[Southack]

"While you are at it you might also want to disabuse yourself of the misconceptions you have concerning the "Base Four" DNA coding you are always referring to. DNA uses four bases taken three at a time but codes for only 21 different amino acids. That means three bits have 21 possibilities and no more."

That doesn't mean a thing. We still see Base-4 programming in DNA because we see four different codons (A, C, G, and T). Whether or not all possibilities of combinations and permutations of Base-4 are used changes nothing.

[Vercingetorix]

"Intelligent Design predicts that speciation will occur rapidly (i.e., a designer introduces a new model)." -- Southack

How nice. Evolution does proceed exceedingly rapidly by means of natural selection. It proceeds even more rapidly under the influence of artificial selection. It all depends on the selection pressure. ID does not predict rapid speciation, it predicts instantaneous speciation. There is absolutely no evidence of this. The fossil record, as sketchy as it is, contains abundant precursor species for almost every known life form.

"The sheer existence of Punctuated Equilibrium as a replacement theory to Darwin's Evolution demonstrates that it was Darwinism which failed the first scientific test, not Intelligent Design." -- Southack

Darwin published in 1859. Natural selection is still the primary means by which changes become fixed in a population. The questions that Darwin didn't answer have occupied researchers since 1859 to such an extent that today evolution stands as the single most thoroughly documented fact known to man. Uniformitarianism gives way to Catastrophism as the defining factor explaining abrupt changes in the fossil record.

"Yet you rule out Intelligent Design as impossible because you say that it fails all scientific tests. That's ridiculous, as I can show you Life form variants that have already been created by Intelligent Design (e.g. growing human organs in pigs)." -- Southack

ID is impossible as a source of variation in the organisms that have lived on this planet up until now. Does that clear it up for you?

ID done the way we do it now requires tools. If you are going to say that ID is possible because we do it, then you are basing your argument on the methods we use. Where is the historical evidence (clearly necessary on a massive scale) of the Class A Recombinant DNA facilities that have been continuously in operation for the last 3.5 million years or so?

"That doesn't mean a thing. We still see Base-4 programming in DNA because we see four different codons (A, C, G, and T). Whether or not all possibilities of combinations and permutations of Base-4 are used changes nothing." -- Southack

No, of course not. You are absolutely right, eh eh. Say, would you care to join me in a friendly game of high stakes poker?