The theory of evolution did indeed need for genetic tests to show that life could be grouped by genetic cladistics. And this is what the tests show. Chalk one up to Darwin. You, however, boast that Intelligent deign is superior because it makes no reference to this evidence.
The genetic tests are more tautology than "evidence" supporting evolution. In other words, these animals have similar morphology, and oh look, they also have similar genetics. Wow! What a claim, Darwin was right (oh, wait, did Darwin claim anything about genetics? Not that I remember).
You say that Darwin required vast periods of time. Very true. And it has been proved that those vast periods of time have elapsed. Another successful prediction from my main man Charlie.
First, and remember this through-out this argument, ID doesn't care, you can have billions of years, evolution will never be able to create anything close to the complexity we observe happening today. However, that said, no one, not one has ever "Tested" time. It can't be done. It hasn't been proven that any amount of time has past. Never, not even close.
Again, you can have all the time you need. Doesn't help Darwin one bit.
But, consider.
All the supposed tests that are referenced, are tests of something else entirely (vibration, leakage, etc.), not Time.
For example, what exactly is Time that you can claim to have tested it? What is it's substance? Where do we see it, what is it's nature? It's simply ridiculous to make such claims.
The most common claim is that the Geologic column proves vast amount of time has past. Yet, Geologists use "Index fossils" to date the rocks, and Paleontologists use the Geologic column to date the fossils. A classic case of circular reasoning. Which came first the fossil or the column?
As you probably are familiar with the concept of Calibration. If your instruments aren't calibrated correctly, your measurements will be off, and will lead to false data. Calibration is always done by comparing a known to be accurate tool, to one that needs to be calibrated. On the topic of time, it's fair to ask, how is it even conceivable to calibrate a million year or even a billion year old measuring device?
You know your clock is off? nope.
Well it is. How do you know?
I looked at mine....
You say that Darwin required the fossil record to back him up. And it did. Score another point for Darwin. When he wrote, no-one had seen an intermediate form in the fossil record. Yet, obedient to the theory, there turned out to be thousands of them.
Depending on the definition of transitional, and the imagination of the believers. Is a fossil transitional or not is up for debate, and I'm sure that's not the topic of this thread...
Sherlock Holmes: This man has been shot!
Inspector Lestrade: No, he's been struck down by God.
Sherlock Holmes: I think you'll find he's been shot. In fact, let me take this pair of long-bladed tweezers, and, there, you see, there's the bullet!
Inspector Lestrade: Well then, my theory is better than yours, 'cos your theory needs there to be a bullet.
Sherlock Holmes: No, my theory is superior to yours, because my theory needed there to be a bullet and there was one.
Here's how I would characterize the debate:
Sherlock Holmes: This man has been shot!
Inspector Lestrade: No, he's been struck down by natural forces.
Sherlock Holmes: I think you'll find he's been shot. In fact, let me take this pair of long-bladed tweezers, and, there, you see, there's the bullet!
Inspector Lestrade: Well then, at least my theory is science, yours is not, because you invoke non-natural causes.
Sherlock Holmes: No, my theory is superior to yours, because my theory followed the evidence where it led.
(1) A fossil is not evidence that an animal died "suddenly". What on earth gave you that idea?
(2) The fossil record does not merely tell us that "an animal died". It tells us the form of that animal, or at least its hard parts. This allows us to test the fossil record against the predictions of the theory of evolution.
(3) I have no idea what point you are trying to make about "living fossils", but their existence is certainly not evidence against the theory of evolution, since that theory does not predict that such organisms will not exist.
1) If an animal dies and lays on the ground, other organisms or animals eat the body. Or it decomposes and all that is left are bones if you're lucky. An animal that is buried quickly is fossilized intact, as is protected from predators and the elements. Not that it matters.
2) It does tell us about the hard parts of the animal. Limited amounts of information is gleaned. Hence the vast amounts of imagination required to make up stories and pictures for evolutionary tales, based on very little actual factual data. Testing of a biological theory using fossils? Limited at best.
3) Remember the coelacanth, thought to be extinct, not for thousands of years, but for millions of years (about 65 milllion, to be exact), that was discovered in 1938 off the Comoro Islands in the Indian Ocean, and also near South Africa. And of course this isn't evidence against evolution because of it being a philosophy, and being able to change like a chameleon. Fact of the matter is that scientists had used the Coelacanth fossil evidence of a transitional form, before this discovery. Scientists thought that it walked along the bottom, and also theorized it started to walk on land. Funny thing when they actually observed the living fish, they had the fossil upside down, what they thought were legs, were actually on top of the fish. But, no of course this isn't evidence against evolution power to explain or theorize at all. No. Evolution is still as strong as ever, claiming to explain all sorts of mysteries of fossils. (Ignore that man behind the curtain!)
However, Intelligent Design is not completely unfalsifiable. Although it is void of predictions in geology or natural history, it is incompatible with events that we know actually happened.
Wait, which events is it incompatible with? Do tell.
™ Version 4.2