Selective breeding has nothing to do with ID. But selective pressures and their effect on genotype is a basic mechanism of evolution.
That simply shows that man is selectively controlling the reproduction of living things. It does not demonstrate ID. If man can selectively breed desired traits (at leasted desired by man), why can't natural, environmental factors apply pressures that cause selective breeding on wild populations? That's an underlying concept of evolution and no need to envoke outside control. The only differnece is that the natural pressures are just that, natural, and do not have a controller behind them that desires a certain outcome.
ID is based on theory that life forms were designed not chance mutations..done in the casino of life..
That's not a theory, that's a hypothesis. Come back when and try again if the IDers ever come up with a *theory* of their belief. Until then, it does not deserve to be taught in classrooms as if it were science, because it most certainly isn't.
some basic data to that effect is man's long attempts to improve plants and animals for OUR GOALS...hope you see that
The fact that humans now improve plants and animals (usually by harnessing *evolution*, by the way) in no way supports the hypothesis that any other intelligence (of unspecified type) was involved (in some unspecified way) in the past (at some unspecified time) in the history of life on Earth. In order to support *that* hypothesis, you'd have to actually find specific evidence of such past intervention. And no, alleged evidence *against* evolution is not the same as evidence *for* design, since there are literally an infinite number of other possible hypotheses. In order to raise *your* favorite hypothesis, you have to provide positive evidence *for* that particular explanation as opposed to all other possibilities, not just knock down some other one paradigm.
If the IDers *ever* begin to grasp that elementary point, *then* they'll finally be taking the first baby steps towards doing actual science, instead of dabbling in pseudoscience as they're currently doing.
we have been proving ID since the first farmers grew and selected their crops and animals..
All that "proves" is that intelligent agents can shape the results of evolution. That's not in dispute. But that's not at all the same as "proving" the separate ID hypothesis that (unspecified) intelligent agents *were* (somehow) involved in (somehow) shaping life (at some time) before humans began doing so. In short -- yeah, intelligence *can* affect life -- but *has* it done so aside from human meddling? *That* question the IDers have not even *begun* to address in any testable way.
Your "argument" as it currently stands is as weak as, "well, since humans can haul dirt dirt down a hill when we want, this 'proves' that erosion is bunk and some intelligence actually grinds down the mountains and carries the results down to the valleys in little trucks."
the most obvious examples of ID are the various farm crops - animals and dogs we have bred oops designed.
We have not "designed" dogs and other animals. We have provided selective pressures which direct *evolution* to proceed in directions we want.
The really funny thing about your argument -- and the ID argument in general -- is that in the same breath when they say, "well, since humans can shape life, this 'proves' that some other intelligence must have also", they say, "if you scientists are so smart, why can't you *create* life?" Hasn't it ever occurred to you that by your own reasoning, this torpedoes your argument? If humans can't create life, doesn't this imply that "design" *can't* be responsible for the original creation of life? You can't have it both ways... How can you presume that life "must" have been designed, when you can't demonstrate that intelligence can design life from scratch at *all*, and the results to date indicate that it *can't*? You don't appear to have even thought through your own argument.
do you understand??
*We* do -- you don't seem to.