"Don't make such obviously ludicrous demands in an attempt to cast me in a bad light."

Get over yourself Grey, my post about irreducible complexity in one of those threads was a direct response to your comment three posts above it, a thread in which you subsequently posted twice more. You either missed it or chose to ignore it, that's yet another "basic fact". If you must, blame me that facts aren't to your liking, but don't project on to me your silly intentions.

I will not waste my time going over every little thing in detail without good reason, which includes explaining to those unwilling to learn. Here are some more basic points I will assert without justifying: the Earth is roughly spherical and there are many many vehicles called "cars" on its surface. The burden is not on me to demonstrate things that have already been demonstrated many times before, and for which there is consensus.

If you disagree with any of my points, quit dodging and say why. What you're doing now is no better than a saying "nah-uh".

GREY states "Looking at comparative genomics and saying 'See, this proves we evolved from lower apes' or other such nonsense, is begging the question. "You are assuming that similarity implies close evolutionary relationship".
I agree with Grey. Do the Evolutionist posters claim that humans evolved from apes? If so, why do we still have apes? Surely they should have all become human beings?

Big Al 30
most evolutionists don't think we evolved from apes. We think that apes and us have a common ancestor.

Just to correct the record:
- I should have said “30-40 minutes per week” in my post of 24/10/05 11:50pm
- I am misquoted in Grey’s post of 25/10/05 10:52am

“If so, why do we still have apes?” Evolution provides an explanation for biological diversity. It says that over Earth’s history the number of species has greatly increased. For a new species of ape to appear, some sort of separation or migration would have happened eg from Africa into Asia. I am not familiar with specific theories on apes.

Grey is claiming that researchers at the Japanese ‘National Institute of Genetics’ do not know how to do science. The claim is based upon Grey’s experience as a science educator and that the researchers modified their “adhoc explanation” to cope with the results of the research which genetically compares the octopus and human eye. Read the opening abstract here: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/8/1555

It is obviously accepted that creationism is not falsifiable (you cannot prove it wrong.) This research is sited by Grey, via a blog, to claim that evolution is equally not falsifiable. The key is the diagram: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/8/1555/FIG4. The topology of the evolutionary tree must conform to previous research, which is sited in the explanation. The numbers must show that the number of conserved genes decreases as we follow down the tree. Large discrepancies between this research and other research (ie an inability to create a consistent evolutionary tree) would falsify the theory of evolution.

My view is that the ‘National Institute of Genetics’ do know how to do science and that this research is amazing and helps us understand our biological history in a reliable way.

Hello BOAZ. This thread is a little bit a waste of time for my liking; as mentioned above, nether the two shall meet!
I agree my comment about ID could be taken a little terminally. I did not direct it at people with maturity & religious faith.
The danger lies in placing narrow, predeterministic views in the minds of our school children. The science classroom is a place for the well-supported theories (science acknowledges that there is no fact) of the physical world, & the tools associated with them. It would be a highly distracting, out of context inclusion.
My prediction is that if ID were to be taught wholesale in junior public school, more 'marginal learners' will switch off & tend away from science & lessen their respect for the education system. We will have a poorer education system when we need improvements.
Why should more 'all encompassing' ideas be presented under the banner of science? Surely their place is (as suggested above) Religion & metaphysics class (for want of a better name).
Try these links-

http://www.humanisten.ch/hi/front/index.php?lang=en

http://www.materiales-mh.org/idiomas_in.htm

http://www.humanistparty.org.uk/links.htm

I quote what Arjay said, "Let's keep science and ID separate,since we will need the cold hard analysis of science to solve all the problems we have created for ourselves." I would think most of the physical problems we have on this planet have been caused by experiments with science produced products. We thought they were the answer to another problem only to create side effects so we now needed new science to correct what we had created.

Australia's former leading industrial Chemist Alexander Boden developed DDT [I worked for him for 12 years], which was to be the answer to all crop pesticides. He spent the end of his life endeavouring to correct the mistakes he had made with environmental damage.

I find now that most of the human problems are mental and spiritual and science tries to deaden these pains by chemicals, when what is needed more is good relationships, and close friendships. Hardly science, more like religion