Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

And I am engaged in the discussion (albeit takes me a long time to get back to it). A big way has been: someone asks a question, and I answer the question. I have answered the question with the format that it was asked in. You didn't ask for arguments; you asked for definitions. Then perhaps you should look up the definition of “DISCUSSION”. Because a discussion does not necessarily mean presenting arguments.Besides, I did give arguments too. But you seemed to have skipped over them. Really? Show me a “discussion” where the interlocutors are laying out essays on definitions of various words before they start getting to the meat of the discussion. I know Church of
Scientology folk are really big on definitions, but even they are not that desperate. Again, really? How do they not agree with my claims of ID? But I have defined it. What you cannot seem to understand is that the definitions of words like “purpose” and “design” are EXACTLY THE SAME as they would be used in any conversation that uses the words. I gave you plenty of definitions for each. The same meaning for those words is implied whether I’m talking about ID or whether I’m talking about a computer program or a painting or a dog whining at the door or anything else where those words are appropriate.

And it is your opinion that life came from unguided evolution. Sorry, what is the objective criteria you are using? Perhaps you should ask that question of Richard Dawkins or dwise1. It is their model that uses a target.I actually think that it cannot have a target. Didn’t you get that from me saying “ Cumulative selection could not have a target in mind”? An example please! No. I am reasoning that the targets were designed. I am not assuming anything with regards to adaptations, because I do not think that is the way that complex features (like camera eyes) came about. You are the one assuming that evolution landed it that way. I agree with the first sentence. But the second sentence does not necessarily follow from the first. For one, you haven’t defined what the “problem” is or you are ad hoc making one up after the fact. Secondly, for all the power that evolution is supposed to have, I find it very amusing that your supposed “different” solutions are pretty much the same (ie, camera eyes). How is it that two (or often more) very different lineages independently developed highly complex systems that are basically the same, all via unguided processes. That is quite a coincidence! And yet it supposedly happens all the time with evolution. So? Is anyone saying the Grand Canyon was designed? I don’t see the connection. Water following a law-like process is not a surprise. That a lot of water following laws carved out the Grand Canyon, though really cool, is no surprise either. Of course you need to add parts to create a multi-part complex system. But you need ALL of the parts there, and they have to have been fitted together properly before you have any system. So, if you have any parts missing, you have no system. If any parts are not properly configured\fitted for its ‘partner’ part(s), then you have no system (even if technically ALL the ‘parts’ are present).So, in the case of the Alphabet system (patterned off of Dawkins Weasel), even though 3 of 26 letters (12%) are in place with ABCVSNMYXFPZTLJIWDHGERKUOQ, there is no system. There is not even 12% of a system. In the context of the system, which relates to some function on the whole, the 12% that is there means nothing, and there is no reason to hold that the 12% will be conserved until the rest of the parts arrive. As for having any system, it really comes down to it all being there and working,....or nothing. Ahh, but nature is limited by its own laws.I have no belief that parts need to be in the same state as they arrived. In fact, I would assume they wouldn't be, and any interactions between parts would be total coincidences and they would have to modify to either produce the ‘needed’ interaction (which nothing knows about yet) or to improve the whole system function anyways.Let’s go back to the Alphabet (weasel) system. As stated before, ABCVSNMYXFPZTLJIWDHGERKUOQ on its journey to a presumed full alphabet would not preserve its beginning ABC due to being a portion of the full alphabet system. There is no system or even the hint of a system to conserve them. Thus the only way they would be conserved (to an extent) is if they were on their own, individually advantageous adaptations, as Dawkins and dwise1 indicated in their respective scenarios. (OR one could allow that together they were a combined adaptation made up of the 3 pieces. I wont extrapolate much on that option, but the same principles will apply whether they are 3, 2 or 1 adaptation)As their own somewhat conserved entities, they could not be considered as ‘parts’ of the potential future Alphabet, as there is nothing they have as a reference to it. And it would be very unlikely that they had any integration with the other adaptations, let alone any reason to develop the potential future one. (A is its own thing, B is its own thing, C is its own thing. A has no reason to nor likely any affinity to link with B, B anything for C, or C with A).If all the letters are representative of some sort of adaptation, then there would also be no reason for A, B, or C to be conserved vs some other adaptation that might come along. Which by extension for all the supposed adaptation slots means that in the end, the likelihood of the Alphabet occurring would still fall under the normal random chance for it to appear spontaneously. So what. 2 bones does not hearing make. It is all assumed[ that the two bones moved from the jaw to the ear. Though of course that has not really been shown how. If anything, you have something in the roughly general location that is of the right substance, but nothing to show that they were the right shape or interacted from a chewing or jaw function to that of a hearing one. You still have a lot of detail to write from your imagined story. Really??? Exactly where have I done that? Swap the words evolution and ID, and I can say the exact same thing about you. Again, really? If you cannot see how these things are explained as good as or even BETTER with ID, then you know nothing.

First, I noticed that you seemed to misunderstand a lot about MONKEY/WEASEL, including serious ones regarding single-step selection and cumulative selection. Unfortunately, I have many things to take care of and haven't had time to respond yet. SorryObviously, evolution doesn't use targets, but then neither MONKEY nor WEASEL were ever intended to simulate evolution, as both Dawkins and I have explicitly stated, but rather they are abstractions intended to compare the performance of two different systems: single-step selection and cumulative selection.In comparing those two systems, all selection criteria were kept the same, in this case having a target string. Therefore, the immense difference in the results are due to the characteristics of the selection method being used. Having a target in the abstraction for cumulative selection is not the reason for its incredible success, because the single-step experiment has the exact-same use of a target string to measure success. Isn't that the classic approach in experiments (and in troubleshooting)? Hold all variables the same except for the one that you are testing.Evolution using cumulative selection "tests success" through differential reproduction in response to the environment. That is not trivial to model mathematically, as I pointed out in my page, MONKEY, which you claimed to have read. (so why did you miss that part?)Here is what I wrote:

quote:

---

Objections have been raised about using a target string being a form of teleology; eg from an email I received:

"Any complexity is provided by the experimenter. Dawkins' model with the weasel words is designed so that it will *always* hit the target. This is the equivalent of teleology, guided development, which means that either the organism itself or some outside controller 'knows' what it is planning to be."

​

First and foremost, it must be remembered that the exact same selection criteria were used for single-step selection as were used for cumulative selection. MONKEY and WEASEL were controlled experiments for comparing the results generated by two different selection methods: single-step selection and cumulative selection. Standard procedure in controlled experiments is to perform the experiment twice while changing one and only one factor, the factor you are testing, and keeping everything else the same. Then, it is assumed, any differences observed are due to that factor.

​

If this foreknowledge of the target, this "teleology", were the cause of MONKEY's success, then why doesn't single-step selection "*always* hit the target" as well, instead of missing it by light-years? Why is there so much difference between the results of the two selection methods? The reason is inherent in the selection methods themselves, as analyzed in MPROBS.DOC. The immense difference in results is due to the methods themselves.

​

This objection also misses the point that selection happens. Whether performed/guided by an external intelligence or not, selection happens. Artificial selection is applied by humans trying to direct the changes in their domesticated crops and livestock. Darwin took that practice as an analogy for what nature was doing and called it "natural selection". The central theme of Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" was that natural selection is blind to the outcome. Dawkins has been criticized for having forgotten this in presenting his WEASEL, but in saying that his critics only demonstrate that they had not read what Dawkins had written:

​

"Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in each generation of selective 'breeding', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn't like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. If, after the aeons, what looks like progress towards some distant goal seems, with hindsight, to have been achieved, this is always an incidental consequence of many generations of short-term selection. The 'watchmaker' that is cumulative natural selection is blind to the future and has no long-term goal."

​

(Blind Watchmaker, pg 50)

​

This "teleology problem" is more apparent than real. Certainly, a better simulation of evolution or natural selection would make use of immediate selective pressure arising from the environment itself. Indeed, better simulations have been written and run and have demonstrated that natural selection works.

​

But then neither MONKEY nor WEASEL was ever billed as a simulation of evolution nor of natural selection. All they were ever intended to do was to compare two different kinds of selection, which they have done rather well. The significance of that comparison is that cumulative selection, the method that was modelled after the way that life works and that natural selection is understood to work, functions extremely well, whereas single-step selection, the method that has nothing at all to do with how either evolution or life itself works, fails miserably.

​

The added significance of this comparison to the creation/evolution discussion is that creation science routinely misrepresents evolution as using single-step selection (which ironically is the selection method of their own model, creation ex nihilo) and creationists neglect to tell their audiences that there is another method which far better describes what life actually does. And in making that omission, the creationists are deceiving themselves and their audience.

---

What part of that could you not understand? 
On my MONKEY page, I go on to write:

quote:

---

Working on a project to more fully simulate evolution would be interesting, if I had the time. In such a project we would need to define an environment, phenotypes that would interact with that environment as they try to survive, genotypes that would direct the development of those phenotypes, and rules for the mutation of those genotypes.

​

The problems in developing such a simulation are considerable. All of these elements would need to be as realistic and as free from interference as possible. The criteria for fitness should not be predetermined arbitrarily but would have to come directly from the environment and the organisms' interaction with that environment. The embryonic development from genotype to phenotype should follow regular rules which could be arbitrary to some extent, but the phenotypes produced should not be predetermined, but rather be the result of the expression of the genotypes -- a software example of this is Dawkins' Biomorphs (footnote reference to The Blind Watchmaker). The mutation of the genotypes should be the easiest part of the project, once the genotypes have been defined. Of course, one of the greater problems would be how to evaluate the simulation; if we allow the model to be too abstract then the resultant environment and "organisms" could be so alien to us that we could not make any sense out of it.

​

The closest that I have seen programs come to simulating selection based
on the interaction of an organism with its environment are TBUGS and Dr. Ray Thomas' TIERRA. (go to my MONKEY page for those footnotes)

​

In the meantime, I would still like to hear ideas for programs to simulate evolution and, if I should ever have to time to attempt such a project, I would definitely need ideas to work with. Of course, as I tell people who try to model evolution with single-step selection (like Michael Denton), we have to keep in mind just what we are trying to model.

---

Something, BTW, that Kleinman still has no clue about.  Yeah, you really need to do your homework there.In the reptilian jaw those bones provide the jaw's point of articulation. The mammalian jaw uses a different point of articulation. There are reptile-mammal transitional fossils showing the transition from the one point of articulation to the other, some even with both points of articulation. There are also series of fossils showing those bones moving into the middle ear.And OBTW, in many reptiles those bones, still as part of the jaw, are used in sensing sound.

OK, just what exactly is your model here?A co-worker made the claim that the probability of the vertebrate eye evolving was nil. Unfortunately, all attempts to discuss it with him only led to him becoming increasingly hostile. Basically, he didn't understand it himself but rather had to recite the mantra that he had been taught, much like Sheldon trying to teach Penny physics with one set story ("It was a balmy Mediterranean day in Greece, ... ").What I had been hearing from creationists for a few decades was a scenario in which you would take a razor blade to a vertebrate (usually human) eye and slice it up into its component parts. None of those component parts could produce sight all on its own, but rather they all had to work together to produce sight. Obviously.The standard creationist argument was that each individual component part had to have "evolved" independently of all the other component parts in order to miraculously come together in the final product of a functioning vertebrate eye.I suspect that that is your argument here. And of course that entire argument is total bullshit. Stupid bullshit that creationists will dream up, but which no scientist would advance.Dawkins addressed the issue in his The Blind Watchmaker, but even that was based directly on what Charles Darwin had himself written. Creationists love to quote-mine Darwin as saying that the evolution of the eye defies human imagination, but they always leave out that he then said that when we apply reason we can solve that apparent problem. Then he proceeded over multiple pages with examples out of nature of visual systems at all the possible stages, each one fully functional for vision, albeit later ones better than earlier ones.The thing is that it's not your standard creationist BS model of entirely separate structures all evolving independently of each other. Rather, the evolutionary model is that all those features evolved together.At every step of the way, you had photosensitivity and some way for the organism to perceive that. From then on, everything else was an improvement. Sight, to one extant or another, was always present at every step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye. All components evolved together. Or are you trying to push the creationist nonsensical narrative that they all had to have "evolved" separately and independently of each other?

Umm, no. I have objective evidence and testable theories.For example, this thread:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367Can ID explain why transitions outnumber transversions when comparing the genomes of different species? How so? Example:"For the alphabet example, let's start with generation 0 with characters in reverse order, 26 placeholders (ie: ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA) just to demonstrate 0% of a match starting out. Your example seems to model having all 26 letters potentially change or set at once, which is perfectly fine. So if the first change results in the Alphabet you would have just witnessed a 1.6244×10^37 event." They aren't the same eye. That's the point. The retina faces in a different direction. The cells that make up the retina are different. There are many, many differences. What is the probability that we would get a canyon that looks exactly like the Grand Canyon? Pretty improbable, right? Therefore, according to design theory, it had to be designed because it is so improbable. Those are claims without evidence. Can you demonstrate this for any IC system? Can you show us the entire history of that system in order to support your claim?Take the mammalian middle ear. In reptiles there is just a single middle ear bone. In mammals there are three. We can actually see the transition of two jaw bones into the middle ear, creating a multi-part system. The original single bone system worked without the addition of two extra bones, and it still works in other vertebrates. The three bone system works better, and we can see how parts were added to this IC system.Your claim quoted above is just a claim based on ignorance, and very little else. We have the transitional fossils showing how 2 bones moved into the middle ear. Where have you ever detailed the mechanisms of design and the steps of how IC systems were built?

That's my point. Instead of answering the letter of the question, answer the spirit of the question. And you claim you provided definitions, so YOU are ready to move on to the discussion even if I am not. So move on. If you HAVE any arguments, why are you so reluctant to present them? You're wasting all of your time on meta-discussion ABOUT discussion. Get on with the discussion; present your arguments. That's entirely possible. If I have missed anything, feel free to re-post.Of course, the other possibility is that you skipped over my rebuttal(s). You might want to check for beams in your eyes. Um... ALL of them. How could we possibly discuss Flerbend if I don't define what I mean by flerbend? Clearly not.A computer program definitely has a designer. A painting usually has a designer. A dog DOES NOT have an obvious designer. That's why we have to be very clear about what design IS.So how do you determine what IS designed and what is NOT designed?

Evolution's explanation is really fantasy.You need to remember that Evolution had concluded that the change of freq alleles, COFA or change in freq allele, CIFA, is not guided intelligently or not controlled or not guided, or not manipulated.Claiming that"Rather, the evolutionary model is that all those features evolved together."is one of the most unscientific claims, for it has no evidence whatsoever. How could a non-guided, non-manipulated COFA. CIFA could arrive and form, say, the eye or ears or nose?Evolution and its supporters must first show that a non-manipulated COFA or CIFA is the SOP (standard operating procedure) for the change in biological world.Now, the old ID was correct to say that if there is no novel allele that will be formed by using COFA or CIFA, then, Evolution is not science. Where will Evolution get a new novel allele through COFA, CIFA?

Over many generations of incremental change, that is how. Your personal incredulity is not going to change the fact that it did happen just as a product of evolution.And don't ask for proof. You knee-jerk deny all evidence regardless.What is your alternative? Lay out your process. Show us this intelligence behind intelligent design.

What the hell is a freq allele?Just so we are clear:"An allele is one of two or more versions of DNA sequence (a single base or a segment of bases) at a given genomic location. "
Allele Evolution is guided. It is guided by fitness. This is what allows beneficial alleles to increase in frequency, deleterious alleles to decrease in frequency, and neutral alleles to randomly fix. This is natural selection, and we can observe it occurring in real time. You need to show us what in the hell you are talking about. New alleles are produced by mutations.The reason humans are different from chimps is the mutations that separate our genomes. The sequence of our DNA genomes is different, and mutations are what cause those differences. Mutations are what cause the difference between alleles. This is Evolution 101. If you don't understand this basic concept then you have no reason to be criticizing the theory.

It is very simple. What science is trying to accomplish in Biology? Origin of species or just change of freq alleles (COFA) or change in freq alleles CIFA?I understood "incremental change" but it is still a "change", and it does not make anything so particular that requires too much attention.The new ID had solved the definition of intelligence and non-intelligence, and when used in Biology, CIFA and COFA are found to be guided, thus, the origin of life and the origin of species are guided. And the name of that theory is Biological Interrelation.So, how about Evolution?

There is no such thing in genetics as COFA or CIFA. So you don't think incremental change in an organic structure can build a more complex organic structure? That dichotomy has still not been resolved. Yours is just another religious attempt to stuff the square peg in the round hole. CIFA, COFA are never used anywhere. You can't explain what they are.The only thing being guided is your fantasy. The Science of Evolution is just fine and dandy, thank you very much. You haven't questioned it one bit.

Evolution is really a fantasy theory. And supporters of Evolution do not really know how to make consistent theory which is based in science and in reality. --- Fitness could guide? Really? There is no test for this. That is an unscientific claim. --- Beneficial? There is no test that "fitness" could distinguish beneficial X to non beneficial X, and the dividing line between the two Xs. It is a fairy tale. Provide test for these criteria. --- Are you talking about Twitter Files that were deleted like the files for Hunter Biden? There is no test that "fitness" could delete files, oh sorry, I mean, delete bad genes, since how do you know that fitness recognizes bad and good genes? Please, provide on how you arrive in this criteria. --- Oh, a while ago you claimed "fitness" did it, and now you newly claimed that "natural selection" did it. Which one?
The word "fix" and "selection" imply control and manipulation or intention, but change in frequency alleles, CIFA and change in frequency alleles, COFA, are not controlled, as per Evolution's basis. So, which one are you talking about?You must provide first universal criteria and dividing line between fix and unfixed X, or selected and unselected X, etc., with numerical value or limit so that science could progress and could measure your claim. Also, Evolution and its supporters must provide a criteria between good and bad genes, or beneficial and non-beneficial, with dividing numerical limits so that science could advance. You cannot simply claim and conclude something without any criteria with test. That is the definition of stupidity in science.Once again, provide criteria first and let us see if your criteria are part of reality in Biology. --- Where did mutation get the new alleles if allele is defined as "An allele is one of two or more versions of DNA sequence (a single base or a segment of bases) at a given genomic location". Remember that to avoid a 100% cloned individual, change is imminent. so, do not simply claim, show it where mutation get the new allele.
​ --- That is a claim that has no support. You are pre-suppositioning and pre-concluding that humans did come from chimps. Humans and chimps are interrelated living organisms but humans did not evolve from chimps. There are no evidences that humans did come from apes. There are no transitional fossils and no missing links that fit to the description of COFA and CIFA. --- As I said before that where did mutation get the new alleles that supposed to be separate humans from chimps? Do not claim in science if you have no evidences. That is Science 101. Show evidences first.

You have a reading comprehension.

1. I said that science must decide what science wants to explain in Biology, either origin of species or change in species, in that case, change in frequency alleles (CIFA) or change of frequency alleles COFA.2. There are no test nor evidences that "incremental change in an organic structure can build a more complex organic structure", without guided by intelligence, or intention,. That is why Evolution is wrong in all of its claims.3. To Evolution, the topic of intelligence and non-intelligence are not resolved, so, why quickly conclude in Biology about Evolution? That is the very definition of stupidity: quickly conclude without knowing anything.4. Evolution is simply CIFA or COFA, whatever, Evolution is wrong anyway.

I looked at your PNT (proposed new topic) on intelligence: What will be the immediate impact if a science theory is wrong in science?.It is hopelessly confused. Why do you repeatedly mention intelligence when you are so confused about it?

I am not confused on anything.