Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

The liver of aquatic animals and present day fish is primarily a buoyancy organ. the chemistry thereisn does NOT follow the same functions of mammals and human.

I gave you a comprehensive discussion of enzymatic functions and genes that control these enzymes and , while the genes in birds are present , they aren't turned on.

You still haven't anwered my question. IN fact you've avoided it nicely.

Tell us how. The fact is that you dismiss falsifiability as a test of scientific methods and you cannot pose how ID accomplishes any research to test its " proposals". All you've posed so far is the oft repeated "It cant be evolved because life is too complex. Ive shown the relationships of form and function of lower life forms to higher ones and you seem to present a daf ear. Ive worked with "Creation Science" before and youre not presenting anything that's evidence based.

That's rather vague , and why should rocks be excluded anyway?

You can't get what you want until you know what you want. Seems to me you don't actually want the proof you're asking for, hence the vagueness of your reply.

The funny thing is, that whenever youre presented with real compelling evidence you try to dismiss it.
ALL sciences that deal in evolution ( developmental biology, embryology, microbiology, biochemistry, geology, paleo, radionuclide chemistry, geophysics, ) hve NO areas of conflict. They ALL agree on their aeas pf expertise.

Its so compelling that most reasonable IDers default to evolution but subscribe too a form of Theistic Evolution.

We have no way of testing that concept now don't we?

Why do all animals that live on islands seem to be descended from local species from the nearest mainland? Even animals native to the Hawaiian Islands , the Azores, and the Galapogos, seem to be derivative of much local fauna (with the exception of those introduced by man)

All animals West of WALLACES LINE in the Phillipine Sea difer from those on the EAST side of this line . The East species all seem to be Australian while the Western ones are Indonesian. These are species that differ both in form and genetically. How does ID fit in on that? We see that many of these species have evidences of being introduced by non-human means through various time periods (when islands were linked by lower seas or currents were directional wrt to the islans of deposition of the species.

But that is the case with organisms, since we know for certain the dates at which time these "modiifications" became fixed within a species .
I forgot, one o f the biggest " fanbases" of dynamic evolution in humans is forensic sciences. Over the last 2 decades , forensic scientists have compiled huge data bases of unique genetic markers that hve been fixed in specific populations in the world. Whenever blood evidence is found and it relates to a suspect of a elony, cops can now, with a good degree of accuracy , tell where the perp was from to the nearest ancestral village. The use of these little tools can help one distinguish a Georgian Russian from an Uzbeck without ever having seen the suspect. These genetic markers are then modified for subsequent generations as the hosts haave moved to entirely new environment.
These genetic markers (called micro substitutes by SNPs or STR's) are a first step in determining population evolution..

These STRs and SNP's are totally separate of any familial genetic components or tribal markers and they can be determined approximately "When" the STR's were fixed as separate alleles (either in the genome or outside of it).

What do we get when there are no religious views?

Your defiant ignorance will cause you to not answer that, as usual, because your irreligious views would lose what little importance they have.

I'll accept that so long as you get rid of the "comprehensive".

That goes against an important principle of evolution: that it has no inefficiencies. You really do put your instrument readings ahead of nature itself.

Not only are you confused between the Intelligent Design franchise and intelligent design itself but now you have "most reasonable IDers". What do the other reasonable IDers say?

where di you get that from? Its dead wrong

"Most reasonable" IDers are those who stay out of the culture wars and just keep their beliefs to themselves.
If Im confused about IS please correct me

I have never met so many chaps who rely on assertions as much as on A2K.



And give you a free run. No wonder you consider them reasonable. Why don't you stay out of the culture wars?

As I predicted from previous form the question --"What do we get when there are no religious views? " has been put on Ignore.

If someone came up and slapped you in the face and then said, "oh sorry man, it just looked like I did that but actually God reached into my mind and tweaked my neurons and made my hand jump up and hit you". Would you believe them? Of course not. And neither would anyone believe that God reached down and tweaked the natural world in just such a way as to be indistinguishable from nature. It's preposterous for the same reasons.

That no one believes a thing does not make it preposterous.

What an anti-scientific attitude ros has.

When I asked for evidence similar to the big boatload of evidence that supports natural evolution, I was talking about something physically observable and repeatabled.

I was reminded today about an area that Ive always been glad to hear from Creationists . That area is the
bauplan" repeatability in convergent evolution.
I mentioned this once before to a Creationist in the hopes they would "get what I was asking for" and Im offering the same here.
Convergent evolution and the concept of convergence can be argues as a "Body of evidence that seems to be better explained by ID than by nturlistic evolution. Ive never had any really good arguments and Id like to see whether you could "run with it" as a concept. Im sure there are enough sites to gather up information . However, the only thing that it would change in your mind is that evolution by natural selection DOES occur, it just means that the "toolbox" incudes the preset bauplans for convergence. _EG convergence means that certain systems are defaulted to, a;lmost by "Design". Things like webbed toes or sabre "toothness", or specific excretion systems or even "eyes in front born to hunt".

These are kinds of "evidence" Id expect to see from an argument about DESIGN.

There Ive done some homework for you so you don't have to keep repeating these lame IA systems comparisons. Developing a hypothesis based upon something like convergence makes more sense to me as a robust argument base. There are other function areas that may cry out "Design"

How so if there is no designer?

don't jump in the pool if you cant swim.

That is not an answer.

that was not a question

Why do you go on about things like webbed toes or sabre "toothness", or specific excretion systems or even "eyes in front born to hunt" and ignore osmotic processes across complex membranes and the general physiology of excitable cells?