacy proves design, but there is no quality of lightning that can be pointed to that proves it was designed, and certainly not who designed it. Don't be silly.

No, it is macroevolution. When you have two populations that diverge from one another, that is macroevolution.

As already shown, just because humans are able to make something in no way indicates that an intelligence is always required to make it. There is absolutely no reason why natural processes can't produce intricate designs.

Dawn isn't the most articulate poster and it took me a while to figure out what he means by direct and indirect evidence, and barring a correction from him I think I finally figured it out and it is implicit in his posts.

So you say, but you have no evidence that this is the case. That is what this whole argument is about. You really have no evidence for the claim that evolution could do what a designer could do, all you have is inferences from the wildly improbable such as the homologies for the eye argument, to the more coherent but still indirect and dependent on inference.

Right, so if you had evidence for design, then you'd have evidence for design. Distinguishing them from things like bones and shells (which you would claim are also designed). So how do we in fact make the distinction? Because we know what sorts of things (e.g. pottery) are made by humans, and what sort of things (e.g. bones) are produced by nature. Someone who didn't possess that background knowledge wouldn't be able to tell by "the characteristics of the objects themselves".