[quote][b]MattBob_SquarePants wrote:[/b] I'm pretty sure that's not Intelligent Design's point, and I'm equally sure ID is not a doctrine at all. [/quote] ID was shot down in courts after it was proven that all it was is an attempt to get Christianity brought back into public schools, which is a violation of Separation of Church and state. Perhaps my wording was too haste in labeling it as a "doctrine". I can admit that i was wrong on that part. However my main point still stands and that ID/creationism is deceitful and dishonest. It seeks to find facts to support the conclusions, if it is science then it would come to a conclusion to support the facts. [quote] First, let's ask is it possible? I don't know it to be impossible, but as far as I know, we've never seen a random mutation that made the genetic code more complex, as would be necessary for evolution to occur. It seems to take code out, transpose it, etc.. If you can establish that random mutation can account for generating new genetic code, then evolutionary origin can be considered theoretically possible. [/quote] Did you actually read the entire section? Mutations aren't random and i shown why, they are subject to external pressures in a given environment, they don't occur at the initial onset, you're expecting a "pokemon" type event to take place, in which a cow will give birth to a half cow-half walrus animal. A common misconception on the part of theists who support the false agenda that is creationism. [quote]I say always. It's kinda pointless to try. Everybody has an opinion, and you can't "calculate" something like that without assuming a great deal, so how could it ever be possible to estimate accurately, regardless of whose estimates you believe?[/quote] And you know this because you've actually studied biology?