Behe has suggested that the flagellum would be a great test. Given advances in nanotechnology and microbiology, one can at least plot out a path to constructing them, probably within the next 20-50 years. The ID hypothesis could be falsified if one were to construct a test whereby we could observe flagella developing through a process of evolution. Behe's claim that ID is "necessary" for the development of flagella would be invalidated.
Which of course raises a corollary question: the current hypothesis is that flagella evolved. Has anybody ever tested it?
ID'ers believe that the designer is the God of the bible, in which case everything in the universe is designed in which case your design filter, if correctly designed should show that.
Nope. You've overstepped your assumptions here. It's true that many religious people are at least open to the possibility that God did it all (and many even demand it). From a strictly scientific perspective, however, it is not necessary to invoke God in order to make an ID claim (bioengineering is an example of this). Nor is it necessary to assume that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive processes.
Your assumption about sudden change in the fossil record is false. The changes described by creationists as "sudden" take tens of millions of years.
It's not "my assumption." Leaving aside the merits of the theory itself, the folks who thought up "punctuated equilibrium" were responding to a perceived problem with the ToE, as it shows up in the fossil record; namely, how to account for a fossil record that showed long periods of stasis, followed by relatively sudden sharp changes. They were concerned about this -- it didn't match the "slow and gradual" hypothesis that even now pervades the popular view of Evolution.
and my response was that a DNA retrovirus in both gorillas and humans but not chimps would neatly falsify ToE.
It wouldn't "falsify" the ToE, for which there is other supporting evidence. It would do no more than to disrupt the currently held belief about how humans and apes evolved, and would be announced in headline fashion along the lines of "Scientists forced to rethink human ancestry." It might also suggest that there was a mechanism other than evolution involved in that particular characteristic -- but the question in that case would be: what other mechanisms would you allow to be hypothesized?
Behe has suggested that the flagellum would be a great test. Given advances in nanotechnology and microbiology, one can at least plot out a path to constructing them, probably within the next 20-50 years. The ID hypothesis could be falsified if one were to construct a test whereby we could observe flagella developing through a process of evolution. Behe's claim that ID is "necessary" for the development of flagella would be invalidated.
This would merely show a flaw in Behe's anti-evolution argument (as if that hasn't *already* been done by pointing out his multiple fallacies). It would in no way falsify ID. Try again.
IDers keep making the mistake of thinking that evidence *against* evolution is somehow evidence *for* ID, when it is not. Conversely, the falsification of an anti-evolution argument is not falsification of ID either.
Which of course raises a corollary question: the current hypothesis is that flagella evolved. Has anybody ever tested it?
Yes, in part, by identifying precursor systems which evolution could have adapted in "constructing" the flagellum, and by identifying simpler "proto flagella" that still function as motile systems. I believe some work is being done on comparative sequence analysis of the genes responsible for flagella as well.
ID states that the powers and motivation of the designer are utterly inscrutable. How would you discount the proposition that if biologists "evolved" a flagellum in a petri dish that it hadn't appeared because the Designer reached into the petri dish and Designed it? That is the problem that the IDists would have us introduce into science. If you want to start limiting whether or not it is reasonable to propose that argument then you are going to have to place limits on the Designer's powers, motivation, or both.
Which of course raises a corollary question: the current hypothesis is that flagella evolved. Has anybody ever tested it?
Plausible pathways have been found. Those pathways could be disproved by someone showing that it couldn't have occurred that way. But I don't think that it is up to those who support the standard theory of evolution to demonstrate that every single organism must have evolved. Evolution as a whole is subject to numerous falsification tests, and has survived them thus far.
Nope. You've overstepped your assumptions here. It's true that many religious people are at least open to the possibility that God did it all (and many even demand it). From a strictly scientific perspective, however, it is not necessary to invoke God in order to make an ID claim (bioengineering is an example of this). Nor is it necessary to assume that ID and Evolution are mutually exclusive processes.
You still haven't explained how you could tell that a design filter was still working once you moved it away from objects known to have been designed by human beings. What would you check its results against?
It's not "my assumption." Leaving aside the merits of the theory itself, the folks who thought up "punctuated equilibrium" were responding to a perceived problem with the ToE, as it shows up in the fossil record; namely, how to account for a fossil record that showed long periods of stasis, followed by relatively sudden sharp changes. They were concerned about this -- it didn't match the "slow and gradual" hypothesis that even now pervades the popular view of Evolution.
The key word in your last sentence is "relatively". No-one has ever proposed that evolution proceeds at an absolutely constant pace. Clearly changes in environment will force a change in the pace of evolution. PE would not be a big deal unless creationist constantly shrieked about it.
It wouldn't "falsify" the ToE, for which there is other supporting evidence. It would do no more than to disrupt the currently held belief about how humans and apes evolved, and would be announced in headline fashion along the lines of "Scientists forced to rethink human ancestry." It might also suggest that there was a mechanism other than evolution involved in that particular characteristic -- but the question in that case would be: what other mechanisms would you allow to be hypothesized?
OK, maybe that one observation on its own wouldn't instantly falsify evolution, though I contend you underestimate the extent to which it would require revision. The current beliefs about hominid descent weren't pulled from a hat. There is massive evidence supporting them and the disruption caused by the discovery that we are more closely related to gorillas than chimps would be very destructive. But beyond my original facile remark, clearly if any significant number of molecular markers clashed in unanticipated ways with the currently understood common descent the damage to ToE would be terminal. Some creationists even predicted that this would happen before the molecular evidence came in and vindicated ToE.