The I in ID

(1) nobody\nothing -- it was all due to natural processes. In which case ID defaults to natural laws and processes just as if we didn't assume a designer, OR(2) nobody\nothing -- it\they have always existed. In which case they are god(s), being supernatural. Belief in them is belief in god(s) and a form of faith(3) god. With this version the designers become "angels" or demi-gods doing gods bidding, and ID again ends up being faith rather than science.(4) other previous designers. Now move up to that level and repeat. If there is no other answer than an endless cycle of designers, then this too is a supernatural cycle akin to the Hindu faith of infinitely recurring universes, and all the designers are gods. (this is the "turtles all the way down" version)This means that either ID is a form of faith or it is pointless. QED. Whether you accept that or not is irrelevant.

Did you mean evolution or abiogenesis?

Simply chance. If it had been any other distance, life would have been adapted to that distance.

Creating the parameters of life - yes loggically takes ID to do so... i.e. right distance away from sun... Just a fact... my point all along - the parameters - some things do evolve, but only to a point...

a) comparisons - should be more logical not abstract - I am talking about the sun and it's proximity to the earth... So when you post back - do not talk about puddles or a bunch of leaves piled high by apes/gorillas

At what point do they stop evolving?

What are you saying? That we were supposed to come to that conclusion BEFORE there was a Sun or Earth?

Is Discover magizine a peer-reviewed pub?

You could even go to the ISCID ... and discuss it.

Miller writes:Michael Behe was so concerned about my discussion of this system that he posted a critique entitled "A True Acid Test" on the web site of the Discovery Institute, of which he is a Fellow.However, when Hall grew the bacteria under selective conditions designed to favor re-evolved galactosidase activity, Behe cried foul. As he should know, and as Futuyma wrote, "... mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." All that Hall had done was to set up conditions where the bacteria would survive (although just barely), and would prosper only if they evolved a system to replace the one he had deleted. Behe calls this "intervention," implying that the investigator had to intervene directly to produce the new system. He didn't of course. All that Hall did was to use that inducer to set up growth conditions that would ensure that the mutants, if they appeared, could survive to be recovered and analyzed. In short, he screened for mutants, he didn't produce them as Behe implies. Behe is perfectly free to describe the results of these experiments as "a series of micromutations," but he's missing the key question. That question, of course, is whether or not these "micromutations" assembled a system that would fit Behe's description of "irreducible complexity." As I will show, they do.Does Barry Hall's ebg system fit the definition of irreducible complexity? Absolutely. The three parts of the evolved system are:(1) A lactose-sensitive ebg repressor protein that controls expression of the galactosidase enzyme
(2) The ebg galactosidase enzyme
(3) The enzyme reaction that induces the lac permeaseUnless all three are in place, the system does not function, which is, of course, the key element of an irreducibly complex system. Behe quotes a single sentence from Hall's 1999 Paper (FEMS Microbiology Letters 178: 1-6) to the effect that "reacquisition of lactose utilization requires only the evolution of a new beta-galactosidase function." The quote is accurate, but Hall is describing only the enzymes directly involved in lactose metabolism (number 2 in my list above), not the regulatory parts that make the pathway function (numbers 1 and 3) ... the well-matched parts of the newly evolved system include both the new enzyme and both new regulatory stepsThe fact that each of these parts were scavenged from pre-existing genes doesn't compromise this example a bit. At the time Hall deleted the true galactosidase gene, not one of these three components existed in its final, functional form. Mutation and selection produced each of them, not from scratch as Behe would demand, but from pre-existing genes. As Melndez-Hevia and his co-authors paraphrased Jacob in their study of the Krebs cycle "evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists" [ J Mol Evol 43: 293-303 (1996)].As Barry Hall wrote in a 1999 review, "The genome of each organism contains not only information for functioning in its current environment, but the potential to evolve novel functions that will allow it to thrive in alternative environments" (Hall, BG, FEMS Microbiology Letters 178: 1-6 [1999]). For Michael Behe's Biochemical Argument from Design, the existence of experimental evidence that organisms can evolve novel functions is very bad news. Nonetheless, whether Behe wishes it or not, that evidence is there, and the news is beginning to come out.

ID man writes: That is what Behe says- organisms have the information already within them to evolve.