The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

They will when I win a Nobel Prize.

Trying to explain the miracle of creation using science certainly is stupid. The result of that Fool's Errand will be a scientific theory that is hopelessly inadequate ... welcome to ToE and the mad, mad world of Darwinism.

You have a better chance at the Ig Nobel Prize.

I do know where to start. Here are 5 good starting points.1. The nested hierarchy
​
2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
​
3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.
​
4. Transitional hominid fossils.
​
5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates.
​
Please demonstrate how your theory explains the patterns seen in these 5 examples.

Below are the invented explanations in biology, that have no part in reality:​
1. The nested hierarchy
2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.
4. Transitional hominid fossils.
5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates...for they assumed that Evolution is correct.Evolution is wrong for Evolution cannot explain if the change is really natural or not...

... for we know evolution is correct. We know this as sure as humans can know anything since we hold the preponderance of the evidence.In fact, in this case, we hold ALL the evidence since you are unable to show any for your side.Evolution is real for it is only evolution that has shown it can produce the long chains of evidence we see leading to the great diversity of life on this planet. There is no evidence of anything in second place.And you cannot show otherwise.

Below are the invented explanations in forensic science, that have no part in reality:
​
1. The pattern of blood stains on the wall
2. The knife found in the body
3. The defence wounds on the victim's arms and hands
4. The broken window showing the attacker's entry point
5. The bloody footprints leaving the scene
​
..for they assumed that the conclusion that the victim is daed and has been murdered is correct.
​
Forensic science is wrong for it cannot explain if the change is really natural or not...What you've listed are a number of evidences that demonstrate the truth of evolution, you muppet. You don't even know that you're doing it.

Those aren't explanations. Those are observations. Those are facts. If ID can't explain why those facts exist then it is a failed scientific theory in biology. The theory of evolution absolutely can explain why the changes are due to natural mechanisms. That's exactly what I do in this thread: Mutations Confirm Common Descent

ID is wrong for ID cannot explain if the change is really supernatural or not...If you want to replace science with the supernatural, then you must first demonstrate that the supernatural even exists. That means that you must determine methodologies for detecting and observing the supernatural, as well as ways to test whether something happens through natural or supernatural processes.Then through your methodology for detecting and observing the supernatural you must explain how the supernatural works.But you cannot do any of that, can you? You cannot even begin to think about devising a plan for doing the simplest of those things (ie, detecting the supernatural).You clearly cannot even determine whether the supernatural exists let alone observe how it works. On the other hand, we know conclusively and without the shadow of a doubt that the natural universe exists. And because we can readily observe the natural universe we also know how the natural universe works.We also know that evolution exists and how it works because we can observe it.We cannot say the same for ghosties and ghoulies and things that go bump in the night.Therefore, when we observe something happening in the natural universe then the safest and surest bet would be that it happens through natural processes.
Assuming that it must have happened through the supernatural is the stupidest approach to take, especially since you will end up having learned nothing about that phenomenon.

You observed them since you had already concluded that the change is non intelligence...Evolution had concluded first! No test, no confirmation!Now, let me clarify:Once again, I would like to reiterate that Evolution = change of freq alleles... The topic of Evolution is change. The scope of "change" must be studied, whether the change is limited/narrow or broad/wide. Because, every explanation in science must be correct and the falsification too must be correct AND all explanations must be real.Now, if Evolution will limit its explanation from of life from the first living thing on this planet to the vast array of species we see today, then, Evolution must decide or conclude if the origin of life, that will affect the change of life in living organisms, are intelligently designed or not, since change will always be affected by which factor will be chosen by Evolution.Darwin and supporters of Evolution had chosen and concluded, that the change of freq alleles never uses intelligence, and the major mechanism is natural selection, and not intelligence nor intelligence selection. Thus, Evolution must really sure to it that these topics are well explained and well tested. But Evolution is dead on these topics, but had quickly concluded natural selection. That is stupidity.In addition, Evolution must sure to it that the origin of both universe and life have no effect with the change of frequency alleles that will result in the origin of new species. BUT Evolution, as claimed and concluded by its supporters, started its explanation when life had begun! Evolution had limited its scope! The same analogy of FLAT EARTH by using a limited area of flat surface of earth! That is wrong and stupidity!Thus, the best analogy of EVOLUTION is FLAT EARTH, as I had shown above.Thus, if you are supporters of Evolution, you either deluded, or fooled by supporters of Evolution or deliberately deny reality, and uphold Evolution as a religion.Once again, real scientist must ask, what change the Evolution is talking about?What could affect the change of freq alleles in living organisms?Do life and its origin have no affect in the change of freq alleles?Those are the starting questions for Evolution, before Evolution conclude. Can you answer them?

ID can categorize two opposite extremes, like intelligence to non-intelligence. Evolution should be doing that before Evolution could conclude natural selection or intelligence has no part in biology.

Forensic science is probably correct than Evolution since Forensic Science can categorize and separate which is a criminal or not criminal, or intentionally made X to non-intentional.But Evolution has none of these.ID has these, thus, ID is better than Evolution.

Your ID is bogus. It is a stage for charlatans to dupe the religiously gullible. It is also intellectually vacuous and your mechanisms physically impossible.You're a scam artist. A purveyor of serpentes lipophilic ointments intent on deceit.You can not show a viable process or any objective criteria. You have nothing but subjective religiously motivated definitions for your criteria. You perform not but logically and physically flawed subjective analyses based on your own personal incredulity.You are an intellectual fraud.Consequently, your conclusions are demonstrably false and your intellectual level is rated at that of the flat earth cultists ... irrationally stunted and observably stupid.

That's ridiculous. If you looked at biology you would observe the very same things because its reality.If you have to ignore reality in order to support your theory of ID then it isn't a theory. It is a fantasy. Why doesn't ID have to explain these things? Doesn't it have to be correct as well?So where are the ID explanations for these observations?1. The nested hierarchy
2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.
4. Transitional hominid fossils.
5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates. What they found is that observations were consistent with natural processes. You don't have to rule out intelligence if you have evidence for natural processes. It's called parsimony.

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
--George Romanes, "The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

Worse still, you have no ID explanation for these observations. Why do we see a nested hierarchy instead of some different pattern of diversity? You can't say. Evolution explains this pattern perfectly using known and observed natural processes. You are the one denying the reality of these observations:1. The nested hierarchy
2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.
4. Transitional hominid fossils.
5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates.ID is the Flat Earth theory.

Parsimony rules out intelligence. If science has evidence for a natural process it has no need to rule out a supernatural cause. We don't have to rule out invisible pink gravity fairies when a planetary orbit perfectly matches the orbit calculated from Newton's and Einstein's formulas.