This is specifically for Philo and his wacky Intelligent Design ideas:

Claim:
Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.

Response:
1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
• deletion of parts
• addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system
• change of function
• addition of a second function to a part
• gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common, and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago. Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity.

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation.

2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

ref: www.talkorigins.org

Philo I challenge you to make youe claims credible by

1) Showing the missing link between evolution and a mumbo jumbo voodoo Intelligent Designer.

2) Proving magic exists as magic is the essential tool used by gods the supernatural. Supernatural meaning outside of nature meaning unnatural. Or 2b) Aliens from out of space with life creating technology.

Intelligent Design myth has no credibility without these missing links being provided first. If you wish to undermine the principle of evolution or any other process in nature with theories based on hocus pocus you have to first elevate Intelligent Design from Hoax status and prove alleged gods, magic or aliens and their technology.

Looking foward to your provision of Intelligent Designs missing links.

As a purely disinterested reader of this thread (I am no 'scientist' & am not religious either), for me Spendocrat & co have won this debate hands down. Freediver is engaging in sophistry. Even if he is semantically correct on a technicality (& I have no way of knowing), what is his bigger point? That evolution shouldn't be taught in science lessons? That intelligent design should? Neither? As a non-scientist, I go by the weight of overhwelming consensus (after all, what else can I go on?) & for me Richard Dawkins is most plausible when he said something like "it's true that evolution has not been proven 100%, but it is based on such *overwhelming* evidence that to equate creation with evolution as both being 'theories' is a miscarriage of justice."

Given Freediver talks of " the level of acceptance in the scientific community" in his opener, he might find these quotes from Wikipedia pertinent:

"Critics also state that evolution is not a fact, although from a scientific viewpoint evolution is considered both a theory and a fact"

"the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is completely uncontested within the scientific community"

"Although many religions, such as Catholicism, have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through theistic evolution, creationists argue against evolution on the basis that it contradicts their theistic origin beliefs."

That about wraps it up for me. It would be interesting to see the % of this 'community' who support evolution being taught in science lessons. I suspect it would be quite high.

Thanks everyone, very entertaining, including the sub-plot of Zacco v Leigh!

TNT as technologies such as genetic therapy to name one are dependent on the knowledge of evolution it is as it stands a process of nature and no longer a theory. However intelligent design theory (its not a theory but a myth)which was created by political thinktanks and not scientists has several missing links that ID pushers avoid explaining. The most notable of those missing links is proof of god , magic or aliens. ID pushers put the cart before the horse. ID theory is the same mentality which explains thunder as god playing ten pin bowling.

So introducing to genetic mutation, some form of deletion/ Addition, well, well, well; is this assumption that is antiquated to Metamorphoses or is it antiquated to Metaphase;
Or is Splendacrat explaining; "Metaplasia".
A lot of Meta’s, but I haven’t.
And spinning things so they sound good and from an Authority seems to be common these days.

Spin is not spin just because somebody does not understand it. Spin is to hide or distract attention to information. The audience of those who are involved with studying evolution , genetics, medicine , health , environmental management are peers of those people. There is no need for spin.

The audience for ID pushers is people who have not got the intellectual capacity to understand anything slightly complicated. Intelligent Design pushers rely on spin because Intelligent DEesign if not a joke is nothing more than a lie. The purpose of Intelligent Design is to recruit young vulnerable minds into superstition and convince the ignorant majority that science is wrong.

As Intelligent Design pushers are mocked and ridiculed it appears that ID pushers may be wrong in assuming most people are ignorant.
This is a society that owes its existence and survival to science. An example is in the Darkages when Christianity ruled people of 100 years were almost unheard of. In this world of science people of the 100 age have become relatively common.

There was no god or aliens "adding" super genes to these people.