Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

But not intelligently, we had to build the lifts.

Not
​ What we see now No. Chimps will not become humans.
​ There is no guided change. If you disagree evidence it. I completely agree, so I recommend you understand the science of evolution before you begin to criticise it. (Humans did not evolve from chimps).
​ You don't love science, you love yourself. You don't know what science is; you're a science stalker, completely deluded with an intent to do harm. Probably in the end, to yourself.

That was ugly. But I did like one of the comments.Review title:
"Almost incomprehensible, written by a semi-literate buffoon"Content:
"Although the author tortures the English language, he unfortunately does not force it to reveal anything."

There comes a point where continuing discussions with people who are obviously 'not quite right' is abuse

We called it evolutionary biology when I did my degree about 100 years ago. Somebody that worked in the field was an evolutionary biologist.And there were no such terms as micro and macro evolution - just evolution.Nobody was a Darwinist. Well actually everybody was a Darwinist, just like everybody was an air breather. Didn't require a name.

Look sensei, these one sentence snacks are really boring to read and they make you look childish. It also brings out the worst in us; all that happens is that the thread spirals into stupid name calling.If you have a serious point to raise about evolution please make it and you'll get a serious response. There's no point saying stuff like evolution isn't science that's just silly, factually wrong and not worthy of further comment, but if you have something material to say, just say it. But please bring along evidence and thought.

I'm trying here ...You've made 26 posts in this thread, the longest post you've made is three lines long. The shortest is two words. All your posts have been entirely contentless. Do yourself a favour, make your case and we'll discuss it like grown ups.

Ok, so you're just yet another hopeless religionist dickhead. You'll be gone in a few months having added to the pile of hopeless religionist dickheads before you. How does being a dickhead help your cause?Anyway, it was great to chat.

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?

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?
​

ChatGPT may be the nail in the coffin for places like theseThe theory of universal common descent proposes that all living organisms on Earth share a common ancestry, meaning that they are ultimately descended from a single common ancestor. This concept is supported by various lines of evidence from different scientific fields. Here are some key pieces of evidence for universal common descent:Fossil Record: The fossil record provides evidence of extinct species that showcase the gradual transition and evolution of life forms over millions of years. Fossils of intermediate forms, such as the well-known examples of transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx (showing characteristics of both dinosaurs and birds) and Tiktaalik (representing a transitional form between fish and tetrapods), provide evidence of common ancestry.Comparative Anatomy: The study of comparative anatomy reveals similarities in the anatomical structures of different species. Homologous structures, which are features that have a common origin but may serve different functions in different organisms, suggest a shared ancestry. Examples include the pentadactyl limb structure found in mammals, reptiles, and birds, and the similar bone structure in the flippers of whales and the limbs of land mammals.Embryological Development: Comparative embryology examines the development of embryos across different species. Similarities in early developmental stages, such as the presence of gill slits in vertebrate embryos or the formation of similar structures during early development, support the idea of common ancestry.Genetic and Molecular Evidence: Advances in genetics and molecular biology have provided strong evidence for universal common descent. DNA sequencing has revealed genetic similarities between different organisms. The genetic code, which is nearly universal across all organisms, suggests a common origin. Additionally, the presence of pseudogenes (non-functional remnants of genes) and shared genetic markers across species further support the concept of common ancestry.Phylogenetic Analysis: Phylogenetic analysis involves constructing evolutionary trees based on shared characteristics or genetic sequences. These trees depict the relationships between different species and their common ancestors. By analyzing the similarities and differences in traits or genetic sequences, scientists can infer evolutionary relationships and trace back to a common ancestor.It's important to note that these pieces of evidence, along with many others, have been extensively studied and corroborated by multiple lines of scientific research. Universal common descent remains the prevailing scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, supported by a vast body of evidence from various scientific disciplines.

And also full to overflowing with supporting evidence, from many diverse fields - the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, molecular biology and phylogeny. All of these methods point to the same conclusions. They didn't have to; the answers could have been quite different, but they did. But your objection is formed from a religious belief, not scientific evidence. Not even a full history of every species' evolution over 3 billion years would change your mind.Your personal incredulity doesn't change the actual facts.​