Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

I'm surprised you even asked this question, seeing as you are the one who brought up the 'not a single LUCA' argument, and the 'if anything the type III secretion system is an off-shoot of the flagellum' repost. Answer: by comparing DNA sequences!The line of common descent is only really a 'hedge' when you look at the total protein content of cells. If you look at the 'core' functions of protein synthesis you can still draw a pretty strong 'tree'.How does this help ID?Although it is still under discussion whether Fla or type III secretion systems evolved first, what is clear is that the proteins involved in both current systems share a set of common protein ancestors!How does this help ID?P.S. Have you been missing my messages to you or are you ignoring my posts?

Sod the goalposts, ID man started playing tiddlywinks long ago.Me, I'd just be satisfied if he admitted that while there is no positive evidence that a God...eer...Designer (damn it, I just keep on doing that ) was responsible for the existance of mitochondria and chloroplasts, and yet there is positive evidence for them being the result of an endosymbiotic event in the far past. This doesn't seem too much to ask, but like so many others (I suspect) I am not holding my breath!

quote:

---

Do you think grass lives in fear of our mowers?
  —Jar

---

LOL!!(puts on grass voice)
Oh nooooooo, help us somebody please.....ARRGGGHHH!!!

OK, one final attempt to clarify my position, in the hope of getting some kind of response.Intelligent Design, as presented in debates and ID-friendly websites is not a scientific theory. It may want to be viewed as one, and uses lots of scientific sounding language to try and persuade people, but it does not use scientific method.Examples of this has been provided by you in this debate: where is the positive evidence for the design of mitochondria and the bacterial flagellum?I have already presented a model for how I define scientific methodology (Observation, hypothesis, testing, refining) and so far your response is that I don't know much about science , which is not an adequate response. If you think I'm wrong show me how I am wrong, if you can't then provide examples of how ID fits into that model.So far, your best response to crashfrog's real positive evidence is that

quote:

---

Because they were designed that way.

---

Let's go over that again. Life was designed to make it look like the mitochondria were once fully functioning organisms?!?Your comment about the mitochondria genome being too small to support the hypothesis is plainly nonsense - what would you expect to see in the genome of something that has grown to rely almost entirely on the genome of its' host to look like?. There's even a variation in the amount of mitochondrial genes (3-67 proteins) encoded in the genome which shows that there are mitochondria at different stages of reliance. How is this meant to be interpretted any other way? You're ignoring data, or at the very least playing down it's importance - hardly scientific!So, if it's not a scientific theory, it's a non-scientific theory.More than that, it's a non-scientific theory, which absolutely requires the existance of a godlike designer.Ring any bells? Creation 'science' ?If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck!