Nature belongs to ID

You might want to think about that one for a moment. Where do you think babies come from?

In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, you aren't even wrong.

First, accident implies that one outcome was intended, but another occurred. For example, when you accidently drop you keys you intended to hold on to them, but didn't. "Accident" is a very poor term to use when discussing nature and evolution because there is no intention.

What we see now in nature is just one outcome of many possible outcomes.

"Wind back the tape of life to the early days of the Burgess Shale; let it play again from an identical starting point, and the chance becomes vanishingly small that anything like human intelligence would grace the replay."--Stephen Jay Gould

Yes, a system that evolved through random mutations and natural selection.

The same system that developed Earth also developed Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, etc. All of those places do not have life. Obviously, this system you talk about is not designed to produce life. If these systems were in place to produce life sustaining planets then why does it appear that life is so rare? In fact, I would wager that black holes are more common than planets with life.

Not sure what you are trying to state here. Punctuated Equilibria is evolution. It uses evolutionary mechanisms. Gould and Eldredge went to great lengths explaining how evolutionary mechanisms produce the pattern of punctuated equilibria. I would agree that the fossil evidence does support evolution, but I don't think this is what you meant to say.

Also, the Cambrian Explosion is given more "explosive" power due to taphonomy. The first hard body parts evolved in the Cambrian so we get an explosion of fossils since hard animals fossilize more easily than soft ones.

Strawman argument. No one is claiming that computer programs evolve.

However, we do observe that species evolve. We do observe that offspring are born with changes in their DNA, and that these changes are random with respect to fitness. We also observe that beneficial changes are passed on at a greater rate than neutral or detrimental changes. These are all OBSERVATIONS.

That is not what has been stated. What we are stating is that this is what we OBSERVE. Yes, it is possible that evolution could occur through mutations that are not random with respect to fitness. However, this isn't the case. We OBSERVE that mutations are random with respect to fitness. The two best examples are:

Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment

Lederbergs' Plate Replica Experiment

These are the classic experiments that demonstrated the randomness of mutations. I even ran these experiments when I was in college to help us better understand what is meant by random mutation.

Actually, yes it does work like that. Planets and species evolve through different mechanisms.

Then please use a word other than "evolution" to describe what you are talking about.

See the two experiments in the post above. They directly disprove your claim.

Perhaps you could develop that definition here and we will see if it is accurate.

Larger changes are only the accumulation of what you call "minor mutations".

Let's look at humans and chimps. We share a common ancestor. Why do humans and chimps look different? It is because our DNA is different. But how can this be if we both come from the same ancestral population? It is because we accumulated different mutations over time.

The differences between humans and chimps is not because one of the species is stuck in a certain developmental stage like your caterpillar and butterfly example. The differences are due to different mutations. The differences are due to the accumulation of what you call minor mutations.

The only absurd thing is how this relates to biology in any way.

Then evolution can proceed with losses in information as you define it. Why is this a problem?

Are the differences between species due to a difference in DNA sequence? Yes or no?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This is the biggest eye roller in quite some time. It is the dream of every scientist to overturn the current consensus. Was Einstein against the idea of overturning 300 years of Newtonian mechanics? Apparently not, and he was rewarded greatly by his peers for falsifying the consensus.

I could list famous scientist after famous scientist that falsified the consensus. You are so far off base on this one that it isn't even funny.

No, it isn't. It is based on doing solid research. As it turns out, using the theory of evolution allows you to turn out quality research.

No one is using ID to do research. No one. You know why? Because it isn't science. Evolution is science, and it works. That's why scientists use it.

It is the only EVIDENCED theory which is why it is the only accepted theory. When you provide evidence of a different mechanism then it can be accepted. That is how it works. Evidence first, then acceptance. So where is the evidence?

Only if it leads to a unification of explanations that makes sense. As for the evolution of life and the evolution of stars there really isn't too much to connect the two. Selective pressures on anaerobic soil bacteria are occuring through different mechanisms than nuclear fusion in the middle of stars. I don't see why keeping these two things separate hurts either one, do you?

You need to provide evidence for these assertions. Please show that the differences between species is not due to differences in DNA. That would be a good start.

Absolutely. That would be a very exciting day. However, I really doubt you are going to be the one to do it.