oliver<<..TYPO ABOVE: Trucks, cars and planes have SIMILAR parts but only planes fly.>>...oh come on teacher...what possable use a universal joint evolving...or a tail...lets get away from generalities...a plane is a different genus...than a car

please remember were specificly taking about a particular bug...please name its genus...or hypotheses on which beasts micro evolved..or joined to-gether..to make the complete/functioning.. bacterial flagellum..that propels E.,coli bacteria

<<The same solution is often found to work in different species towards different aggregated effects>>..no doudt all fish have gills...all birds have wings...they may have been evolved from one..[from the mind of one god].. or procreated from many...

UNFORTUINATLY..the one..claimed by science is fraud...now what?

how about science..telling us..as quickly..of fraud..

as they inform us of dicvovery..when their proof becomes revealed as fraud...but they dont...

all..their claimmed/..common ancestoral origenatiors..are fraud...and even then..the frauds are less than 7...not one has survived proper scientific confirmation...they are all fraud...see last debate at first link
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

but no one ever talks about that extensive series of proven fraud's...the fools..believing by faith..in an ever ecvolving THEORY..trust that..they hope true...missing the bigger amasing proofs..god give us daily...

its like believing santa gave you presents..when it was your parents did...in reality...GIVE BACK TO GOD THAT OF GOD...validate the theory with science/fact..not simulie

i still await sciences faulsifyables and valid scientific proofs...name names give specific links...

i have had to read too much generalised claptrap..that passes for science only to mindless children...let hear some grown up facts..true science facts..

but of course there arnt any...so we get generalisations and simu-lie

"Neither evolution, nor any science, can access the subject of ultimate origins or ethical meanings." "Evolution is not the study of life's ultimate origin in the universe or of life's intrinsic significance among nature's objects; these questions are philosophical (or theological) and do not fall within the purview of science." "This point is important because zealous fundamentalists, masquerading as 'scientific creationists,' claim that creation must be equated with evolution, and be given equal time in schools, because both are equally 'religious' in dealing with ultimate unknowns. In fact evolution does not treat such subjects at all, and thus remains fully scientific."
"The 'fact' of evolution [my emphasis] is as well documented as anything we know in science--as secure as our conviction that Earth revolves around the sun. ... Darwin's natural selection has been affirmed, in studies both copious and elegant ... as [Darwin says] 'that perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration'"
Stephen J Gould
PTO

"... The deepest, in the gut, answer [to the question of our origins] lies in the human psyche [so how about Kant, Hegel, Freud, Lacan?]. ... We are fascinated by physical ties of ancestry; we feel that we will understand ourselves better, know who we are in some fundamental sense, when we trace the sources of our descent. We haunt graveyards and parish records; we pore over family bibles and search out elderly relatives, all to fill in the blanks on our family tree. Evolution is this same phenomenon on a much more inclusive scale--roots writ large. Evolution is the family tree of our races, species and lineages--not just of our little, local surname. Evolution answers, insofar as science can address such questions at all, the troubling and fascinating issues of "Who we are?" Now quoting Freud, "all great scientific revolutions have but one feature in common: the casting of human arrogance off one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our ruling centrality in the universe". ... What can be more humbling, and therefore more liberating, than a transition from viewing ourselves as 'just a little lower than the angels,' the created rulers of nature, made in God's image to shape and subdue the Earth. ...[rather] Shake complacent certainty, and kindle the fires or intellect."
Stephen J Gould.

SSqueer..nice w0rds
not one science fact
funny [that]

words are sacred
their spell...is confounded in their spelling

so spell it out for yourself..[SSelves]
it makes no mind ....for thy creator

science is the food...for the mindless/mindfull faithfull
religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel/..

both have their faithfull/..

both have their high priests/..

both have their sacred texts/...that somehow..their faithfdull never fully read/...but selectivly quote from...none the less

how can jesus have died...so thee...can sin?
typical...go drink his blood and realise your the vampire/go eat his flesh and see your the canna-bill

thou art only that god gave you to be

im going walkabout
i have had enough of just talking to me

OUG,
The rationalists “have” been spelling it out for themselves, only to have their thoughts twisted and misrepresented. Science is not contra religion, it is human reason for itself. Conversely, religion increasingly draws its kudos from being contra science, which is mostly a cynical effort to increase the flock, earthly power and capital. Religion parasitises science by pretending to compete with it rationally, viz intelligent design. If religionists are so certain of their sacred Word and texts, why deviate from creationism? Intelligent designers are sophists.
No, no facts; I’ve said all along that science doesn’t deal in facts, but theories, yet you go on calling for them—just as you go on asserting your own “facts” without a shred of evidence, just mystical turn of phrase—a decoction of ignorance, optimism and egotism.

Theories like evolution, however, are tantamount to fact. Rather than being overthrown, the theory will likely continue to develop in sophistication and “elegance”, and eventually be accepted by the most obdurate as the most compelling explanation of phenomena. Religionists should stick with their fundamentals, offer a stark alternative; they will then always have a following.

“science is the food...for the mindless/mindfull faithfull
religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel/..”.
Actually, “religion” is the food—and the “first” refuge of the scoundrel!

There are no priests, or faithful, or sacred texts for science, all are at the mercy of new evidence and peer review.
Historically, religion’s position is flexibly inflexible—hypocritical, in a word.

“how can jesus have died...so thee...can sin?
typical...go drink his blood and realise your the vampire/go eat his flesh and see your the canna-bill

thou art only that god gave you to be”.

This may even be so, but as Gould says, such singularities are not the province of science. And why should such a God resent the humble efforts of humans to make sense of their apparent universe?
The Bible is rightly revered for (some of) the wisdom it contains, amongst which is the exhortation, beware of false prophets.

You will of course perfunctorily distort all this for your own ends.
SSSSqueers

OUG,

Here we are discussing Intelligent Design, not just “one bug”, as you suggest. It is hard to give “flagellum” a genus, as you ask. It is not the total organism. If I recall, it is a pump/propeller-like mechanism, which scientists understand in part:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

As I said, it is work-in-progress. Science isn’t going to solve everything. Science is subject to economics like politicians, do we built a bridge or a road, becomes to we study “this” or “that”. Where efforts are great, often to is the result: e.g., Kennedy’s and successors backing of NASA into the 1960s.

Yes, as you say, a car is a different genus to a plane. That was one point, I was making. These have similar component “answers”, wheels, seats, motors and design (airflow) & load considerations, yet these vehicles are different. Engineers have been able to create heterogeneous outcomes on homogenous principles.

On the surface something might appear to be infinitely complex. However, on close examination, we find, say, fifteen just “highly” (not infinitely) complex factors. We have ten highly complex proprietary mechanisms, “bootstrapped” by five highly complex organising mechanisms.

Regarding “Cecidomyian gall midges”. I am fully aware the reason is to pass on genes. My point was a loving god and good designer would not have the offspring eat their mother alive from the inside out. Unless you are saying that God can only work within the constraints of the solution.

- Is having an offspring eat it's own mother an example of, "compassion within intelligent design"?

What Sqeers mentions about cannibalism is hstorically evident too. The Romans saw the Sacrament of the Eurarchist to enactment be cannibalism. They thought the idea, yuk. Given all the blood and bread that that has been consummed by billions over two thousand, one must suspect that Christians are the orginal recyclers. :-)

- Is having Jesus commit suicide intelligent design? Death by Roman cop. Again, did God have to act within constraints imposed otherwise?