Ian, you need to understand that there are 2 branches of science.  Lab sciences, like physics and chemistry can replicate results under controlled environments by controlling all of the variables.  To some extent, so can biology.  Historical sciences, like palontology, evolutionary biology, and History itself, can't recreate the conditions under which observed events occured (did Napoleon have fleas in his britches at Waterloo, and did they distract him from the battle?).  There is a brilliant book (and short 150 pages) by John Lewis Gaddis called The Landscape of History Oxford U. Press, 2001, that discusses these issues.

That being said, we can observe evolution at work all around us and we have heard of massive expenditures to defend against at least 1 possibility.  Should the avine flue mutate, that is to say evolve into a virus that can pass from person to person as well as from bird to person, we are looking at a world wide pandemic.  We also hear of more benign viruses and bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics.  How does ID or creationism explain these phenomenon?  I guess the "intelligent designer" programed them to become more aggressive?  We can also turn to the human uses of evolution, ie selective breeding.  True, it hasn't produced a new spicies.  Dogs, from Chihuhua to Mastifs and St Bernards are all dogs, and can all interbreed to produce viable offspring able to reproduce.  But get rid of all the breeds between the Chihuhu and the St Bernard or Mastif, and you would have 3 new spicies, unless you can figure out how either of those 2 emense breeds could, or that tiny one could get it on with the other(s).  Dogs in general constitute a continuous gene pool from the smallest to the biggest, and so are 1 spicies of potentially interbreeding animals, but knock out all the variations between the biggest and the smallest and you have spiciation or evolution. 

You may chose to believe in a divine creator, or intelligent designer or whatever, but you can't assert scientific evidance for the existance simply by refering to complexity.  I do not object to your faith in the existance of such a being, but faith is not science, biology, geology, paleontology, are sciences, not faith. All ove them advance explanations for observalble (although not repeatable) phenomonon.  Geologists can easilly explain the causes of last year's tsunami, based on their obserevations over many years, but would we want to repeat it?

To all concerned, I do not question the validity of the data concerned, but I do question it's interpretation.  One can look at the fossils of "simple" creatures and compare them to "more complex" creatures in higher strata and come to one of two conclusions:  One can say, "Wow!  Look at the growing complexity of creatures!  It must be right out of Genesis Chapter 1!"  Or one can say, "Wow!  Look at the growing complexity of creatures!  It looks like they changed from one form into another!" Which is what evolution is saying.

I know about the Historical Sciences, and how they can explain how certain things MIGHT have happened, but again, that is all conjecture.  Yes, you can see that certain critters were around at certain times, but does their presence predicate the reason why something happened?  Not necessarily.  Such things are in the mind of the discoverer.  The notion that a scientist seeks facts for their own sake is mostly hogwash, especially in the higher levels of academia, where money flows like water from the sponsors, but only so long as the academics support the beliefs of the sponsors.

Re: mutation, such a thing happens only when a severe outside force changes the genetics of the creature.  These forces include hard radiation AND laboratory-based genetic manipulation.  To be more succinct, if the avian flu virus mutates, it is because it was mutated in a lab, and not in nature.  If you want to read about the first recorded genetic mutation experiments, read Genesis Chapter 6 in conjunction with the Book of Enoch.

Peace.

To all concerned, I do not question the validity of the data concerned, but I do question it's interpretation.  One can look at the fossils of "simple" creatures and compare them to "more complex" creatures in higher strata and come to one of two conclusions:  One can say, "Wow!  Look at the growing complexity of creatures!  It must be right out of Genesis Chapter 1!"  Or one can say, "Wow!  Look at the growing complexity of creatures!  It looks like they changed from one form into another!" Which is what evolution is saying.

I know about the Historical Sciences, and how they can explain how certain things MIGHT have happened, but again, that is all conjecture.  Yes, you can see that certain critters were around at certain times, but does their presence predicate the reason why something happened?  Not necessarily.  Such things are in the mind of the discoverer.  The notion that a scientist seeks facts for their own sake is mostly hogwash, especially in the higher levels of academia, where money flows like water from the sponsors, but only so long as the academics support the beliefs of the sponsors.

Re: mutation, such a thing happens only when a severe outside force changes the genetics of the creature.  These forces include hard radiation AND laboratory-based genetic manipulation.  To be more succinct, if the avian flu virus mutates, it is because it was mutated in a lab, and not in nature.  If you want to read about the first recorded genetic mutation experiments, read Genesis Chapter 6 in conjunction with the Book of Enoch.

Peace.


Clearly, there are some scientists that hold up their butts for the biggest funder.  Neither my daughther (a biologist) nor her husband (a Geologist) do so, and most scientists don't, so unless you can provide any credible proof the an eitire branch of the acdaemic community is on the take, I would have to say that you are just whistling in the wind. 

Re mutations, your conspiracy theory just doesn't cut the mustard.  The growing resistance of bacteria to antibacteriol stuff demonstrates that, and what about the St Bernards?

Those virii that are immune to antibiotics have been engineered to be immune to them; my money's on laboratory-based genetic tinkering.  There are labs all around the world that are developing the latest strains of virii that will be unleashed upon humanity.  Plug "Rockefeller depopulation" into your favorite search engine and see what comes up.  Or "Georgia Guidstones".

I'm happy that neither your daughter nor her husband are the type to take bribes to "fix the data", but what of their superiors?  The superiors above them?  The old saying, Money makes the world go 'round, is more true than one may imagine.  And it does not just affect the scientific world, but the religious world as well, with people like Pat Robertson being Goering for the religious masses.

As for St. Bernards (or Saint Barnyards, as my wife and I like to call them  :D ), I believe that God made their ancestors much that way, and man mated them with other dogs to get what he wanted for a particular purpose (in their case, a dog that could help rescue and bring to safety someone lost in the cold mountains).