[PugetSoundSoldier]

Thank you. So how do any of those prove Intelligent Design? How do they show they could not arise from evolution?

About DNA - we know it can mutate in the presence of radiation, no? And we know that mutations can result in in negative AND positive changes in the animal. Radiation pours down on this rock all the time, 24 hours a day both as solar radiation and high-energy cosmic rays.

Does not the complexity and differences of DNA point to evolution? We see a vast amount of overlap between a chimp and human, but very little overlap between seaweed and a human. Like lifeforms tend to have closer-related DNA. Why is that?

About the ear - the frog only has two auditory structures (the amphibian and basilar papillas); the human ear has three canals, the horizontal, superior, and posterior canals (yes, I am an acoustician specializing in auditory processes...:). Yet both can sense direction and balance, quite well!

Which is correct? Could not each species have evolved its own solution that works fine? For if - by Intelligent Design - the 3 canal solution is superior why is it reserved to mammals only, and not for amphibians (we know it is not for environmental issues, for water-born mammals like whales, dolphins, and even seals - have mammilian hearing organs, and land-living amphibians like toads have frog ears).

About leaves - please tell me if the following image is evidence of Intelligent Design:

Because it certainly LOOKS like the ferns in my backyard. However, that is a pure mathematical construct! A simple sequence repeated over and over, and that sequence happened upon by chance.

So, how are any of those you posited proof of Intelligent Design; more importantly, how do they deny the theory of evolution?

Right now you are fundamentally stating that it is proof of Intelligent Design because it was Intelligently Designed. How is that different from saying it was evolved because it was evolved?

Note that both statements are equally specious! Rather, we do have science pushing the latter - if we say something is evolved, then it is incumbent to show why and how. And there is continuing research and evidence pointing to the process (see the horse evolution linked above).

So, other than you choosing observations that you feel show Intelligent Design to be self-evident (a self-sampling set of data if there ever was one), how do you explain the genetic differences between races of humans? Why are Africans tall and dark? Why are Asians mainly short and brown? And why are Norwegians blond?

Intelligent Design?

[Jim W N]

Right now you are fundamentally stating that it is proof of Intelligent Design because it was Intelligently Designed. How is that different from saying it was evolved because it was evolved?

Proof of intelligent design is the overwhelming evidence of which I've given a couple of examples. If you want to attribute the intricacies of things like the amount of information encoded in DNA or the design of the eye to mindless evolution, I can't help you. You'd also have an argument with your buddy Darwin, who couldn't reconcile ID or explain it away.

[DouglasKC]

Because it certainly LOOKS like the ferns in my backyard. However, that is a pure mathematical construct! A simple sequence repeated over and over, and that sequence happened upon by chance.

It screams intelligent design. Somebody designed the program to make your "fern". Somebody created the electronics to display it. Somebody started the process to create it. It just didn't happen to show up on mine or yours computer screen through a fortunate set of circumstances.

[DouglasKC]

About DNA - we know it can mutate in the presence of radiation, no? And we know that mutations can result in in negative AND positive changes in the animal. Radiation pours down on this rock all the time, 24 hours a day both as solar radiation and high-energy cosmic rays. Does not the complexity and differences of DNA point to evolution? We see a vast amount of overlap between a chimp and human, but very little overlap between seaweed and a human. Like lifeforms tend to have closer-related DNA. Why is that?

It's similar to using the same code for functions that are very close. For those of us who have done any type of computer programming it's pretty evident. Different pieces of code are written to perform the same internal action. There might be a program written that is meant to say, draw a fern like object. There may be another program written that is designed to calculate the number of 2 x 4's in a 4000 square foot house. On the surface these are two entirely different things. Yet the underlying code is going to be essentially the same. It's just going to be re-arranged and combined in different ways. There's going to be subroutines used that do the exact same thing from one program to another.

In the same way, two animals that appear similar are going to have much of the same code arranged the same way. Seaweed and humans don't look alike and they function differently thus their design, their underlying code, isn't arranged the same way.

God is the ultimate designer.