Various mutations or genetic chances can happen within a set of genes found in a species which could be considered as evolution, but there is a robust design that is best suited for survival that appears as the most stable of the species. In the human species we would consider it an original with athletic and energetic strength, virulent and assertive love for life, intelligent in mind, wise in application of ability and compassion for fellow man, with deep spiritual awareness etc.

For us to retain the human species at optimum we have become careless imagining whatever we do our offspring will adjust to evolve as normal; cloning, embryonic stem cell implantation, abortion of firstborn children, homosexuality etc will affect what we are as a species in the future.

However accidental mutations or human planning of design are not the ultimate in best design of the species. Random mutations do not give us new species, it merely gives us an emphasis or detraction on an existing gene pool.

A “robust design” is a figure of imagination of those privileged to inherit employment in Australia (read: in a UK sphere of its active interferece) to be paid for tales of genes and like-stuff in advance making the rest of undercaste people being idiots incapable to do something but sex-services and simple lackey duties.

MichaelK,
My definition of "robust design" of the species envisages the optimum specimen of that gene pool.

Not sure what you mean by: Quote, "A “robust design” is a figure of imagination of those privileged to inherit employment in Australia (read: in a UK sphere of its active interferece) to be paid for tales of genes and like-stuff in advance making the rest of undercaste people being idiots incapable to do something but sex-services and simple lackey duties."

1. What relavence to genetics does priviledged to inherit employment in Australia Mean?
2. What is active interferece mean? [My dictionary does not contain this word]
3. What are tales of genes?
4. Are the UK developing a low intelligence social underclass to perform as sex and menial duties slaves?

OK got it figured.

ID should be taught alongside biology.

Alchemy alongside chemistry.

And, Lord of the Rings alongside the bible.

And Klingon alongside French!

Rather random post:

Spendo:

-The findings of your link do not prove evolutionary theory, they just don’t contradict it.

E.g. Some species from similar geographical locations have similar characteristics, etc. This link does not “absolutely verify evolutionary theory”.

-You believe the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution? Hmm interesting.

-My earlier claims of “devolving” merely alluded to the evidence for common ancestry (as even your link points to), which you also believe. Other forms of evolution are not present enough for me to comment on.

Deuc:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html I couldn’t find anything by John Safarti on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but I found this from someone else, if other people are interested in reading it.

“Whole bunch of fossils that show progressive deviation from earlier forms along with the development of new and more complex features?” I’d like to see that actually, do you have somewhere you could refer me to? I’d want to know A) that the earlier forms actually are earlier forms, and they’re not just called that because they’re simpler, and B) that the later forms really do show progressive deviation- not just one giant leap step.

Bacteria: “In most cases, changes in bacteria simply involve natural selection—changes in a population when the least fit organisms die off, and the ones that already have resistant factors survive and multiply. (Sometimes these factors are transferred from other organisms that already have them, but in either case, nothing new has arisen.) Creationists are firm believers in natural selection. This is not evolution in the sense that most people use the word—the rise of new, complex organisms, the sort of change which in principle could be capable of changing one-celled creatures into pelicans, pomegranates and people. (See AiG’s articles on natural selection.)”

Spendocrat:
You have established nothing.

Trinity:
Philo has shown that “accidental mutations or human planning of design are not the ultimate in best design of the species. Random mutations do not give us new species, it merely gives us an emphasis or detraction on an existing gene pool.”