Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

False. Those are natural systems, not intelligent systems. DNA repair happens spontaneously, so they are natural by the criteria set out by science. Evolution already has defined what intelligence is. It is based on spontaneity. If something happens spontaneously then it doesn't require intelligence. DNA repair happens spontaneously, so it meets the criteria of being natural.

I already did that in this thread:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367I demonstrated that evolution is caused by natural spontaneous processes.

It does have that answer. It is based on spontaneity. That's religion. You now consider yourself a prophet whose words must be taken as being infallible and dogmatically believed. Already answered. The change is caused by spontaneous, and hence natural and non-intelligent, means.https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367

Natural selection is tested and confirmed in this paper (which is one out of many):Just a moment... You are really, really confused. Dictionaries simply record how people are using words. Dictionaries do not tell people how to use words. There are no such things as frequency alleles.

It could do so through natural mutations and natural selection, none of which are intelligent. The pocket mice didn't think to themselves that they needed better camouflage, and then change their DNA so they could have darker fur. Rather, spontaneous and natural mutations produced a darker fur color, and it was naturally selected for in environments with dark rocks. I already provided it many, many times. Here it is again:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367 You ask science to come up with definitions for natural and intelligence. YOU ASKED FOR THIS!!!! Now you are just handwaving them away when they are presented.Sorry, but this is not an honest way to approach the subject.

BiTs doesn't explain the evidence. Evolution does. Sorry, but we aren't going to replace a real and functioning theory with the mad ravings of someone who doesn't understand the very basics of biology. For example, you keep talking about frequency alleles which don't even exist. What words have been distorted? BiTs was rejected because it can't explain the most basic observations in biology, such as the nested hierarchy. We observe that the mechanisms that produce change in species are spontaneous. Stomping your feet and throwing a fit doesn't change this fact.

That's exactly what I do in this thread:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367

You are inventing words that have no definition, such as frequency allele and interrelated.What is a frequency allele? Can you describe it?

No, it is not guided. This is discussed in my thread:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367It is also discussed in two important papers from the 1940's and 50's that were the first to describe how evolutionary change is not guided:The Luria and Delbruck paper on the fluctuation assay:
MUTATIONS OF BACTERIA FROM VIRUS SENSITIVITY TO VIRUS RESISTANCE | Genetics | Oxford AcademicThe Lederberg's paper on the plate replica assay:
REPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS - PMCAll of these experiments demonstrate that mutations aren't guided and they do so through scientific criteria and methods. Exactly what we see in those three experiments above. For example, in the plate replica experiment we see that mutations that confer antibiotic resistance are not triggered by the presence of antibiotics. Instead, there are random mutations changing DNA without guidance, and some of those mutations just happen to produce antibiotic resistance. No one believes that. In fact, if chimps evolved into humans that would be evidence for guidance. Are you sure you know what the theory of evolution says? Three experiments above.

How did the Lederberg's direct which mutations will occur in their experiment?REPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS - PMC How is this inference falsifiable? So even if we witnessed all modern biodiversity evolving through natural processes from the very first life or a universal common ancestor, that wouldn't falsify ID because the first life had complexity?

False. It is evidence. It includes OBSERVATIONS!!!! You continue to avoid the evidence, as expected.I also explained how we know that mutations aren't guided. Here it is again:"For example, in the plate replica experiment we see that mutations that confer antibiotic resistance are not triggered by the presence of antibiotics. Instead, there are random mutations changing DNA without guidance, and some of those mutations just happen to produce antibiotic resistance."If mutations were guided then nearly all of the mutations in the experiment would confer antibiotic resistance once the bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, but that's not what happens. The mutations happen randomly with respect to fitness. In other words, mutations are blind to the needs of the organism. That is what makes them unguided. That's the entire point of science. You follow the evidence to a conclusion, and throw away the conclusions that aren't supported by evidence. You are the one who doesn't understand how science works. You seem to think science is just believing whatever you want to. That's not how it works. What dividing line is that? I guess you never heard of shades of gray?What we do have is a measurement of how many photons are reflected or emitted by an object, and the wavelength of those photons. The problem is that you can't seem to understand the differences between empirical measurements, opinions, and beliefs. Evolution has answered that question. I have been giving you those answers for multiple posts now. Follow your own advice.For example, what is a freq allele or a frequency allele? Why can't you answer that question?

We do know it. It's been defined since the 1940's.MUTATIONS OF BACTERIA FROM VIRUS SENSITIVITY TO VIRUS RESISTANCE | Genetics | Oxford AcademicREPLICA PLATING AND INDIRECT SELECTION OF BACTERIAL MUTANTS - PMC

You don't have a model, and you don't know what science is. Even worse, you don't understand what the theory of evolution says, what evidence it is based on, how evolution defines guidance (even though I've shown you multiple times), or how genetics works. You make up terms like frequency/freq allele, as if having made up words makes it scientific.

We have the scientific method. You have yet to use it. We can add the scientific method to the long list of concepts you don't understand. If the mutations are guided, then the mutations would occur when the bacteria are exposed to antibiotics. In other words, guided mutations are those that are specifically produced in response to the specific needs of the organism.For the Lederberg experiment, the control was indirect selection.Here is a basic rundown of the method:Isolation of Mutant Bacteria » Magazine Science
(look at the picture of the plates and stamp)All of the bacteria on the plate with the original culture came from a single bacterium, meaning all changes are due to mutations that happened during the experiment. They stamped the bacteria on a plate with antibiotics and without antibiotics (the control). Since the bacteria came from the same place in the original culture they could sample the region on the control plate that was resistant on the antibiotic test plate. The control bacteria have never seen antibiotics.You then replate the bacteria from the regions on the control plate that correspond to the resistant colonies on the test plate and repeat the process. If mutations are unguided then repeating this process with bacteria from the same region as the resistant colonies should produce a LOT more resistant colonies on the second go around. AND THEY DO!!! If the mutations were guided, then we would see the same results as the first go around, with just a handful of resistant colonies. They didn't see that.This experiment demonstrated that mutations for antibiotic resistance are not created in response to antibiotic challenge. They are unguided.Here is an excerpt from the Lederbergs' paper:

quote:

---

Replica plates were used in an approach to the problem of preexistence of adaptive mutants prior to their selection by specific environments. Replicas to agar containing bacteriophage or streptomycin showed that mutants of Escherichia coli resistant to these agents existed in clones on the initial plates of indifferent agar medium. In addition, concentration or enrichment for such mutants was accomplished by taking inocula from the bacterial films at sites demonstrated to contain mutants by replica plates. After several stages of enrichment, each type of resistant mutant was isolated in pure culture. The procedure at no time exposes the indirectly selected populations to the specific agent. These observations, therefore, are cited as confirmation of previous evidence for the participation of spontaneous mutation and populational selection in the heritable adaptation of bacteria to new environments.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...82/pdf/jbacter00003-0114.pdf

---

Confirmation of spontaneous mutations that are not the result of being exposed to the specific challenge. Those are unguided mutations. The experiment is correct. They have been a part of science for 70 years now. Your refusal to accept them does not make them go away. Yes. Those lines are found in the multiple experiments I have given you. The problem is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't know how biology works, how evolution works, nor how genetics works.

That made me giggle. Thanks for the laugh.You don't know what the theory of evolution says, how guidance is defined in the theory, how genetics works, or even how the basics of biology works. You don't even understand what a mutation or an allele is. Funniest of all, you don't even know what a phylogeny is.Why in the world would AronRa be afraid of such a tiny intellect? You don't even know enough to understand what his Phylogenetic Challenge is.