Actually, most of our thoughts relate reasonably well to reality…

That can’t even survive Descartes’ evil demon, which in turn has nothing on a mind constructed by random chance.

and who cares WHO is designer, if we are talking about design detection, not designer detection… That would be field of forenzics, which comes into play, when it is clear, that the event is not accident, but by-design…

My point was that we don’t know what unknown designers would or wouldn’t design.

Here is question?

If I can’t find or proove identity of creator of my Car, does that prooves, that Car is not designed and result of chance and selection

But you know your car was designed by members of your own species, and you understand what it’s for, so of course you know it to be designed.

What is a slug for? What is a blade of grass for? What are bacteria and cacti for?

And final question, can YOU detect design? How? What if identity of designer is beyond your reach?

I can detect design with reasonable accuracy if it’s by known creatures from within our biosphere.

I have never detected design from creatures who are not one of earth’s life forms, so I cannot assess my ability to do this. Have you?

If Seti detects a patterned message from an intelligent alien, then you can be absolutely sure that that alien will be dependent on the pre-existence of “FSCI”, just like all known intelligent designers.

This is iconofid’s law!

and who cares WHO is designer, if we are talking about design detection, not designer detection… That would be field of forenzics, which comes into play, when it is clear, that the event is not accident, but by-design…

So do not mix different fields of science. ID does design detection, and formal methods of such are being investigated as we speak, now… mathematical models etc. Coz, nobody till today haven’t thought about design detection automation. Modern ID comes with this idea, and Seti@Home is one example of real implementation of such design detector… which as I sayed is very baby of what is really expceted and needed.

And question of “Who designed it” and “Is the stuff designed” are very very different questions. The second one is formalisable and scientifically proovable, as ID claims. The first one question is… well… field of theology, forensics and some kind of cosmic antroplogy.

Here is question?

If I can’t find or proove identity of creator of my Car, does that prooves, that Car is not designed and result of chance and selection?

Another question for you, would you like to have DDS when we will send probes into Space? Would such detector be good to have on board?

And final question, can YOU detect design? How? What if identity of designer is beyond your reach?

Wait wait… ID has how much… 10-20 years in hostile environment, and you allready want design-detection device on your table…

I.D. is ancient, under various names, and you could date the modern version from William Paley, 207 years ago, when, far from being in a hostile environment, it was the prevailing view.

207 years, and we still don’t know who the designers are, making it impossible to tell what they design.

They might like bare rocks, not messy life, so the extinction events of the past might be your best evidence for their presence and their attempts at “design”.

This is exactly the uncertainty I’m thinking of:

Was it mutation, recombinance, or a combination of the two? If we don’t know that, can we be certain that it was either? It’s not particularly scientific to point to a host of causes, none of which has been observed to effect macroevolutionary changes, and say that some of them did it. We’re not sure which ones, or how, but it’s in there somewhere. That’s not scientific.

We can be pretty sure that mutation and recombination played a major role, because we can observe them changing the frequency of alleles in organisms that sexually reproduce. It’s constant.

And science, remember, especially historical science, is meant to be tentative in principle, so it certainly is scientific.

I know that creationists always make this big deal about “macroevolution”, because, by definition, it cannot be directly observed (or if it could be, it would just look like microevolution, so arguably it can be observed).

But if I ask you to quantify how many mutations can become fixed across a population group, what would you say? What’s the limit?

One thing about macroevolution, we have obvious recent ancestors for many animals in the fossil record, and in many cases it’s hard to distinguish whether we would consider the change between the two “macro” or “micro”.

If someone expressed incredulity at naturalistic evolution by mutation and selection producing birds, I’d find it odd, as flight has occured a number of times, and we have examples of convergent intermediates in the gliding animals, including at least one insect and one reptile that can glide without wings, or half-wings.

Flying, like swimming and walking, seems inevitable in this planet’s environment.

However, you must agree with my main point; that the details of natural history are more a practical problem (more fossils needed, more and better understanding of molecular data, etc.) than a theoretical one.

Natural history is a constant ongoing 4 dimensional jigsaw puzzle that our descendants will be working on for centuries. But I think that the debate over early bird evolution may be largely resolved over the next decade or two, because fossils of all creatures are coming up at an ever increasing rate.

Wait wait… ID has how much… 10-20 years in hostile environment, and you allready want design-detection device on your table. Whats wrong with one in your head? Have you better design-detection system for now?

It is evolution which suppose to have 150 years of existence, and still haven’t producet a single usable and re-usable technology, nor even any mathematical model of evolution.

ID has some mathematical formulas, refer to Dembsky…

Again – special pledging – if ID can’t do or explain something in ten years where Evolutn can’t explain it in 150 years, then screw ID Why?

Evolution had it’s time and chance… Now let other alternatives do their work, and ask the question in 150 years… I am sure you will get your DDS (Design Detection System)… Which by the way is very usefull technology if we plan send some SETI@Home like devices to seek for life and Intelligence in space.

And yes… BTW – SETI@Home is ID at work… very specific, but actuall particular Design Detection System build as parallel computer… Very brief, cheap dirti and nuclear device, but wait… ID had only ten years to be.

Well Evolution seems to be famous with 100% incorrect predictions… and flagman of them is Junk DNA

Common stop wasting time describing facts, lets yoke the facts into mathematics, and computers and let the evolution produce something usefull for us!

What about ID… well it is working allready, ID is everywhere, actually honestly I am using device explainable by ID to post this message, this device can’t be explained by evolution, but by ID – eazely!

So…