Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Byblos]

Again, it appears that the confusion is on your part. No one here denies micro-evolution, the problem arises however when you have us blindly accept macro-evolution as fact... It most certainly isn't, and is just another argument from ignorance.

Funny you should say that G, not but 5 minutes after reading your post I stumbled on the following article. Lol not only do we have common ancestors with apes, great grandma was actually a great white.

[sandy_mcd]

I don't understand why an alternative hypothesis has to be provided to falsify evolution?

That's a perfectly valid point. It certainly strengthens an argument to have a better explanation, but it is most definitely not necessary. I think Pierson's point was that other people have touted ID as an alternate explanation, therefore they need some scientific basis for that claim.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I don't understand why an alternative hypothesis has to be provided to falsify evolution?

That's a perfectly valid point. It certainly strengthens an argument to have a better explanation, but it is most definitely not necessary. I think Pierson's point was that other people have touted ID as an alternate explanation, therefore they need some scientific basis for that claim.

Fair point, but since I am not asserting ID is true I shall wade back out of this thread.

[sandy_mcd]

No one here denies micro-evolution, the problem arises however when you have us blindly accept macro-evolution as fact... .

Perhaps some of the confusion results from the use of the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". A biologist might assume microevolution is just a small section of macroevolution, the way three steps may be part of a long hike. But it seems that some here use microevolution to mean only the natural variation of a population or the loss of genetic material (someone earlier mentioned his child had fewer teeth) whereas macroevolution means chemicals to man or species changes. In this sense some forms of microevolution occur quickly enough to be observed and is thus believable but macroevolution is too slow to be seen and therefore not acceptable. So Pierson's example of whale legs will not convince such people; a simultaneous emphasis on the features whales have gained would be a better (although no doubt still futile) argument.

[sandy_mcd]

I shall wade back out of this thread.

Well, I think I am in over my head

[sandy_mcd]

What is the obsession with the “loss of information” anyway.

People can easily accept the loss of information. But how information (or some new biological feature) develops (without a designer) is incomprehensible to some.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I shall wade back out of this thread.

Well, I think I am in over my head

I think everyone here is drowning.

Dan

[jlay]

What is the obsession with the “loss of information” anyway.

People can easily accept the loss of information. But how information (or some new biological feature) develops (without a designer) is incomprehensible to some.

We'd love to hear an explanation.

I don't understand how something is "begging the question" if it is supported by multiple lines of evidence (see page 1).

Piers. I'm not denying that some species of whales have bones in their hindquarters. My problem is question begging by calling them leg bones. It presumes what you intend to find. That is circular reasoning in its most blatant form. And the fact that you will willfully ignore the fact that this is entirely built on a logical fallacy shows how religiously committed you are to your worldview. If you look at the size of a whale, and look at the size of these bones, it just doesn't make sense. It would be like calling a whales flippers, legs. If someone wants to call them appendages, then so be it. But why not vestigial flippers? Please explain why that would not be more reasonable. Although, I'm not sure that we can assume that either. And if vestigial legs, then when was the fluke formed, and why not vestigal whales without a fluke, or a blowhole?

Here is a rendering from a science text to put your pic into perspective for the reader.


Here is a perfect example of the fairy tail from a pro-religious evolution site. Notice the footnote regarding scale. Yet the claim is made.

Reptiles to Birds
Today we have a highly complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps.

No gaps, according to whom? An artists rendering that ignores scale and then draws a faint line through artisically produced images? Slam dunk, case closed. Oh, and 90% of scientists agree.

[Pierson5]

Pierson5 wrote:

There are now over 100 posts in this thread and many people claiming evolution is false. Yet only 2 people have attempted to provide any evidence for their alternate hypothesis. One was for the existence of a deity and the other didn't have anything to do with ID and was just another argument from ignorance

Get the book, More Than A Theory by Hugh Ross. That is what you would call an alternative hypothesis.

I couldn't find it online, I'll take a look at the local library. Must be tough, Mr. Ross takes a lot of heat from the scientific community as well as the YECs. I looked into the author and found this on the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_ ... tionist%29

Ross and his team agree with the scientific community at large that the vast majority of YEC arguments are pseudoscience and that any version of intelligent design is inadequate if it doesn't provide a testable hypothesis which can make verifiable and falsifiable predictions, and if not, it should not be taught in the classroom as science.[7][8]

This is the main part of the book I would be interested in, as I absolutely agree with him on this point. Do you own the book? If so, I'm sure there is a footnotes section (perhaps with citations?). If you do, could you just copy the citations and/or write down what some of the experiments for ID he proposes?

Gman... You clearly can't differentiate whether we are talking about abiogenesis or evolution, you constantly confuse what is meant by a hypothesis and theory, you refuse to answer any of my questions and have yet to provide any evidence or anything meaningful to the discussion.

On the contrary... I have provided information from this post that certain scientists are in fact fusing concepts of abiogenesis into their "so called" biology. Why? It's all part of the philosophical question, "How did life arise?" No one really knows.. Therefore you are forced to inject your philosophy into your science.

And 2 posts down I addressed what you were claiming. As Sandy elegantly put it

Yep, I guess I just have to keep rephrasing everything i say a bunch of times.

here are now over 100 posts in this thread and many people claiming evolution is false.

Again, it appears that the confusion is on your part. No one here denies micro-evolution, the problem arises however when you have us blindly accept macro-evolution as fact... It most certainly isn't and is just another argument from ignorance.

Again, as I have stated many, many times. I don't care if you do not accept the evidence for evolution. It is good enough for the many thousands of professionals in the scientific community. You can believe whatever you want to believe. We aren't getting into this again. What I care about are the ones who say "Evolution is false, but Intelligent Design is true." Many of these people think it's necessary to skip the whole scientific process and go directly to court to get their idea taught in school. If you fall into that ballpark, post the evidence for ID. If you can't, we don't have anything to talk about.

I don't understand how something is "begging the question" if it is supported by multiple lines of evidence (see page 1).

Piers. I'm not denying that some species of whales have bones in their hindquarters. My problem is question begging by calling them leg bones. It presumes what you intend to find. That is circular reasoning in its most blatant form. And the fact that you will willfully ignore the fact that this is entirely built on a logical fallacy shows how religiously committed you are to your worldview. If you look at the size of a whale, and look at the size of these bones, it just doesn't make sense. It would be like calling a whales flippers, legs. If someone wants to call them appendages, then so be it. But why not vestigial flippers? Please explain why that would not be more reasonable. Although, I'm not sure that we can assume that either. And if vestigial legs, then when was the fluke formed, and why not vestigal whales without a fluke, or a blowhole?

Here is a rendering from a science text to put your pic into perspective for the reader.
[image]

Actually, if you bothered to look at the reference I cited along with it, those are not the same bones... A more apt comparison would be along the lines of what we see in snakes. The pelvic bone floating around in the body cavity, and occasionally we find one with legs attached to it. This is the same situation with whales. I'm not saying you are denying they are bones, I'm saying you are denying they are pelvic/leg bone remnants. I am then asking what you believe they are along with a citation. If you don't believe they are pelvic/leg bones and are just saying "I don't know what they are," that's fine. But I don't see the need for you to interject if you don't have evidence for an alternate hypothesis. This goes back to my main point on page 1.

Here is a perfect example of the fairy tail from a pro-religious evolution site. Notice the footnote regarding scale. Yet the claim is made.

Reptiles to Birds
Today we have a highly complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps.

No gaps, according to whom? An artists rendering that ignores scale and then draws a faint line through artisically produced images? Slam dunk, case closed. Oh, and 90% of scientists agree.
[image]

Why point out the footnote? I mean, no one is denying chihuahuas and bull mastiffs being related, right? Size is irrelevant. I don't know what your hangup is on artist's renderings. They are based on fossil evidence, as well as other lines of evidence. Oh, and yes > 90% of the experts who spend their whole lives examining scientific evidence accept the evidence for evolution as a fact. Not sure why you felt the need to repeat that . Regardless, here is a short summary for the evolution of birds (I know you don't like Googling the names of specimens, so I took the liberty and did it for you, you're welcome):

250 to 240 MYA (possibly semi-bipedal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euparkeria.jpg
240 to 220 MYA (fully bi-pedal, S-curved neck like those in birds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marasuchus.JPG
220 to 200 MYA (one of earliest known true dinosaur species)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coelophysis.png
200 to 170 MYA (bi-pedal, beak, bird like feet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heter ... eleton.png
156 to 161 MYA (see http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... nd-thumbs/)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08124.html
For those who don't have access, this is Limusaurus inextricabilis:

168 to 152 MYA (earliest known example of feathers in the fossil record [ornamental feathers])
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07447.html

168 to 140 MYA (very bird like, probably could not fly)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c1ckut785mh2hqj8/

155 MYA (early bird, substantial feather coverage, possibly for gliding)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08322.html

161 to 145 MYA (Closely related to true birds, earliest dinosaur known to live in trees)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/99a4ew5aqqyme67l/

150 to 148 MYA (several features of birds & dinosaurs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archa ... men%29.jpg
155 MYA (A dinosaur with primitive proto-feathers)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07856.html

135 to 121 MYA (non-avian dinosaur relative of birds with primitive feathers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sinos ... _prima.JPG
124 MYA (reptilian & avian features)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caudi ... zoui_2.JPG
125 MYA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sinor ... enii_2.JPG
122 MYA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jinfe ... gans_2.JPG
120 MYA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Confu ... anctus.JPG
120 MYA
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0009223
115 MYA (Not a bird, Deinonychus was a lasting remnant of the common ancestors between dromaeosauridae and birds)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FMNH_Deinonychus.JPG
94 MYA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ichthyornis_yale.JPG

Clearly, the fossil record shows increasingly bird-like dinosaurs living among other dinosaurs. Evolutionary relationships are obviously evident.

Fossil Phylogenies

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08124.html


http://www.rvc.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/jhut ... s/jrh2.pdf

Other areas of interest:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14933298
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/4/687.full


There, I presented some of the evidence for the theory of evolution with regards to birds. Your turn Jlay, post the evidence for your side.

[RickD]

Pierson, here's the link from Reasons.org, which is Hugh Ross' website. You can buy the book from them, or I got my copy from Amazon.com.
http://shop.reasons.org/More-Than-a-Theory-p/b0901.htm

[Byblos]

There, I presented some of the evidence for the theory of evolution with regards to birds. Your turn Jlay, post the evidence for your side.

What you've provided are similarities, commonalities, and artists' renderings based on a priori assumptions. To prove these assertions beyond any reasonable doubt all you have to do is to provide the exact biological pathways by which one species transitioned into the other and that were verified by the scientific method.

[jlay]

Piers,

I think Byb has answered. I provided renderings from pro-evolutionary sites. So, when you say, these aren't the same bones, I'm a little confused.

Also, the other info you link only provides info on extinct species. We have a wide variety of birds today. Some that fly, some that glide, some that don't. Some with very differing feather patterns. Many sizes. Many different cranial shapes. So what?

It's elephant hurling. That is posting a lot of info, but not actually demonstrating anything with it. Just more assumptions.

If you don't believe they are pelvic/leg bones and are just saying "I don't know what they are," that's fine. But I don't see the need for you to interject if you don't have evidence for an alternate hypothesis. This goes back to my main point on page 1.

And just why is the burden of proof on me? We know whales have flippers. We can see and observe that. There are bones in some whales bones in the hindquarters. We can see and observe that. But stating they are leg bones is assumption. If you look at these bones on whales, and try to even imagine a leg then we can easily say that it would require a very obvious mutlitude of obvious transitional species, because that leg (which isn't one) wouldn't remotely funciton. We don't find whale fossils with both fins and fully functional legs. Or whales with partial flippers and partial legs. We find whales with flukes, blow holes and filppers. What we do find are scientist, such as the one who claimed that Rhodocetus had a fluke, and had drawings made up as evidence. Only to find a better fossil later that revealed, guess what? No fluke. The scientists had no conscience about slathering his Darwiniam religion all over the evidence, because it was what he wanted to find.
Hey, you want to get from land animal to whale. Just insert soem renderings of creatures that fit the body type, and then draw some lines (imagination) and waalah!! Darwinism is true. No need for skepticism. Save that for the Bible.

Why point out the footnote? I mean, no one is denying chihuahuas and bull mastiffs being related, right? Size is irrelevant. I don't know what your hangup is on artist's renderings. They are based on fossil evidence, as well as other lines of evidence.

Exactly. And no one is claiming that one of those animals is a move up the evolutionary ladder either. That creates a problem for you, not me.
Regarding the renderings. Because we know that artists have doctored photos to imply Darwinism. We know features were imagined into Archeoptryx on early drawings that included both scales and feathers, which was false. Drawings, as the one I linked, are exactly why. It is imagination based on the presumption of Darwinism, which is then used as evidence. That is deceptive.

[twinc]

Pierson, here's the link from Reasons.org, which is Hugh Ross' website. You can buy the book from them, or I got my copy from Amazon.com.
http://shop.reasons.org/More-Than-a-Theory-p/b0901.htm

for the pros and cons see my posts for Less-Than-a-Theory - twinc

[RickD]

Pierson, here's the link from Reasons.org, which is Hugh Ross' website. You can buy the book from them, or I got my copy from Amazon.com.
http://shop.reasons.org/More-Than-a-Theory-p/b0901.htm

for the pros and cons see my posts for Less-Than-a-Theory - twinc

Maybe you could post a link to your post, for those interested in reading your pros and cons, twinc. It's difficult to search through all your posts, to find it.

[KBCid]

Oh yes, a definition of ID from the Discovery Institute which wouldn't be biased at all. Seeing as >40% of the PhD's held by the faculty are in philosophy/theology and <15% in actual biological sciences. Not to mention...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_ ... ontroversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

This is no more or less biased than the definition for evolution. If you disagree with it then you can provide evidence that they do indeed imply a specific designer as you keep implying. In essence ID can can posit the need for intelligence not who that intelligence may belong to. Here would be a prime example of where this science can be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument
Take a look at videos of this site and try and form a conclusion on whether it is a naturally evolved formation or a natural formation intelligently modified or a completely man made artifact. Then consider what evidence you based a conclusion on.

Interpretations

Artificial structures
The flat parallel faces, sharp edges, and mostly right angles of the formation have led many people, including many of the underwater photographers and divers that have visited the site and some scholars, to the opinion that those features are man-made...

Natural formation
Some of those who have studied the formation, such as geologist Robert Schoch of Boston University, state that it is most likely a natural formation...
Patrick D. Nunn, Professor of Oceanic Geoscience at the University of the South Pacific, has studied these structures extensively and notes that the structures below the water continue in the Sanninudai slate cliffs above, which have "been fashioned solely by natural processes" and concludes in regard to the underwater structures that "there seems no reason to suppose that they are artificial."...

Regardless, perhaps I unfairly grouped you into the majority here. Reactionary gave me a similar link saying the exact same thing. "ID doesn't identify the designer."

The simplicity here is that at any point where an IDer (who has identified themselves as such) who does assert a specific designer, should be asked where the ID theory posits a specific designer. If anyone were to assert that it does then they are lying.

Yet, when I asked for evidence, what do you think the evidence was (see page one)?

You asked for evidence that ID doesn't posit a specific designer?

So I apologize for making assumptions and putting you into the same category. Let me re-word the question. What area in science do we invoke an unknown designer, for which there is no evidence, as an explanation?

You would have no need for an apology had you simply asked "does ID posit a specific designer?" rather than voicing an assumption first that you can't readily provide evidence for. When I reference evolutionists beliefs I can provide a multitude of references that provide its defining points.
Once again you setup your favorite strawman form of arguement in the form of a question with the implication that ID is positing a specific designer without evidence as an explanation. Again for the fourth or fifth time I will answer this tired old strawman arguement.
There is no science that invokes an unknown designer for which there is no evidence as an explanation for anything.
All scientifc areas that deal with intelligent designers work with known types of information produced by the action of intelligence. Thus, they don't specify a designer but rather show cause and effect from intelligent action and the results that only inteligence has empirically proven to produce which allows one to identify when .....intelligence..... (not a specific designer) would be required to explain the specific form of observable information.

There are plenty things intelligence cannot mimic in nature.

So it would be your position that since something has not been mimiced by intelligence yet that it will always remain beyond its ability to do it, right? (See how I'm asking a question here? This is because your statement is not quite clear to me so I'm going to ask before I proceed)

Up until a few years ago, it was impossible to produce clouds in the lab. Do we assume that because the cloud is so complex we cannot produce it in the lab, we therefore would need some sort of great intelligent designer?

Don't know where you got that idea about cloud production. I could create clouds since I was in my early 20's and I learned it from information that already existed even then. A spa typically has machines that produce clouds and it doesn't take any major engineering to design such a thing and really there is nothing complex about a cloud for me anyway. Crystal formations are in the same level of complexity as a cloud in my understanding.

You say it's impossible to falsify if an intelligent agent is at work because intelligence can design something that natural forces could also form. So how do you tell the difference? If something simple could have been designed, how can you compare something complex to something simple when identifying design? Couldn't they have both been designed? Isn't this a problem when comparing something that is designed in nature vs. something that is not designed in nature? Without being able to test and falsify, this seems like a pretty big flaw to me.

I see you did not really read the definition of ID... again... since this question is answered in how ID functions so I will reprint it to answer the question;

What is intelligent design?
1) Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.

2) The theory of intelligent design holds that CERTAIN FEATURES of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

3) Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.

4) Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Let's make sure you understand what is being said. "The theory of intelligent design holds that CERTAIN FEATURES of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Do you understand what is being said here?
ID asserts that "CERTAIN FEATURES" are best explained by an intelligent cause. So even though we all understand that very simple things which can and typically are proven to be the result of natural forces can also be produced by intelligence. However, such things do not typically exhibit the CERTAIN FEATURES that the ID rationale is based on.
ID theory works on the basis of looking for the "types of information produced when intelligent agents act". Do you understand this? Intelligence is a testable and observable force within our current existence. It is identifiable based on a number of indicators that are repeatable experimentally. So when we observe another form that exists within our environment that exhibits these same indicators then we can hypothesize ID as a necessity for its existence especially if we have no other empirically observable method for such a formation.

It sounds like you are assuming these biological organisms are designed in order to prove that it is the work of a designer.

Assuming would mean a belief without testable evidence like macro evolution.

Aren't you also begging the question as to whether something can be too complex to have come about through evolution?

Would I be begging the question if I say that pink elephants and fairies don't exist? You obviously feel that the 'belief' that evolution can form any of the structures of life we observe REQUIRES evidence to prove it wrong. This is not how science and the scientific method function. This is how religion functions.
If you wish to follow the scientific method then you need to provide REPEATABLE empirical evidence for your hypothesis and until you have such evidence then no one including myself is required to scientifically disprove it.

So if an experimenter theorizes that all life evolved from a common ancestor then he must also define an experiment to test his theory. Tell me what test can be performed to test this theory?.

I see that you bypassed this particular question. You appear to sidestep anything dealing with the scientific method... very enlightening.

Historical happenings that are beyond an experimenters ability to verify is where the line is crossed for scientific methodology and plunges head first into religion.
You can religiously believe that life had a common ancestor but, you have zero observable historic evidence that there was one and you have no possible method to test for it. Therefore, you have nothing to base the theory on. Unscientific in every sense but, a darned good religious philosophy to get others to believe in if your pushing a religious agenda.

What religious agenda? The scientific community is made up of all kinds of cultures/religions etc... And 97% of them don't have an issue with evolutionary theory.

Do you and they hold the belief that everything must be explained by naturalism? This BELIEF is a foundational point that controls how evolution theory is composed. Only that which is defined as a force of nature is allowed to be considered.

Naturalism
Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

A philosophy is not derived by scientific method. You do understand what the scientific method is correct? The philosophy of naturalism is used to guide current scientific inquiry... nothing that does not fall within its rigid definition is accepted by mainstream scientists. This is a religiously held belief. It has no method of being confirmed scientifically.

It is possible to build, by many ways, a correct phylogenetic tree for all organisms with a single endpoint, no "dangling trees". A statistically rigorous test of this has been made.

How exactly does a "statistically rigorous test" equate to empirical evidence? If 50 types of life all made from the same matter and formational tools were placed on earth long ago how would one test for this possibility?

So, I have given you references to MANY different converging lines of evidence, as well as a formal test performed and published in Nature.

No you have not. You have provided rationales not based on the scientific method as I have repeatedly pointed out. Those rationales are based on the unscientific BELIEF that everything must be explainable by the rules of Naturalism which is effectively a religious belief.

Feel free to provide the evidence for your theory. With your high standards for evidence, I'm sure it's a mind boggling amount.

I have provided evidence which you have not commented on. The not so simple understanding of how to reproduce precision 3 dimensional forms which you don't yet comprehend is really all the evidence needed in this case. Only intelligence has empirically proven the ability to provide a method to produce precise 3 dimensional forms that cannot be attributed to simple natural forces. The same FUNCTIONS that are involved in nearly every occurance of 3 dimensional formations by intelligence are now being observed functioning within living organisms. Note again;
"The theory of intelligent design holds that CERTAIN FEATURES of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

These points I am making are the CERTAIN FEATURES that only intelligence has been empirically proven to cause. Thus, my evidence is not based on what is believed to be true. You can journey through any manufacturing plant and see the very same functionality occuring that happens in living systems.

then you can show me all the variations that life went through to become what we observe today and you can show all the forces that played a part in making it happen?

Can I show you how and why everything we observe today evolved? No. I don't think anyone can do that with any scientific theory (not to mention the amount of time it would take).

Then quite frankly the only evidence you can provide is hypothetical without empirical backing. Plain and simple. Scientific inquiry is based on the scientific method. Of what use is a hypothesis that cannot be tested? Let me answer that one... It has a religious use.

Look back on page one for a small summary of some of the evidence for evolution. If you aren't convinced by it, I'm sorry. There are also over 300,000 published papers on PubMed if you'd like to take a look. I'll go back to my main point, if that doesn't convince you, the evidence for your alternate theory must be vast. Please post it.

I'm sorry but I am not going to chase down your summary. I am quite well versed in evolutionary theory and the form of 'evidence' that is considered relevant and I have shown why such evidence doesn't fall within the scientific method. Let's try a little experiment here,
Provide any evidences that are determined by scientific method that backs common decent from a single ancestor of life or that random mutation is actually random.

Evolution is absolutely falsifiable. Here are a few things that would falsify evolution: If we found a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian period, a static (non-changing) fossil record over time,

What? How is a rabbit found in the Precambrian period playing the "micro/macro" card? The only one I see playing that card is you.

A rabbit is a current micro evolutionary variant form. Life has as part of its design the ability to vary and change within a range. I would not expect to find a pekinese dog back in that time either and a pekinese is a decendant from a wolf and is still biologically compatible with a wolf... they could mate. It is also quite clear that a pekinese looks nothing like a wolf.
One should also note that the 'precambrian' time you refer to is composed of Ediacara fossil organisms which have no precursor nor decendants. They all went extinct. Thus, one would be quite the magician to pull a rabbit out of the precambrian hat by any rationale.

If the rabbit was found in this period or any other earlier period, or if the fossil record was static, this would falsify evolution. It's pretty cut and dry. This alone doesn't prove evolution, but it would certainly discredit it.

If a rabbit were found in the precambrian then it would falsify variability. The truth is there is no need to pull a rabbit out of the precambrian since we have already pulled a Coelacanth out of the Late Cretaceous. Same rationale applies here... a current living form existed 65 million years ago and did not vary to any great extent nor did it evolve and grow legs.

...the coelacanth was thought to be a direct ancestor of tetrapods, or four-limbed land animals. This was believable because the coelacanth is unlike any other fish... http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ci-Co/Coelacanth.html

How much of a genome is compared between assumed 'ancestors'? What exactly is compared?

See page one on "converging lines of evidence." Every field in biology and every experiment confirms that this tree of life (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... VG.svg.png) is the proper, most correct fit.

Which experiments prove this? Let us analyse what you consider an experiment that provides empirical backing to a hypothesis. I have noted also that you avoided answering both of my questions. I will ask again;

"How much of a genome is compared between assumed 'ancestors'? What exactly is compared?"

I guess you could go back to the old "same designer, same genes" argument, but it is a huge misunderstanding.

You still don't quite get that arguement. It is not the same genes. It is the same functional basis of materials and tools used to make quite different forms.

It's not the similarities or the differences, but the combination. You can actually think of it as a phone book or a dictionary. Just as you can take a word/or name in the English language and place it in its proper place in the dictionary/phone book, you can do the same thing with an organism on the tree of life. It's not just "same English language, same letters," that simply doesn't apply. The argument for "same genes, same designer" doesn't apply for the same reasons.

The arguement of same designer using the same materials and mechanisms as a foundation for every type of life is an arguement that implies that we would see the same combinations of similarity and differences because the same mechanism and materials which are exposed to similar environmental variables over time.
Many of these same combinational occurances are explained as occuring via convergent evolution for their occurance in the fossil record which doesn't fit a perceived timeline of decendants. Have a peek at this;

Convergent evolution—the evolution of similar traits in unrelated lineages—is rife in nature...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ex ... _evolution

This definitely needs restating "similar traits in unrelated lineages—is rife in nature" Its not just an occasional occurance or a few times... it is RIFE.

Rife
1: prevalent especially to an increasing degree
2: abundant, common
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rife

Thus, no one can form an evolutionary tree based simply on combinations of similarity and differences as the primary consideration of where it fits in the phone book or dictionary when the fossil record is rife with examples that won't fit the tree correctly. What you do have in the hypothetical tree is a cherry picked assortment arranged in a decending order and the ignoring / reclassifying of all the rest that don't fit the approved rationale.

Tell me what complex organ can you show that did come about by "numerous, successive, slight modifications". Science is not really about proving what is impossible it is more about providing empirical evidence for what is possible. It is not sciences job to prove that pink elephants and fairies don't exist. As noted it is the investigators job to provide a solution via scientific method to confirm or deny an assertion of a hypothesis.

Is there a specific one you would like to know about? The eye is a popular one. All steps in the evolution of the eye are known to be viable because they exist is many different species today. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly the paths laid out in these papers, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
This: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... _time.html
Is based off of this: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 56/1345/53
Here is a pretty lengthy pdf published in the International Journal of Developmental Biology: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... iICi9EKigQ

Let us review one of your evidences;

How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve?
Nilsson and Pelger...concluded that the whole sequence, as shown, required 1829 steps.

Based on

...a science called population genetics, and it has mathematical formulae for how quickly favorable genetic changes can spread throughout a population of sexually reproducing creatures. From these formulae, Nilsson and Pelger concluded that the 1829 steps could happen in about 350,000 generations.

They also follow the belief that it is quite easy for an eye to evolve.

...In fact, taxonomists say that eyes have evolved at least 40 different times, and and possibly as many as 65 times. There are 9 different optical principles that have been used in the design of eyes and all 9 are represented more than once in the animal kingdom.

Here is a reply to population genetics by Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan)
...being also an academic teacher in population genetics, I found it necessary to play down the evolutionary explanations given in textbooks, for the simple reason that I find no evidence to support them...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... 3/genetics

and

Population Genetics Made Simple
David A. Plaisted
...This model is actually not realistic, because it does not take into account the interactions between various mutations. Nor does it distinguish major mutations, which change the shape of proteins, from minor mutations, which do not. Furthermore, it does not consider that the beneficial mutations observed are generally only of a restricted kind that cannot explain evolution.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/genetics.html

There are actually a variety of arguements against the rationale of population genetics as a realistic backing for evolution and a number of arguements are condensed in the biotic message by Walter Remine http://saintpaulscience.com/CostTheory1.pdf

Of course you may simply dismiss any or all of the arguements. For me the bottom line is that there is no way to empirically back the theoretical Population Genetics assumptions to historical reality.

Could you propose an experiment on how we could test (or falsify) ID?

The test for the necessity of ID is the identification of ...the types of information produced when intelligent agents act... To falsify this necessity you simply need to show that there is no observable information requiring it.

Your vision has severe problems? mine seems to work just fine for what it is used for. So you 'assume' that the structure of the human body could be better based on what exactly? How would you engineer the human eye and how would it impact the performance. I would further ask how your proposed change would affect other bodily systems.

What is "better" based on? Comparative analysis. A popular example: Tiger woods had Lasik which improved his eyesight to 20/15.

Indeed that is my specific question to you... what exactly is better? and how does it impact everything else?

lol, I was going from a functional standpoint... Not why/how they develop. All humans are based on the same default genes, this is a given. Modifications of this genetic default state equates to the differences between males and females. These modifications aren't only made on the X and Y chromosomes. The SRY gene on the Y chromosome acts as a signal to set the developmental pathway towards maleness. In a simple sense, this gene determines whether certain genes on other chromosomes are "switched on/off." I don't know, if I was a designer, I wouldn't see the need to keep the nipples "switched on." (I could be mistaken obviously).

You can't presume to define the existence of something from our perception of a functional standpoint until you completely understand the formation process. As I noted before some things exist by intelligent design because of manufacturing rationales that have nothing to do with final functionality.
The question you need to ask on this subject from a biology perspective is. Does the structures existence affect other functionality such as sequential structural formations. The concept here would be that muscles need bones to form properly, so in essence the nipple structure may have some relevance to begin other structural formations.
Keep in mind here that if something has no positive affect on an organism then its loss would have no effect. Thus, it would be a cost savings to eliminate it. So rationally speaking the fact that it is always persisting in the male structure means it has positive value in its continued existence and this question should never arise as a question of why a designer applied them in this instance.
Notice when you say "if I was a designer, I wouldn't see the need to keep the nipples "switched on." you are making a determination of a structural necessity based soley on what you do know. The problem of course is that you don't know the entire story of structural formation. A test that I could conceive of here would be along the lines of a knockout experiment where you could 'switch' off the nipples and see if everything still structurally forms correctly. I would also point out that this is entirely dependant on there being a switch available.

Interesting. I stand corrected. Do you have an explanation for the leg bones in whales (from page one). I proposed the question a while back (not directed at you) and have yet to get an answer. Just curious.

Look we are both intelligent beings here. There was no need for me to produce the reference to the tailbone functionality. You could look all this up yourself and not depend on other to find it for you. If you are really interested in understanding something do a bit of research prior to posting and save yourself the wasted time in discussion. These type of questions and arguements are pretty much propaganda points that are typically restated ad nauseum as an attempt to make an opponent in a debate appear less than logical. But really are you trying to win a debate or gain understanding?
So, in reference to the question you pose "Do you have an explanation for the leg bones in whales" I can simply answer "what leg bones" I can honestly say that I have not observed one whale with legs yet. therefore I would not expect there to be leg bones. If you interpret some bone formation within the structure of the whale as a leg bone then I would of necessity ask how you derived that concept?. Bones come in many shapes and sizes for a mechanical reason. If you don't 'know' that reason then you can hypothsize what ever you can imagine but don't assume that everyone is going to agree with your imagination.

Being sort of a computer geek, I've had my fair share of "reverse engineering" pc's, hard drives (I have an external HD in several parts next to me ), etc... Excellent story/teaching methods by the way. The problem is, we know that man-made objects are designed a posteriori. We know companies that make cars/motors/workshops. They are made out of many materials such as polished, purified metal or plastic which does not occur in nature. We know these things are designed because we have evidence and knowledge of these situations and can logically conclude they are designed.

Yay geeks!!! Intelligent designers make stuff currently from other components that were also made. But, you need to realise that everything is made from something else until you get down to atoms. Man did not begin to make functional forms from metal and plastic. They began with what their technology allowed. My ultimate point was not to provide an understanding to you of what materials were used. The point being made is that regardless of the atomic structures involved we see the same funtionality as an end result. I'm sure you have heard the phrase "there is no need to reinvent the wheel" right? but look at history and see how many times the wheel has been reinvented by the use of newer materials. The fact is that the conceptual round wheel never changed but every time a better material came along someone felt the need to reinvent the structural form of it. As a bit of comic relief have a look at one of the newest wheels to come on the scene; The TWEEL - radical new wheel technology http://www.gizmag.com/go/3603/ If you can, try to look at why intelligent designers keep reinventing the wheel. What is the ultimate goal here?

I understand what you are trying to say coming from an engineering perspective. This goes back to what I was saying about designer a posteriori. Do you have a list of converging evidence from a biological standpoint? Has this evidence been published? Perhaps start out slow and just give me one or two and we can go from there. I am genuinely curious.

Much of this perspective is in developing stages of realization as pertains to biology. There are several papers published in the past few years that have concluded that in order for a structure to form in a precise manner consistently requires 3 dimensional positioning control. I know I provided a link to this from a single scientific source but there are more that also touch on this necessity. The problem right now in biology is that they don't understand how the precise positioning is occuring, they are at the speculation stages on an understanding I have understood for many years now... It requires 4 reference points to precisely position structural formation components and there are no shortcuts. I'm sure you can do a search for spatial coordinates or the like and fish up some of the references that scientists have written but as I said they are at the dawning of understanding this basic mechanical engineering concept.

In 1995, Purdue University biomedical engineers Richard Borgens and Riyi Shi proposed that endogenous electric fields provide spatial coordinates for the establishment of embryonic pattern.

You can watch some of the magic happen in real time from this video but again it is an observation that is not yet empirically defined. They just know that 3 dimensional spatial control occurs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULjzX__OM

Evolutions engine of change presumed / assumed to be random mutation and natural selection over time is the process by which alleles change. All you need to do is prove that the changes are really random.

Not quite. As an analogy, I could say "I'm just as good as Phil Hellmuth at Texas Hold'em because all the cards are random."An ordered process can have random components. This is an expanding area in evolutionary biology, and we can get into it if you REALLY want to, but I don't see the point. I just want the evidence for the alternate theory.

I have already provided the dice analogy the shows why it is not random. If the variability within life is by design then it is not simply random mutation. It would then be controlled limited randomization. As anyone who studies evolution knows the concept of random mutation is not considered limited in how 'random mutations' can be. It is absolutely believed that RM + NS allows for every observable form of life hypothesized to have begun from the unproven single common ancestor of life. The concept of controlled randomization is in opposition to the current evolutionary belief.

Evolutionary theory is the explanation used to explain the unknown to others without understanding who will believe anything that sounds logical to them. With a childs understanding of mechanics a cardbord box can logically fly to the moon.

And without a persons understanding of evolution, we cannot logically have a common ancestor with apes.

Indeed without an understanding of the beliefs held by evolutionary theory, we cannot understand how it is rationalized that we share a single ancestor of life. Of course if your smart and pay attention to the points made and how they are rationalized you will see that the reality of the hypothesis is entirely imaginary.

There was an interesting video I recently watched on what may seem like common sense (logical) and it's application in science.

This is interesting only in the sense that evolutionists wish to infer that common sense and logic cannot be used by a rational mind to understand their hypothetical concept and in fact you can't apply logic and common sense to the rationale because it still exists as an imaginary construct believed to represent reality. However, I can simply point out that if the scientific method were applied then it requires logic and reason in order to be replicated.

Evolution is the fairytale that adults use to assert that molecules can change bit by bit into any living thing they see.

And is supported by many convergent lines of evidence, which I have yet to see for ID. What does that make ID?

It is assumed to be supported by many lines of evidence which when closely scrutinized fails to deliver as actual evidence. This along with the lines of evidence being generated for ID makes ID a more plausible alternative.