a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

The process of thought that Gene also wants to use as evidence is the "it's a code similar to those constructed by intelligence" argument. The only problem with this argument is:1. The codes used for the inference are created by natural creatures (Humans) by natural methods. No supernatural code has ever been found.2. Therefore, DNA code can only be inferred as being created by natural forces, not supernatural. It asks the question of who designed the first designer without anything to produce the first designer.As many IDists ask: "Provide evidence of a code arising from natural causes," they still haven't supplied the proof of a supernatural code arising in the natural world.

Maybe you didn't read very closely - he did that here:

quote:

---

falsification: Here are a couple, no protein or gene for the flagellum in unrelated species, even closely related species, bear any homology at all. The genes for the flagellum are not passed on from one generation to the next i.e. not heritable.

---

The last in particular would be a very potent falsification of the theory, as it would mean the flagellum wouldn't have been able to evolve at all.

Pot calls kettle black. You want to ever get around to addressing my response to your response to my original post?If you want to go on about falsifiability, why don't you open up a new thread?If you want to address the implications of Taxiflora on (at the very least) the utility of a dual mode ID/evo research methodology, then be my guest to keep posting here.There is a reason I created my own thread on this topic. And I think it is the very reason you have refused to address anything I've said, despite posting here.Let's say for sake of argument that you can create a falsifiable theory. BFD. It also must be useful. ID has thus far proven unnecessary to understand earlier life, and taxiflora shows its uselessness (or at least the unquestionable utility of sticking with evo) to understand life as it continues to change.------------------
holmes

If you are going to advocate "intelligent" design then how about actually "intelligently" reading what I freaking write?Once again for Warren,Falsification of flagellum evolving by adopting parts with different functions: Each protein in the flagellum of each species bears no homology to any other protein. They are all novel genes with no homologues in other species, even closely related species. This falsifies an evolutionary development of the function (and heredity for that matter). The closest phenomenon observed to something like this is horizontal transfer. However, the evolution of the genes is clear from the organism from which the transfer occurred and is therefore not a falsification.Expected response from Warren..."But you did not prove that the flagellum evolved"..Mammuthus then supplies the same evidence..response from Warren" But you did not even address falsifying an evolutionary hypothesis for the flagellum" and so on and so on in circles

quote:

---

Warren: I have already provided you with a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis and you refuse to recognize it.

---

You have provided a hypothesis about an enyzmes function that in no way has any bearing on testing ID! It is like doing random PCR and saying it is evidence for ID because you got a nice observable band even though it has nothing to do with gathering information on ID.

quote:

---

All that's necesssary to form a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis is to have a suspicion that something in nature may have been designed and then follow up this suspicion with an investigation.

---

That is a crock. You have a suspicion of ID involvment and have absolutely no way to distinguish your suspicion from refutation of your suspicion. Thus you do not have a falsifiable hypothesis merely by having a suspicion. Cytochrome b, did it evolve or was it designed? Evolution: I can compare cytb in any organism that has mitochondria that I want. I can find related sequences in organsisms that do not have mitochondria. I can gather evidence about its rate of change, its transmission, its population genetics etc. I can falsify that it evolved by showing that it is not heritable. ID...cytb was created by intelligence...supporting info? That it is there? Falsification...how?

quote:

---

If in the course of this investigation one uses teleological reasoning to make a prediction/hypothesis concerning some phenomena and this prediction/hypothesis could be proven false by new data then what you have here is a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis.

---

And what new data exaclty would be required since the old data already falsifies ID yet you don't accept it? What is the data then that falsifies ID?

quote:

---

This is the course of action Mike Gene followed that led to his making a prediction about degradosomal enolase function which could turn out to be false.

---

Then it is rather a pity that his prediction about the degradation pathway has nothing to do with a teleological hypothesis....what is teleological about the catalysis of a chemical reaction?

quote:

---

This example demonstrates a teleological approach CAN be used to guide lab research and, along the way, generate insight into the living world. I therefore agree with Mike Gene when he says:

---

this shows that ID adherents truly lack any grounding in scientific reasoning...you go into the "living world" with a suspicion that everything around you has been designed....end of story, no progress, no way to move further...or ID movement according to you is that enzyme X catalyzes reaction Y...behold ID! Because if enzyme X had catalyzed reaction Z then it clearly could not have been ID...

quote:

---

Thus, I would even go as far as to maintain the notion that ID is a "science stopper" or nothing more than a "god-of-the gaps" approach has been effectively refuted.

---

Nice quote...I would maintain that Mr. Gene should try a science-starter kit to learn how it actually works and how one formulates a hypothesis.