Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

I googled "appeal to authority an sich" and got nothing. Can you describe the difference, please? I also could not find the term stupid anywhere in AZ's response.

Science works because it relies on the overwhelming consensus of the knowledgeable authorities. This is a human process. Science is the consensus of the human authorities.You're reaching for some useless semantic victory here.Beside, I don't have the expertise to add to what the scientific literature already knows. Neither do you. A few ... in prep for this discussion. But I'm not the one in doubt. All this new stuff only shows what we already knew to be the case 100+ years ago. I had in mind challenging your understanding of what the papers actually said but then dwise1 an Percy chimed in and, they are right, you're not worth the effort. I'm not going to reinvent this wheel for your entertainment. And, yes, indeed, these papers are some of the greatest achievements in human intellect. They stand on their own and need no verification from me or from you.Note in comparison all the evidence you bring in opposition. None but your personal incredulity and gross misunderstandings of what common ancestry, in fact, is.

"an sich" is German for, roughly, "to itself", and which is translated as "per se" by my phone's Translate app.What's wrong with this guy? His email address looks Vietnamese, he calls himself "teacher" (Japanese "sensei", which literally means "previous life", so someone who has lived it before can now help you to learn), and now he wants to be German?Mir erscheint's, daß der 'nen Vogel hat!

It's very odd. He's clearly not a science guy and also seems like one of the least prepared creationists we've seen here. He's not even trying.

He is trying and he thinks he is being successful. That is the problem.

Great, more insults. And that from the user who just demonstrated he/she does not know how to properly use google. And also fails to read properly on top of all.

Since moderators should treat everyone fairly and the same, henceforward anyone discussing other participants instead of the topic will also have their post rate set to 1/day.I hope someone will take the lead at reintroducing the topic. If it helps, one issue that appeared under discussion earlier was universal ancestry. Perhaps someone could present the evidence for universal ancestry, and another person could present the evidence against.Of course I just mean the gist, summary or framework of the evidence, not a reference to a multi-volume tome or the address of the Harvard Library (neither of which would be appropriate).

From the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

This was the best effort at reintroducng the topic, but it only alludes to what's been said in the past. I think each side needs to restate the initial premise along with a brief summary of their evidence.

The problem is that - ignoring some messiness with horizontal gene transfer a few billion years ago - common ancestry is a given. It's the prevailing theory, a conclusion that falls straight out of descent with modification. It's simply a family tree. The evidence for it is enormous and available to anybody that types a simple search term, gets a book out of the library or visits a decent museum.It's not for us prove it, it's proven. We need to hear the evidence that disproves it. Where is the rabbit in the Cambrian?

I think that what we've witnessed and been through on this topic is because we have forgotten the Cardinal Rule of Dealing with Creationists: Never assume that both sides are talking about the same thing:

• A creationist poses an assertion or "asks a question" or issues a "challenge" about a subject; eg, "evolution".
  ​
• We take that assertion/question/challenge at face value and respond honestly.
  ​
• Unbeknownst to us, what that creationist means by the name of the subject is quite different from what everybody else means by it, often entirely different.
  ​
  For example, we know what evolution is, but a creationist's "evolution" is something entirely different. Just what a creationist means by "evolution" is a closely guarded secret; just ask any creationist saying that word (or any other word, like "evolutionist") and he will go to great lengths to avoid telling us (as we have all witnessed here). In most cases, even the creationist doesn't know what that word means, but rather only uses it as a dog whistle (same as what MAGAts do constantly) to fire up his own base while "owning the evolutionists" and generating as much confusion as possible (confusion is a creationist's best friend).
  ​
• By having redefined the subject as being something different, the creationist can reject our responses out of hand as "not answering nor addressing the question."

Examples of that last abound, so let's look at this particular "discussion."Common descent and universal common descent (LUCA, last universal common ancestor) are actually different subjects, albeit very closely related.The evidence for the observation and conclusion of common ancestry is very strong and borders on blatantly obvious, whereas evidence for a universal common ancestor, the logical extrapolation of common ancestry is more tenuous, though still strong. For that matter, LUCA refers to the last universal common ancestor, which is still more proximal than an ultimate universal common ancestor.It is that ultimate universal common ancestor that our creationists have been demanding detailed solid evidence of. They will reject anything less than that, misrepresenting it as proof against evolution (whatever that's supposed to mean coming out of their mouths, but they ain't saying).We need an honest discussion of this subject, not the typical creationist attempts at "got-cha!"

Problem is, people who defend this prevailing theory, lay people as well as the experts, are using dubious claims like this all the time.By modification, you mean, that descendents have mutations or just a different sample set of the ancestor genes, or both, and you believe that leads straight to the conclusion that all life descended from single celled ancestors?If your claim was valid, then all you have to do to proof common ancestry, is finding difference between parent and child. And all the research papers trying to proof it, are not even necessary. Of course, that is not the case! It does not work like that. Science does not work like that. More of the typical evolutionist tactic, trying to impose, and appealing to "overwhelming" or "enormous" data. Yet, so few of you actually follow the scientific method, that, even though not perfect, at least tries to be objective: formulate your hypothesis, specify the quantity that you have measured and at which level you would accept or reject your hypothesis. And then compare measurement with this critical level. Science demands proof, when a scientific claim is being made. If you cannot present your proof, then better not make the claim. Especially when you claim that it's fact that all live evolved from single celled ancestors. Then you need to do more than just showing that allele frequencies are not constant over time. Gene pools follow dynamic processes. Nobody disputes that life is ever changing and species have abilities to adapt, some more than others. That's fair. But on the evolutionist side, typical attitude is replying to everything with "evolution is fact, you don't understand it. There is so much evidence, got-cha!". But I suppose that is what we usually get, when both sides believe they are right 100%.

Personal incredulity is not an argument. You need to provide a better explanation of the facts. This requires evidence. Do you have any evidence for a different explanation of the facts?

Regardless of your handwaving, the ToE has the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and has done for over 100 years.If you believe the theory to be in error you have to show how and provide your evidence. It's all on you now.What have you got that you think should change the science?
​

The request that sensei produce evidence supporting his view against common ancestry is reasonable, but he says a couple things that seem to indicate he may have a different understanding of the opposing evidence that he faces. For example, in Message 476 he says: What does he mean by "different sample set of ancestor genes?" Maybe it's significant, maybe not, but it might be worth exploring. And this: I can't be sure exactly what is meant here, but it might indicate there's some information he's unaware of. I don't know what this means either, but it might lie close to the heart of sensei's objections, and if so it should be understood.

Sensei's post limit has been increased to 2 per day.