Define facts and show me how the amount of "facts" supporting evolution amount to more than the "facts" of ID. I'm betting that the "facts" that support evolution contain many "many missing details mak[ing] it unlikely to be true" as I stated above. I keep hearing about "facts" but noone is actually putting any facts up for review on the evolutionary side of the argument. We've actually discussed some ID "facts" but nothing from the evolution side has been detailed enough to be any use.

And I stick with my previous statement that neither is science going by the list of requirements I posted before and so neither should be taught in public schools.

I'll accept that God has not been demonstrated to exist. But remember that God has not been demonstrated to not exist either so this fact (or lack thereof) does not deal a blow to ID.

Under the definition you give, evolution is not a fact. Unfortunately the term evolution is used so loosely that they can say it is a fact (natural selection + mutations = change over time = evolution) then switch what they mean by "evolution" moving it into the realm of macroevolution which is not demonstrable and has been shown to be mathematically impossible.

No? Or are you simply unaware of them? It goed something like this:

A mutation generates a strain of creatures that has a patch of photosensitive cells. This gives them an edge over their blind cousins and they are selected over them for survival. Now some of these newly sighted organisms will have larger patches of photoactive cells or a larger cluster of nerve cells dedicated to sending and processing that information. At some point, it turns out that it is advantageous to have the photosensitive cells receded to prevent them from damage upon impact or during combat. Amazingly enough, it also turns out to be profitable to have them sitting in a cavity with a pinhole on the outside because the picture becomes sharper. Having a transparent layer of cells that can form a lens is an obvious other step that can be taken prior to this one (and probably should be), but we don't have to take it here since we know of creatures that don't have lenses and the principle has been demonstrated.
All of this works because they are small modifications and variations on a theme that is already present.*
I'm an amateur, by the way; if you want a more detailed or full account you'll have to find a professional willing to discuss the matter.

Either way, it's possible to deduce from other hints and observations that a system has evolved rather than been designed. I'll just cite Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker or The Ancestors Tale in case you want to read about them.

*) Is this same line of reasoning fruitful for those preexisting patterns from which we build the eye? This is an area of active research and it boils down to understaning the complexities of multi-cellular organisms and the ways in which cells can specialised and be build up of bacteria. There've been some pretty astonishing experiments, see The Ancestors Tale and references therein.

I personally don't find the analogy helpful at all. Maybe because I'm not a computer scientist.

That's not a problem. You've simply downscaled the complexity and reduced the problem to a set of smaller problems that need to be solved.

... which is a hint that you have not reached the bottom line and that they could be reduced further, or at least you should try.
Even if one particular scenario can be shown not to work that isn't enough: for the argument to be decisive you have to show that all possible paths that try to reduce the system lead to a contradiction. There needs to be only one counter example to render the argument void.

Let's leave the existence or non-existence of god out of this. Obviously, if there is no such entity there is no room for intelligent design, but it's never possible to show through observation that something does not exist because at most you'll be able to say that you didn't see it.
All that you can do is to put bounds and limits and statistical errors on the observations and see if they are consistent with observations.

EDIT:
KC, please make it clear somehow from that quotation in what context I was saying that. People might think that I was making an argument in favour of the eye being irreducible.

Statistics. If part of an organism has no function, then as far as natural selection is concerned it isn't there. Random mutations will destroy such systems on a surprisingly short timescale. We tend to think of mutations occuring very slowly, but for DNA strands that don't have phenotypic effects that affect the fitness for survival the mutation rate is observed to be much higher. Unless all of these systems would spontaneously come into being in the right shape at the same time things like these are impossible. In the chance of this happening is zero (or mor ecorrectly, infinitesimal to the point where we don't expect it to happen in the lifetime of the universe).
Imagine a space where each axis represents one phenotypic property of an animal (or one gene complex, but the precise formulation of what it is isn't that important). The spontaneous generation of the eye would be doing a random jump from one part in this space and landing in precisely the right spot for an eye to have evolved. Compare it to being set down in a random spot on the surface of the Earth and finding yourself in your own back yard, only in a space which has many more dimensions.

Listen up.

Evolution has fossil, genetic, and other evidence to back up the theory. Evolution is one of the most robust theories within the scientific community.

Intelligent Design is based on assumptions, mainly that organisms are too complex to be random chance. This is an opinion with no scientific basis. There's no concrete proof that organisms are too complex. Not only that, to say that evolution is random chance shows a clear misunderstanding of the evolutionary theory. Without proof of an "intelligent designer," the hypothesis lacks the evidence it requires to make such a claim.

OK, assuming you think that the evolutionary theory doesn't hold up, that doesn't mean intelligent design is right by default. Saying that organisms are too complex to be random chance doesn't mean that intelligent design must be the answer. First you have to proove the existance of this intelligence, which no one has ever done.

I said it before and I'll say it again...

Evolution is not a random process.
There's almost no random chance in natural selection.

I havent read the last some posts but if ID believers say that the world and life is too complex to be formed by combining random and natural selection then why do genetic algorithms work?

But this severely limits the ability of a trait to stick because if it is not a clear-cut advantage random changes in the next generations are highly likely to prune it out. Even if it is an advantage it is still possible for it to be eliminated. This makes it highly improbable.

Highly improbable and shown to be mathematically impossible.

This ignores the whole problem of how the components got there in the first place.

This is pretty much the highest level of detail ever gone into on the subject that I've seen (comparable to statements made by the experts). The missing details are never shown because they cannot be explained naturalistically. The genetic changes required to go from one step to the next are staggering and no mechanism has actually been demonstrated by which these changes could occur. Experimental evidence in other irreducibly complex systems trying to prove how they can come about naturalistically show the contrary as is shown in this paper.

As stated above, these smaller problems have been shown to not be solvable using only naturalistic means.

Yes, I was trying to say that myself.

Precisely why all the parts will not develop independantly.

This computer simulation is not remotely realistic.

So we need to have a way to interpret the information coming into the eye? Hmm, now this is interesting.

Where's the details? What does that 1% change entail? Also, I think that 1% is very generous considering actual changes are far less in real life.

Where are these fossils? Give me the actual data. Genetics does not support macroevolution and it has been demonstrated that macroevolution could not be possible in purely naturalistic settings in actual experiments. Also, "other evidence" isn't saying anything.

And evolution is based on similar assumptions, mainly that complexity in organisms must have developed by random chance.

<quote>
OK, assuming you think that the evolutionary theory doesn't hold up, that doesn't mean intelligent design is right by default./quote]

I'm not saying that ID is right by default. I'm simply saying the evolution is wrong.

It seems my memory failed me here. I found this, but it only talks about how evolution cannot explain how life began. This talks about currently known evolutionary mechanisms (excluding natural selection which is covered here) and how they are not sufficient to provide the changes required for macroevolution.

Again, show me the data. The "proof" will most likely be wild conjecture that is required in order to explain the evolutionary story because evolution is accepted beforehand.

Genetic Algorithms

Likewise for evolution which is why I'm saying it shouldn't be taught in school eigher. The whole topic of origins should just be left out because it is not a scientific study but more a philisophical/religious one.

If you are goes to make statements like this then back them up!
(You are also ignoring the large timescale in macroevolution, making lab experiments difficult. But that does not mean it can 'not be possible')

Computer simulations can use a model of evolution to show natural selection. It might not be identical, but it shows how very small changes over many generations produce a large scale change. They are an important tool and should not be dismissed so lightly.

Neither. Origins should not be touched in science class.

There are not facts for either. The evidence is interpreted to support either side based on axioms.

Have you read this paper yet?

Breeding merely sorts and destroys existing information in the genome. It does not add new information. In order for macroevolution to be true, new information has to be introduced and this has never been demonstrated. On the contrary, experiments always show that information is merely shuffled and/or reduced with each successive generation.

Thanks! I will read that.

How does this say anything about macroevolution? You are talking about natural selection which I fully accept as fact.

You're still not saying anything.

You don't have to. It's in the first few pages.

Even if I give you that, having a nervous system in the first place is assumed. This assumption requires that there could be a way for this nervous system to have developed naturalistically if you are to believe evolution.

I am talking about the discrete steps as opposed to the continuum. I'm still reading the article Richard Phipps pointed out which talks about these things. Again, macroevolution is assumed so the fossil evidence makes way for story-telling to fill in all the holes. Also, ring species is talking about natural selection.

The key word is "observed." Macroevolution has not been observed nor can be. And by macroevolution I am talking about the concept that new systems and structures can be added over time to organisms to make less complex organisms become more complex organisms.

While I have not read the book I suspect that the hominid fossils converging with apes further back in time is merely story-telling and there are no actual fossils that show this. Fossils may be shown but do they really show what Dawkins is trying to claim?

The problem is that evolutionary scenarios have to be painted. They are not observed in the actual evidence but merely assumed. This assumption leads to the story-telling.

Agreed. But what is actually observed, and what is merely story-telling is never differentiated. The story-telling part needs to go bye-bye.

This is not the issue. Discrediting the Bible does nothing to the actual arguments that are taking place here.

Well, since I have not been shown this scientific work and fossil evidence yet I can still say that it is mere story-telling. So far I have not been shown anything that answers to my claim. All works I have researched so far provide no actual scientific evidence. I'll review any works that I have access to. The one RP linked to is quite long but I'm in the process of reading it. I'm on section 3.1 right now and so far no real evidence has been displayed.

Again, show me.

This is an appeal to authority. You discount the validity of the arguments simply because of their source. If what that page says can be demonstrated to be false then you can toss it out.

Last post before I'm off to other things than my computer, so I'll make it a short one.

It doesn't. It was a response to `this severely limits the ability of a trait to stick because if it is not a clear-cut advantage random changes in the next generations are highly likely to prune it out'. Which also doesn't talk about macroevolution because that, by definition of the term, does not happen between two generations.
Also consider this: if a mutation of any property is unlikely, what is the probablity that a furtunate mutation is mutated away again in the next generation? In other words, what are the odds of the same property mutating two times in a row?

Oh, aside from mutation - you don't need big mutations for natural selection to work. Variations such as already exist on the level of individuals is enough for selection to work (as has been observed in the Galapagos Finch).

I'm saying that `you're not saying how they got there' is no rebuttal to `eyes evolved from previously existing components'. Sure, you decompose the problem in smaller problems which raise new questions, but what's the problem in that?
Do we have to explain how to get from bacteria to multicellular organisms before we can discuss the evolution of the eye, or can we study the evolution of the eye taking multi-cellular organisms as a given and treat their origin as a seperate problem?
(Just to be clear, that's a rhetorical question, the answer of which is `no').

Such as single celled organisms forming a conglamoration that becomes a multi-cellular organism? Or... what?

If you haven't read the book, don't make assumptions on how it's written. Actually, most of the evidence discussed in the book is based on genetic studies (`molecular evidence') rather than fossils.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask this: are you familiar with how science works? In a scientific paper the experimental data is always discussed seperately from the conclusions that are drawn from them (and if they're not, then the referee had better reject the paper).
Either way, you cannot present the data without then discussing it and interpreting it or showing how it fits (or doesn't fit) with theory.

(I neglected to comment on this above):

I'm an amateur and an expert would undoubtedly do better, but what steps would you like to have spelled out? To me, I made it quite clear and explicit how those steps I did not resolve would be resolved.

My point was not to discredit the bible, but to set the stage for the parabel that leads up to the question I asked at the end:

And ID is so called "real science"? Wheres your evidence?

Because its to hot of an issue? Thats hardly a reason to stop investigating. Where would we be if the "curch" had actually succeded in keeping various scientists quiet?

The pot calling the kettle black. You have yet to show any edvidece for your claims, besides that "The universe is too complex for it to have happened without help, so it MUST have had help". What is "too complex"?

In your oppinion maybe. You seem to be totally ignoring several hundred years worth of scientific study.

But then its the only "source" of "information" creationists can claim.

Let me see if I understood that. "I have not seen the edvidence, so it must be incorrect.". Sounds fishy.

You first!
Really now, TONs of edvidence has been put up for evolution, and some rather in depth easy to understand examples. Yet not ONE piece of scientific evidence has been put forward for Creation/ID besides "Life is too complex, so it had to have had help!".

You may not belive it, but I'm of the oppinion that it all had to have started somewhere. We can go back to say, the Big Bang, but where did that come from, etc. Yet no quantifiable edvidence has ever been put forward for creationism (as in, God crated man, etc). I'd absolutely LOVE it if someone could.

edit:

Quantifiable edvidece is the term I think you're looking for.

Random mutations. Remember? if a mutation helps the organism survive, it gets passed on. Simple concept actually.

External stimuli. All organisms are constantly changing to fit thier environment (including the other organisms arround them). If one changes, so must the other, adnausium. Also, large disasters are known to speed things up. Like a volcanoe eruption, or a meteroite hit, etc.