The key thing with creationism that I don't like is that they will believe what is said in their holy books regardless of the evidence presented. Most even admit that like Ken Ham(leader of Answers in Genesis), almost every member in the Discovery Institute, and many more. That's when it becomes rediculous. When people have to delibrately ignore evidence to satisfy their sacred text, that is when such belief is not tolerated. The existence of a god can be believed since there is no evidence against it (though there is no evidence for it either), but evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution is a fact.

Mine wasn't meant to be an exhaustive explanation, just pointing the general way to tackle the issue. The development of the eye was actually often taken as a subject in evolution vs ID debates, and you'll find a lot of literature about it if you research.

Your opinion on the majority of instances is hardly worth anything, sorry if it sounds harsh but of course the same is true for mine, since neither of us is an accomplished physiologist/paleontologist/genetist. Since Darwin's times it was very well known that if a biological structure was found for which it was impossible to find a building path through adaptively favourable mutations then the whole natural selection mechanism theory would be in trouble.

Since then, many examples of tentative irreducible complexity were brought forth, and none stood under closer exam by the scientific community at large. So much so that there's a lot of inner debate about the details of the natural selection mechanisms, but very little about the scaffolding.

PS: you seem to have a restricted, teleological point of view about the smaller mutations. There was no "useless leg stump" mutation, the whole idea of calling it a "leg" foreshadows its future use. But that's not how it works. A primitive limb good enough to walk on earth could evolve by a mutation that changed the muscles or shape of ventral fins that were good enough for a fish to crawl on seabed. Those could have reached that additional use through mutations from ventral fins that originally were only good to stabilize swimming.

In the bacterial flagella example, the same proteins that work the "rotor" part are those used in other phyla to move the parts of an expulsion structure.

You seem to focus too much on the endgame, but selection operates very locally.

I believe in God whether or not people wish to call it a fairy tale is up to them. I am not the judge.

Lmao and you do understand that the head of the so called propagated "independant research" was headed by Lord Oxburgh   who has direct ties with carbon trading companies as well as being the chairman for alternative energy companies, who would benefit from having the review state there was no evidence. Thats why no one took the review seriously :)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7071751.ece

This is why we can't always trust scientific data because it can be manipulated instead of being non-biased

lmao. Apart from this having NOTHING to do with creationism, you do realise even if it was true and lord oxburgh had a conflict of interests that directly affected his judgement, there are 6 other people in the review panel?

Ive know idea why this was brought up, the topic ws creationism, unless youre saying evolution facts can be "manipulated"? LOL

As a fellow Britannian, I know for a fact that Lord Oxford was not making up facts about making up opinions on evolution. We all knoe that evolution is pseudoscience that came from all the New Age crap of the 1930s and only exists to deflate the value of the world's unsung hero, the (protestant) preist. Besides, doesn't everyone know that Lord Oxford moved from America during the Great Depression to escape American rule over the British colonies in Europe?

Yes but somebody (a person) developed the new technology , the nes didn't just evolve into a snes by itself somebody developed a new system and scraped the old one.

SO!It makes perfect sense the somebody created apes and then eventually came up with better ideas scraped the old ones and created us.

Did you know that scientists recently discovered how to create a synthetic cells?heres the link. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/05/20/venter-synthetic-genome-cell-bacteria.html if you read it , it actually sounds like were creating a new type of species.Some people believe that the universe is an endless amount of creators somebody created us and somebody created the people who created us and so on.

That almost sounds like ethnic cleansing, purging the old designs to replace them with the new ones. 

What I was going for was the idea that our own understanding of technology had advanced (evolved) to the point where we could turn the NES into the SNES, but thought that was a interesting way of arguing against my example.

Actually, the beauty of Darwin's ideas and all those about replicators and evolution that stemmed from them is that you don't need an intelligent designer to proceed from simple to organized structures. That's why Dennet in "Darwin's dangerous idea" compares it to cranes (they work from the bottom up, you can use a crane to build a better crane) versus the creationist "skyhooks" (they work top down, you don't know how they are miracolously affixed up there).

Your infinite chain of creators also reminds me of "turtles all the way down" :)

DannyW Im not going to ask your views on abortion and gay rights because I already know what they are but are you also anti-feminist and against religious integration?

Im also wondering which part of Christianity you follow as it seems to have splintered into so many different sects. Also wondering which way you vote in an election seeing as Im guessing you go with the most fundamentally Christian party.

(Also, does DannyW come across as antagonistic to anyone mainly because of his profile picture?)