Bosk - cheers for you help, I'll give it a go..

Philo. I’m not sure why I’m bothering, but I’m gonna go through the problems you have with the giraffe example.

‘How has change with DNA occurred?’
Well, the mummy giraffe and the daddy giraffe love each other very much, they get very close, and a short while later a baby giraffe is born! With new, different DNA! A combination of mummy DNA and daddy DNA!

Yeah, the giraffes had an advantage being able to reach up the tops of trees. How did the zebras or whatever survive? Because they had OTHER advantages! We’re talking about lots of different factors here, the tall trees was just ONE example. This sort of variation happens within a very complex natural world.

It’s not ‘speculative imagination’. It was, as Bosk has just said, just a creative, simple example to help you understand the process. I think you’re taking it a tad too literally. Yes, obviously there’s a story behind giraffes long necks, but that wasn't it. It was an ultra, ultra simplified version expressed for the sole purpose of giving you an idea of how it works. Bosk never presented it as fact.

‘Where are the short necked giraffes today?’
Sigh. Now, why do you think they should be around, exactly, Philo? Because they CAN be around? I can think of lots of ideas for creatures that would survive in today’s world, it doesn’t mean they SHOULD be here. Evolution doesn’t move to fill every possible scenario. It follows a path of adaptation over a length of time far too long for your feeble brain to imagine. The idea that short necked giraffes should be here because they can survive is completely ridiculous, in fact so ridiculous it’s almost the perfect example of how little you know about how evolution works. Either take the time to learn it properly, or stop acting like a fool.

Yng – sorry for being a little blunt yesterday, I appreciate your comments because at least you’re putting in the effort to understand.

Evolution- a theoretical history built upon deduction from paleontology data. It records the sequence of surviving species from environmental change. This theory is suitable for a history class not research science. Today evolutionists don't identify environment as a causal factor of change to the DNA, as it is external. However environment governs what survives its changes so the survivors must be designed with features within the DNA that allows it to survive adverse external change.

According to Bosk, environmental forces aren’t causal of chromosomal changes. Changes are inherent in the DNA creating feature of design that inadvertently allowed it's survival in changed environment.

The purpose of pure science is research into why and how things happen that we can intelligently apply.

What’s the actual powerhouse for species change? It’s the study of features of intelligent design inherent and latent in the DNA that creates the change and allows the species to survive changes in environment. Pure science studies the features causal of chromosomal changes. In other words biological science searches the physical features of intelligent principles of design that are latent in the DNA that cause chromosomal change.

If there had been no environmental change then all previous species expressed from the DNA could possibly be in existence today. The fact is we live in a changing planet that is affected by many internal and external tectonic forces.

Chromosomal changes have allowed survival of species with intelligent design features that need to be understood so we can copy the intelligence even as humans have done by creatively copying. However the intelligence in design is not developed by any desire in the mind of the species but under-girds surviving designed species.

The discovery of the camera was a historical event; taught as history, the principles of its physics [intelligent design] the how and why of its function, is science.

I’m a supporter of scientific research into the features of intelligent design - the why and how in the micro; so that we better understand and use the building blocks that create the features and design of our living universe

Greg_m, Speaking about ID and the Flying Spagetti Monster,I seem to recall an article from New Scientist recently. This article discussed a move by someone writing a protest letter to the Kansas Board of Education agusing that if ID is included in biology classes then Pastafarianism should also be included. The outcome as far as I can remember was the directive by the Kansas Board of Education that ID not be taught in biology classes. If IDers don't take issue with FSM then maybe ID would still be in the curriculum. ID is all about creationism in a different form. There is and never will be any evidence for it because it is faith-driven.

No worries spendo, I've somehow managed to exist apart from my computer screen for the last few days:)

1) Fossils that have been around for a long time are like human fossils in Africa. Fits in with current evolutionary theory, but don’t prove it.

2) Even if they did, there are SO MANY factors going into the dating of fossils. Surely 95% of the scientific community hasn't purposely fabricated their data (I wouldn't say its too far off the mark to say that at least some of them would have- maybe 5%? IDK). But, let me give you an example:

You're a mechanic. I bring to you a really beat up car. Its one of the oldest, nastiest cars you've ever seen- there is wear and tear everywhere. The door’s missing on one side. You look inside at the engine and can barely believe it, it looks that bad. Rust like you’ve never seen. Also, its a model that stopped being made at mass quantity in the 1970's.

I then turn to you and tell you its only a year old. You tell me that’s ridiculous. The wear and tear are obviously a few decades worth, and besides, the model fits in with the type made [only] in the late 60's, early 70's.

But, I explain to you "no, I had this model of car specially designed because I grew up in a car like this, it has sentimental value for me [whatever... insert reason this particular model was made in 2004 here]. I took it home last year but then decided to on a year's trip around Australia. I went in and out of the outback in this car, and suffered for it. On the trip, there were sandstorms, lightning and thunder storms (think St. Kilda Sunday market pictures of Ayres Rock with lightning, etc.), flooding, drought, everything you can imagine. I guess this isn’t really an off-road vehicle. By the time I got it home it was a total mess."

If I wasn’t there to tell you that, the thought would never cross your mind, and if somebody else suggested it, you would think them ridiculous.

Remember my immunology prof. friend? I once asked her about the accuracy of dating things. She told me that SO MANY factors go into the dating- its not just a linear equation you can put a few dates in. At any time, one of those factors could increase or decrease the rate of decay.

Many evolutionary scientists assume decay is constant but decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times. This doesn’t mean that they have out of the lab, only that its possible that they may have. Creationists for example believe in a world-wide devastating flood.

E.g. of increased decay in the lab:

“This exciting demonstration that isotopic ‘clocks’ can be accelerated at least a billion-fold… raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic ‘clocks’. What else have we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp

Flaws in dating the earth as ancient
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp
Much-inflated carbon-14 dates from subfossil trees: a new mechanism
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/carbon14.asp
More and more wrong dates
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp

O for the brash wisdom of youth! With all due respect, might one suggest that Yng has much to learn about science, including its methods and theories. Hopefully this will be remedied when s/he completes that degree.

Having taught hundreds of admirably certain, but woefully ignorant, graduates from our secondary systems for more than a decade now, might I suggest that Yng expands his/her background reading beyond the dubious offerings available at "Answers in Genesis"? For a prospective undergraduate who wishes to understand something about evolutionary processes, I'd recommend anything by Stephen Jay Gould for starters.

Tip: Citing creationist web sites as reference material is unlikely to enhance knowledge (or indeed results) among undergraduate Biomed students. Use refereed journals and publications from authoritative publishers instead.

All the best,
Prof. Duck