Well I looked at the website, but I'm not impressed. While being far from an expert, I understand that the whale ancestor is based on a fossil fragment that is disputed as a bonified evolutionary fossil. So how many other of those "predictions" are either bogus or made to fit the facts?
ID makes predictions too. I posted that table in the last thread and at least 3 or the 4 predictions, the theory of Design fit better than the theory of evolution.
No, they (there are a number of ancestral whales showing gradual adaptation from land to sea) are not disputed as "bonified" whales (or proto-whales) by qualified experts. What you may be thinking of is a fit of what can only be described as panic-induced-extreme-stupidity by creationist Duane Gish, following the discovery that the long known archaeoceticean (early whale) Basilosaurus isis had rear limbs. Gish suggested not only that Basilosaurus wasn't really a whale, but that it wasn't even a mammal! Apparently this made him feel better as marine reptiles with rear limbs were already known. However Basilosaurus was unquestionably both a mammal and a whale, and several other fossil whales have since been discovered that have even better developed legs.
The falsifiable part of ID is where someone says that a specific organ (or whatever) cannot have evolved. That claim is falsified whenever an evolutionary path is demonstrated. If it could have evolved, than it can't be irreducibly complex. Otherwise, when we say that ID isn't falsifiable, we mean that every species one can point to will be said to be just what the designer had in mind. What kind of theory is that? Everything fits. Nothing is excluded. So in that sense it has no scientific value at all. Unlike evolution, where (to use the commonly given example) a mammal fossil in the pre-Cambrian period would definitely falsify the theory.
"Take a look at this website" Well I looked at the website, but I'm not impressed.
I figured that.
While being far from an expert, I understand that the whale ancestor is based on a fossil fragment that is disputed as a bonified evolutionary fossil. So how many other of those "predictions" are either bogus or made to fit the facts?
You tell me. I don't think that one is bogus. But scientists make mistakes. And admit them. If there's confusion about whale ancestry, and there may be, it will get sorted out. This doesn't affect evolution. It's a detail. There are many such that haven't yet been worked out.
ID makes predictions too. I posted that table in the last thread and at least 3 or the 4 predictions, the theory of Design fit better than the theory of evolution.
I missed that. If you could re-post it, I'll comment.