just an observation of a point I have not seen addressed in this topic.
Jerry "predicts"
1) ID predicts that genomes are at their best when they are just designed and the second law of thermodynamics takes it from there to DEVOLVE genomes in direct opposition to the musings of Darwin
For this "prediction" to have any meaning then there has to be a substantiatable point in time where the stage of "just designed" can be determined and identified. Failing that, it should be easy to demonstrate a long term trend within the fossil record that clearly demonstrates "devolution" from a more perfect ancestry.
I await Jerry's effort to point to such a stage in the fossil record that demonstrates an actual stage of human ancestry showing a "higher" state from which we have since progressively "devolved" to our current state.
without any evidence of such a {just created state} or {long term devolutionary trend} the "prediction" is falsified from the start as it is based on a false precept.
modern studies of genetics (such as have been cited in other posts on this thread) are insufficient on this issue due to their only speaking of the present condition: what we need is independent evidence that the current state is actually a "devolved" state and not just a natural result.
such evidence should also show that nothing closely resembling "human" exists prior to this theoretical "just design" stage in order to demonstrate a definite level of {design} input required to reach that "just designed" stage, for failure to do this invalidates the concept of "devolution" in this regard.
enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}