Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

It is so easy to show how stupid Evolution is.On the origin topic with Intelligent Design...
​
To tell you the truth, I was not there when the first life or first living biological cell was created or intelligently designed (intellen), so I cannot claim anything. But, since science is using human and its experience (empirical) in dealing with many things to understand reality, then, I will be using that to answer the origin of life and DNA or cell.
​
The new Intelligent Design had discovered the differences between intelligently designed X (intellen X) to non-intelligently designed X (naturen X), which means that only the new ID has the correct powerful and universal explanation in science that are reliable and precise. Supposed to be, Darwin and the former many famous scientists before me, in science or in Biology, should be discovering that universal pattern between the two. But sad to say, because of the stupidity of Darwin and his arrogant supporters, science did not have that universal pattern from them. Shame on them for insulting Creationism (as Creatards) that Creationism has no universal criteria, and kicked Creationism out in schools and in society, in where, they too, Evolution and its supporters, had no criteria to offer. Dare to challenge me in here?
​
So, by basing the universal pattern, or I called it the UBL, universal boundary line, any intellen X must have at least 1.5 supports as minimum to be called/labeled as intelligently designed X, intellen X. The maximum support is 3, to be labeled as intelligently designed X (intellen X). If there is no support, then, it is non-intelligently designed X or naturen X. To those who are opposing these criteria, I challenge anyone to make an experiment between intelligence and non-intelligence, and compare with my discovery, OR SHUT UP! Or support me.
​
Since before I was born, DNA, cell, and life are already existing, then, to test if both life and DNA or cell are intellen or naturen, then, we need to find supports. Biological science had been reporting that cell, to function well, has seven (7) supports mechanisms or systems, or sometimes I called them, defense or repair mechanisms. Since seven (7) is greater than 3 as maximum limit of intelligence, then, the new ID categorized cell as important intellen. If God-Creator, as the Intelligent Agent, as the best candidate for that Intelligent Agent (IA) did it, then, this Agent had created cell so important! Life is so important!
​
Now, the new ID has also devised and invented new model, the Biological Interrelation, BiTs, to fight side by side, model vs model, head to head, science vs science with Biological Evolution. And BiTs discusses about the origin and change as we could witness and observe in reality, in biological world. And BiTs too uses the powerful science from the new ID, since I am both the same author of the two, thus, BiTs is forced to conclude, from the result of categorization of the biological cell as intellen cell, and the conclusion is that biological cell and its origin is intelligently created or designed, thus, Creationism, with respect to the origin of both life and cell, is the only correct explanation in Biology. Which further means that everything that we are seeing in biological world are guided intelligently - for life.
​
Well, some of you may say, "That is wrong and stupidity", but I had the basis of my explanation, as you read from above, thus, you either falsify my basis by conducting another new experiment showing that my understanding and discovery of intelligence is wrong, and let us compare. Or defeat me in the topic of intelligence, and you defeat me all. PUT UP, or SHUT UP!
​
Thus, either I am a stupid/moron or a genius.

You are mistaken. There is no satisfactory scientific definition of either intelligence or intentionality. So the theory does not mention them.I'll note that, contrary to some of what you have said, the theory of evolution does not say that intelligence isn't involved. It is just silent on that question and restricts itself to what can be observed and measured.

You talk big, after admitting that you cannot claim anything.The simple fact is that you cannot define intelligence in any scientifically useful way. You mostly write nonsense. We cannot falsify your "ideas" because there is nothing there to falsify. All you have is badly tossed word salad.

It's like his "smoke and mirrors" turned out to be hot air and melted plastic.

All that is needed to conclude (tentatively) that there is no intelligence or intent involved is a lack of evidence that there is an intelligence or intent involved. Science doesn't have to "prove" a negative. A negative is negative until it is demonstrated to be positive. Intelligence and intent are not an "opposing extreme". They're empty speculation. Scientists are in no way obligated to take every hare-brained idea into account. Those "criteria" are a figment of your imagination. And your conclusion is a non sequitur. Evolution is right, regardless of what scientists or anybody else thinks about it. Nobody can make evolution wrong by having wrong ideas about it. It's your made-up "criteria" that are stupid.

You seem to have missed the bus. IDists accept evolution. They admit that the evidence points to evolution. Their idea is that an intelligence initiated and/or guides the process.IDists are creationists who failed to discredit evolution.You're no IDist. You're just another creationist denier. Ask a real IDist.

It is tested all of the time. For example, expose bacteria to agar containing antibiotics and you can get selection for mutations that confer antibiotic resistance.In the SW of the US we can also see selection for mutations that produce black fur in rock pocket mice:
Just a moment...Populations of mice that live on black basalt volcanic landscapes have the dark fur allele selected for by nature. We can even determine which genes are mutated. That very thing was done in the paper on mouse fur color. Again, this very thing was done in the paper on mouse fur color. In areas with black volcanic rock the black fur color is beneficial and the light brown color is deleterious, so the mutations for black fur color are predominant in the black basalt population. The opposite is true for the light brown desert where the black fur color is selected against because it is deleterious. It is both. Mutations can be affected by fitness or fix neutrally. If you don't know what these terms mean then you have no business criticizing the theory of evolution. Apparently, you don't even know what the theory says. Compare the genomes of any two individuals. The differences are the mutations. No, I'm not. There's mountains of evidence for shared ancestry between humans and chimps. For example:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367 Here are the transitional fossils.

You don't even know what selection is. You don't even know how genetics works. How can you claim that Evolution is stupid if you don't even understand what it is?

You made this all up from you fantasy. There isn't anything real here.This is the crux of your design fantasy. What 7 system?List them. Give support from biology that these systems are as you say. Then for each, what is the measure of intelligence vs natural?Don't give me any of your crap challenging evolution. Evolution is not the issue here. Either support your ID2.0 or fuck off.

Thank you for your reply.I will reiterate that I am not saying that there are no changes in biological world, since when parents (as gen 1) produce 4 individual offsprings (gen 2), anybody could see that they are not 100% perfectly cloned. There are differences, but they do not evolve, they just interrelate.Again, when you use the word selection, if you are honest, you will surely think two possible scenarios: selected and not selected, with their numerical limits. Unless, you are intellectually insane, you will never use the word "selection" in English language, or any languages, unless, you would like to define "selection" with different definition, as could be seen in reality, with experiment.That is very basic. Since words always convey meaning, especially when you use that in science. Thus, what is your criteria and limits between selected to non-selected, and their numerical limit or value? Where did you get those criteria? And why we must follow that criteria and what are the test and evidences that your criteria is correct?Again, you are comparing two things or two Xs in biology, as you claimed about mutation. But, I knew that you are not probably stupid, but in science when we compare two things, we put numerical value as limits so that we can test and falsify. What is the point of using science if we cannot show them numerically?For example, the GRAVITY differences between Earth and moon, we compare them, but we always measure that with numbers. Thus, mutation or changes or selection must have numbers and limits so that science could progress. Now, do you have that?

I just do not buy the stupidity of Evolution for I do not want to be intellectually stupid.Reality is with us, let us talk reality in Biology and in biological world, and see who wins.

Interrelate? What is that?Also, if you understood the theory of evolution you would already know that evolution occurs at the level of the population, not at the level of the individual organism. Again, it is quite clear that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Selection is a statistically significant departure from random fixation and random distribution.For example, the case of the brown and black mice.If they were randomly distributed across their range we would expect to find as many black mice in the light brown desert as we do in regions covered in black basalt rocks. We don't. Instead, we find a really high concentration of black mice in areas covered with black basalt rocks and none in the light brown desert. The same is true of the light brown mice. We can even show that the two populations of different colored mice interbreed, and that the black allele is dominant over the light brown allele. Even though there is free interbreeding we don't find the black allele spreading out into the light brown desert. We can even track the mutation for black fur in these populations.

You don't even understand how evolution works, or how genetics works. How can you say something is stupid if you don't even understand it?

That ship has sailed. Evolution won that debate more than a century ago - and it's still racking up points today.

Religious explanation like Evolution cannot win in science. Reality will prevent it. Now, Evolution has already a counter theory that will surely blow Evolution to pieces, it is called Biological Interrelation, BiTs.