intelligent design

If its hooey the please provide an example of an irreducibly complex system that is not the product of intelligence. Please, be my guest, blow ID out of the water.

The fact is many scientific hypothesis are accepted because no evidence can be found through testing or observation which disprove them not prove them.

 

Sly, it isn't my job to faslify your hypothesis, it's your job to design the test, or it isn't science.

 

The test is observation. Same as with Newton's laws of motion. Until you can observe something which disproves the hypothesis, it is a valid hypothesis.

 

But that is not what I - and sly or hasbeens either, I don't think - are talking about. There is nothing in the adaptation or evolution within species that I reject or have any problem with whatsoever.

I have a problem believing that lief just kept on getting more and more complex on its own, especially when many of the "improvements" were actually "regressions" for the species in the beginning. Add to that the lack of any evolutionary "mistakes" and it makes it even harder for me.

So, a city moth being gray and a country moth being brown is not what I am talking about.

 

And a drug resistant bacteria is still a bacteria.

 

On a lighter note, I respect R&S and Evolution versus ID has some bais to be in R&S . . . But perhaps a seperate forum for this debate would keep R&S cleaner

 

Don't bog this down vp. Evolution is a process, not a history. The fossil record is what it is. Barring new discoveries, it's all we have to go on, but it is substantial. All we can and should test now is the process occurring now, noting the mutation rate, variance, and retention of mutant traits in a species.

Into a new strain. The water buffalo thing would take a a little while. Go figure.

Even something as facially simplistic as a new strain of a bacteria is a huge mutation. This new strain can and often is newly resistant to external variables. This type of mutation helps the species survive in an environment that it could not survive (as well) in previously. Sequences of thes etypes of retained mutations are what allowed "fish to walk on land", as it were. Beneficial traits tend to be retained, while superfluous ones are often not replicated. This is the evolutionary process, and it is falsifiable, so it is science.

Now you're being coy. I didn't say we couldn't test it on the "fly -> water buffalo" scale you want, but that answer will take a long time. That does not make it a bogus test. It is still testable. Most of what you're arguing is that it's BS or not testable just because it takes so long. Sorry, that's the way things are. The world is over 4 billion years old. Have patience. What we have discovered and proven so far is amazing. You point out what we havent discovered yet as a flaw, where most scientists would be amazed by just how complete the puzzle is already.

ID, on the other hand, will be the same theory with the same lack of evidence or testing, 50,000 years from now.

 

No, the laws of motion are testable processes. ID isn't. "Observation" is a rationalization of two entirely different ideas.

 

OK - this is insane. Please remove the fossil record and then tell me the basis for evolution. Preesh.

Nothing in this is inconsistent with ID. Nothing.

No, I am not being coy. I am saying that until you can hold your own theory up to the same scientific scrutiny that you expect out of a competing one, then why on earth would you not expect the proponents of the competing theory to point that out?

Got any lotto numbers there, Carnack?

 

You admit the mutations are facially insignificant. ID's premise is that evolution and natural selection cannot account for anything more complex .