Replies

evolution requires fossil evidence and DNA evidence to conform to what is possible with a strict common geneology, a single family tree.

The fossil evidence shows most life started at roughly the same time, and that it hasn't changed since. There is no tree--more like a field of grass. Evolution fails its own tests.

ID has no constraints and no predictions. It is an empty hypothesis.

See: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

OK, here's your tests:

1) High information content machinelike irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be reused in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Test number one has failed. All the proposed irreducible structures have existing examples of functional subcomponents or simpler versions. The flagellum, blood clotting, eyes, etc.

Test number two fails. The so-called sudden appearance of new forms is a gross exaggeration. It never applied to groups higher than the species level, the "suddenness" refers to really short geological periods of millions of years, and new finds continually fill in the magic gaps. Does ID predict the continual filling in of gaps?

Test three fails. If you think it doesn't give me a specific example of two unrelated species sharing the same genes.

Test four is a big loser no matter which way it goes. If junk DNA turns out to be functional, then it's being selected. If it's not functional it makes no sense from a design standpoint. The science on this is unfinished.

Feel free to challenge my assessment, but give some thought first to the Discovery Instituter's motive for staying out of the current trial. They said they didn't have the science yet. You should give some thought to that.