You obviously have little clue about theory of natural selection and everything that goes with it. Perhaps you would have a better argument if you actually understood how evolution works.
I disagree. Please to any error in my statements?
The Theory of Natural Selection basically states that if a mutation helps you in survival, you are more likely to mate and the helpful mutation will propagate, which will eventually lead to great changes to the specie over time.
*I agree. The degree of change is limited to the variation in the species. Selection only picks out what is already there. Sometimes the change can be great, e.g. Great Dane vs chiwawa, but they are still both dogs.
There is nothing in this theory that says ALL mutations are helpful. I don't know where you got that idea from, but perhaps not drinking from the ID kool-aid will help you in that endeavor.
You are correct, But evolution requires a change agent and Natural Selection does not cut the mustard. In all it's flavors, e.g. specification with a separated population, (like flys in hawaii) are still just Natural Selection which only picks from pre existing information. Selection by definition filters information so the geane pool of the creature is lesser more specified. (thus less able to adapt later on)
The only change agent in town now for "goo to you" is mutations.
There is no such a thing as bait and switch in science.
I agree, but if your terms are not well defined, then the layman will get things mixed up. Hence I try to explain the difference between Natural Selection (Survival of the fittest & proven), to Evolution (as in "goo to you", *not proven (*not counting devolution which ID and Creations agree with.))
Tell me, if someone came up to you in the street and ask what was evolution, would you say the theory of creatures changing? or the theory that everything came from a single cell? Because if you said evolution is the theory of creatures changing, that would make me an evolutionist. :-O
Either your theory is supported by evidence or it isn't. ID has no evidence nor a way to test it. It is not science. Evolution is a fact, Theory of Natural Selection is a well proven theory.
I would have to disagree with you here. With ID, they show examples of complex structures requiring all components to be working for it to exist and without there being any in-between forms for them to work therefore evidence of a designer. With evolution they require everything to happen by chance but Natural selection will remove the unfit half baked structures long before they would be established. Please show me evidence in a lab for evolution that is repeatable. The best example I know about is when for 30 years over 30,000 generations of bacteria were bread and through a 3 point mutation, they gain the ability to process citrus acid as a food source. The problem here is that that doesnt prove evolution as it actually broke a geane were they could already process citrus acid as food in an oxygen free environment. So NS favorited the defect but the gene is now stuck "on" making it less fit compared to the wild cussons.
You might disagree with the evidence that ID has but it still there. Saying it isn't science, well how about evolution? it dogmatically chooses a materialist reason over logical reasons. Tell me, is you see a watch in the beach, would you say it's just wind and rain that caused the silicon and glass to take shape or would you say some kid dropped it there? saying something is design is a logical conclusion, rejecting a conclusion before you hear the evidence on the basis of a belief (materialism) would make you as bad the creationists :-)
