Well yes perhaps, but a lineup of all Augusté Rodin's sculptures from first to last would show a similar relationship of evolving style. One of them is clearly ID, one is less clear. The gaps in the fossil record speak far more clearly than does mere stylistic continuity. To me.
How would you falsify the notion of ID?
That's an easy one (I think). Just prove abiogenesis. Create life in a test tube. Make it reproduce. Would that do it?
Just trying to help you.
You have, thanks.
v.
What do those gaps tell you? That you still have a chance of finding something -- anything -- that might give evolution a problem? Does that disprove evolution? Why is it so easy for you to sweep aside the mountains of evidence supporting the theory?
[How would you falsify the notion of ID?] That's an easy one (I think). Just prove abiogenesis. Create life in a test tube. Make it reproduce. Would that do it?
No, probably not. Whenever the subject comes up, as it often does, the creationists claim that when we do something in the lab, that only "proves" that an intelligence is involved. There is no conceivable evidence that could disprove ID. If you can come up with something, I'd like to see it.
I agree, however, that producing life in a test tube would demonstrate that a miracle isn't required for the creation of life. But still, the creationists would claim that the lab experiment doesn't disprove divine intervention. (Or ID.)
In any event, once life exists, however it happens, evolution then begins.