[ventana]

So the mutation and natural selection mechanisms as the sole driving force behind the Theory are not considered to be falsifiable? Just the presence or lack of fossil anachronisms? What about the rest of my question? Does the Theory specifically argue against intelligent design at any point? And if so, is that contention falsifiable? Or does it not reference it (id) at all?

Just trying to understand.

v.

[PatrickHenry]

So the mutation and natural selection mechanisms as the sole driving force behind the Theory are not considered to be falsifiable? Just the presence or lack of fossil anachronisms?

Huh? Everything is, in principle, falsifiable. But we know there are mutations, and natural selection is observed and is readily understood. Even in the short time frame of our observation, we've seen Observed Instances of Speciation. I assume that you don't argue about the lack of anachronisms. Surely then, you would agree that millions of fossils, all supporting the theory, and none which contradict it, is a very significant matter.

What about the rest of my question? Does the Theory specifically argue against intelligent design at any point? And if so, is that contention falsifiable? Or does it not reference it (id) at all?

ID isn't mentioned by Darwin, and it's not supported by evidence, so it's not a scientific theory. How would you falsify the notion of ID?

Just trying to understand.

Just trying to help you.