evolution?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
... but I guess someone with arthritis, rickets, or pegets disease doesn't qualify as a human, nor does an ape who's remains have been scattered over multi-mile radius and variance in cranium capacity.

---

You've mentioned this before TC: what are you getting at? You seem to be implying - without coming out and saying it - that fossil hominids are actually diseased humans. Is that your view? If not, what is?

quote:

---

They can prove that these are factual homonids but they are unable to do so with a heliocentric solar system, not to mention relativity, quantum theory, or gravity.

---

Say what?

quote:

---

"I have heard of all the different gods."
--Me too.

---

Wow! Two people on the board with a comprehensive knowledge of comparative mythology! Excellent. Now you guys can answer those burning questions of mine about whether or how the relationship between celtic nature gods Nantosuelta and Sucellus can be compared to that between the Finnish duo Akka and Ukko.
[b] [QUOTE]"Where are they at? I have never seen them."
--If he were to show himself to you, he would be a liar.[/b][/QUOTE]Did he lie to Moses? Just out of interest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Your quite right TC they cannot prove that "a heliocentric solar system, not to mention relativity, quantum theory, or gravity" are "factual homonids" (sic).....

---

Of course, if they were homonids it might go far towards explaining their lack of reproductive success and consequent disappearance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Perhaps Cobra just sited the wrong source. It sounds very much like something Michael Behe might say. Certainly it is precisely the opposite of Richard Dawkins' well known position on ID.
--Percy

---

He is possibly thinking of the kind of thing Dawkins says in Chapter 1 of "The Blind Watchmaker": The difference is one of complexity of desiign. Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.But of course, Dawkins is thinking of design in a sense which describes how biological structures serve purposes, not that they were intended by some intelligence to serve a purpose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Also, even if your above examples are valid, what I was really looking for was evidence of design in nature. In other words, it is possible that the Earth is millions of years old, yet Creation is still true.

---

Even given our somewhat limited knowledge of DNA, genetics and mutation, we can say that the following simple (and by no means exhaustive) evidences have not been found, but were they to exist in a system, I think we could strongly attribute genuine, active design ...[1] A coding system for self-replicating organisms that did not admit of significant errors, by means of thorough error-checking which expressly prevents speciation.
A coding system for self-replicating organisms that did not admit of significant errors, ie: self-correcting to the extent that any but the most minor variations could not occur. This would represent a genuine barrier to speciation.Might it yet be discovered? Well, who knows what roles introns may play?Nevertheless, the extent to which we can genetically modify organisms, the extent and impact of horizontal gene transfer, and the absence of any obvious post-zygotic barriers to gradual change suggest otherwise.I suppose it would be possible to argue that such a self-correcting code could be the end point of an evolutionary process (which could go no further of course), but the presence of the same scheme of correction, preventing speciation, but found in many species contemporaneously, would be compelling.To my mind, this is an area where creationists should be looking - far too many people pronounce that macroevolution is impossible without describing detailed, testable, mechanisms to prevent it. For my part, I wouldn't bother, as I see compelling evidence of speciation, but were I a transformed cladist, or a creationist who believed that species do not change, this is the field in which I would be researching for proof.[2] The observed appearance of an irreducably complex biological structure in numerous members of a species in one generation
This is easy enough - a number of simple bacteria in lab conditions all develop flagella (au Behe) in a single generation. Just one bacterium doing it probably wouldn't convince me as I am endlessly impressed by their abilities to grab useful bits of DNA from here, there and everywhere.Finally and most convincingly ...[3]The appearance of the Almighty at the Court of Session in Edinburgh to sue the hide off the Roslin Institute in a civil suit for breaching His copyright in Dolly the sheep.