What exactly is ID?

But that is a subject for higher education for that very reason.ABE: welcome to EvC!Edited by Larni, : Welcome

Then someone obviously explained it who understands the concept: I don't follow your point.

Great, another uzi drive by.

The reason this point never seems to get home is because SO believes that creatures where created ready made to be fit for the environment. These animals don't need to be 'refined' by natural selection because they were already fit for purpose.If they are not fit for purpose the 'creator' is not all it cracked up to be, right?Therefore the idea of the origin is vitally important because if things evolve it means they are not fit for purpose and were not created.The 'genetic entropy' simply shows why 'fit for purpose' organisms have been shown to change over time; a neat side step of ToE.Don't bother trying to get SO to look at ToE as separate from abiogenesis because in his mind if ToE is true, creation and therefore ID are wrong.I don't see it that way and chances are nor do you, but I believe SO has a creation event to justify.

When has it done so?

Please provide one instance where this prediction has been, in fact shown to be true.ABE: just copy and paste the link into the text.Edited by Larni, : Hyperlink advice

But....my new book on evolution I got from my wife for Xmas.......That lying bitch!

So when I asked you to produce one example you have failed to do so?Or am I wrong? You are conflating the Gravitational Theory with gravity. When you drop a book and it fall it is 'gravity' that accelerates it; not the theory of gravity.Gravitational Theory makes predictions that be either born out or regected because they don't concur with reality.Nothing in nature has been shown to require a designer. I have: a snow flake. And I would agree; however your premise that is flawed you can be as logical as you like and still be wrong.

I wish this came as a surprise, I really do.Wouldn't it be great if IDers finally did some real science?

No one ever said you could, did they?Still no example from you, sir. So you do agree with Dembski's version of CSI?Round in circles, much?

And yet you go against common sense when recognise a natural organism in that exact same way.You are tell me not do exactly what you yourself are doing by infering design.What you seem to be saying is that if it is natural we cannot infer design. Is this what you really mean? If this was true that our ancestors would never have been able to track animals based on the information dstored in the ground in the form of tracks.If this was true our ancestors would never have learnt not to build a habitat next to the shore line when the arrangement of sediment transmits the information that the tide will come in.You are wrong for these reasons. Which would fit on a few DVDs. It's not that much information, you know?

No you have not. Please show me where you have, if I have missed it.

This is because the gene pool is smaller and allows for less genetic variation as a result of sexual selection.More individuals means more variation within the gene pool. This means the organism is less vulnerable to catastrophic change as when creatures with deleterious mutation dies (as it normally does) it has a proportionally large impact on the population.As an aside, larger organisms tend to have longer generations so they recover from population catastrophe.

Then all you are doing is calling a restricted gene pool (as a result of a small population) 'genetic entropy'.Like what happens to inbred Southern folks.This would then (logically) not apply to large population.Large population= no 'genetic entropy'.I'm also a bit confused by your use of the term 'genetic entropy': surely it means more genetic variation?Why are you using the opposite definition?Edited by Larni, : Clarity

But the only deleterious mutations are a problem to the organism and when these are lethal they are weeded out by natural selection.The increase in 'entropy' in the genes of the organism means more possible combinations/states and thus more variation, not less.Using the correct definition of entropy as number of states within a system means that genetic entropy is a good thing for variation: increase in entropy; means increase in states; means more variation; means reduced vulnerability to environmental change.Your 'genetic entropy' is a good thing for fitness of organisms so I'm not really sure what your point is.