[RussP]

I'm getting very tired of all the semantic quibbling and obfuscation around this issue.

Here's a prediction that, if proved false, would discredit ID theory: No scientist will ever reproduce Neo-Darwinian evolution from a single-celled organism to a vertibrate, nor will such macroevolution ever be directly observed in nature.

OK, there you have it. Now, you can quibble that scientists simply don't have enough time to wait for such macroevolution to happen, but that is a completely different issue than whether this is a prediction that, if falsified, would discredit ID theory. If a scientist ever reproduced such neo-Darwinian macroevolution, it would clearly discredit ID theory. And by the way, reproducibility is one of the cornerstones of a scientific theory, but that's another matter.

I used an example of macroevolution from single-celled organism to vertibrate, but you can choose many other examples, such as amphibian to mammal.

So are you guys going to finally wake up and quit making ridiculous claims about ID theory? Ya, that'll be the day!

[Right Wing Professor]

Here's a prediction that, if proved false, would discredit ID theory: No scientist will ever reproduce Neo-Darwinian evolution from a single-celled organism to a vertibrate, nor will such macroevolution ever be directly observed in nature.

Why not try some other fearless predictions, like science will never observe a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon erode, or science will never observe the formation of a major planet circling the sun?

If a scientist ever reproduced such neo-Darwinian macroevolution, it would clearly discredit ID theory.

You don't need macroevolution to discredit 'ID theory'. Suggest a feasible experiment to falsify ID. Don't move the goalposts.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Here's a prediction that, if proved false, would discredit ID theory: No scientist will ever reproduce Neo-Darwinian evolution from a single-celled organism to a vertibrate, nor will such macroevolution ever be directly observed in nature."

This is a ludicrous example. Nobody says that a single-celled organism is going to evolve into a vertebrate without countless intermediate steps. In nature it took over half a billion years. To demand that a scientist produce this, and to say that the failure to do so is somehow a validation of ID is astoundingly dishonest. The failure to produce a vertebrate from a single-celled organism is in NO way evidence for a designer.

And even if a scientist could produce this feat, how does that discredit ID? Two ways an ID'er could counter this *falsification*:

1) Since the organism evolved through the intervention of an intelligent designer (humans), this is an example of ID

2) The intelligent designer could have intervened in the lab to direct the evolution of this organism.

[antiRepublicrat]

Here's a prediction that, if proved false, would discredit ID theory: No scientist will ever reproduce Neo-Darwinian evolution from a single-celled organism to a vertibrate, nor will such macroevolution ever be directly observed in nature.

All of these proposed falsifications have one thing in common: they are attacks on evolution. A scientific theory cannot just be a series of jabs at an existing theory, it must be a theory in itself, with its own criteria for falsifiability. The only one I can think of is "The Creator comes down and tells us he's letting evolution run by itself." Even observed macro-evolution in the lab could be claimed to have been caused by a creator, so that one won't work.

The reason your criteria are as they are is that ID consists only of an attack on evolution, nothing more. Scientific attacks on accepted scientific theories are a good thing, as they help to weed out bad theories and alter good but flawed ones. However a set of attacks is not in itself a theory.

[MRMEAN]

I'm getting very tired of all the semantic quibbling and obfuscation around this issue.

Here's a prediction that, if proved false, would discredit ID theory: No scientist will ever reproduce Neo-Darwinian evolution from a single-celled organism to a vertibrate, nor will such macroevolution ever be directly observed in nature.

I'm getting tired of the semantic quibbling and obfuscation too! So here's my prediction, which if proved false, would discredit a purely natural Darwinian theory: No scientist will ever decode the "junk" DNA in the human genome and find that it is a letter for letter transcription of the King James version of the Holy Bible.

[b_sharp]

"Here's a prediction that, if proved false, would discredit ID theory: No scientist will ever reproduce Neo-Darwinian evolution from a single-celled organism to a vertibrate, nor will such macroevolution ever be directly observed in nature.

In other words, ID is unfalsifiable. If humans succeed in producing enough cumulative changes in an organism to enable us to consider the origin species and the final species to belong to different phyla, it shows that intelligent designers (humans) can produce 'macro-evolution'. If humans are unable to produce 'macro-evolution' in the lab then ID is again unfalsifiable because no matter how long humans work on the problem, a breakthrough which would result in 'macro-evolution' could be just around the corner.

"OK, there you have it. Now, you can quibble that scientists simply don't have enough time to wait for such macroevolution to happen, but that is a completely different issue than whether this is a prediction that, if falsified, would discredit ID theory. If a scientist ever reproduced such neo-Darwinian macroevolution, it would clearly discredit ID theory.

Actually that isn't the case. Evolution has been shown to produce highly complex organisms through allele variation and selection. ID is trying to usurp that evidence and use it against evolution. It does this by claiming only intellects can produce complexity. It can then insert itself into any situation where complexity (a term that has not been defined consistently by IDists) rears its ugly head. Even if humans were to use random variation and selection to produce what you ask, ID could claim that the human selection (intelligent design) was responsible for the result.

I have a question for the IDists here. At what point(s) does the intelligent designer interfere with an organism's genome? Did it occur just once, at the beginning of life, or did it occur over the roughly 43 million years of the putative Cambrian explosion? Is it possible that genomic interference happens each time a new class higher than species evolves?

If it happened just the one time, how do we determine which part of a genome is original and which part just 'evolved' since then? If we assume that the genome was created once with contingency built in (the entire genome is designed), we have to assume a designer that knows beforehand which environments the organisms will encounter, what geological upheavals, what extraterrestrial influences, what large scale extinctions are likely to occur and plan for those contingencies in the DNA sequences. This ability to predict and plan ahead pretty much limits the designer to being a God.

The same arguments hold for interference during the Cambrian Era, either we have no way of determining which part of the genome is designed and which part is the result of neo-Darwinian evolution or the designer needs to be able to move through time.

If the genomes are interfered with in an ongoing basis, then either the aliens make a lot of trips here, but never left any evidence of their visits, or the changes are done invisibly by a God.

If the only designer that is possible is God, then ID is not falsifiable, simply because God can do whatever he wants to affect the results of tests.

On top of all this is the necessity for the designer to design just like we do since the only intelligent design we have for comparison is human. If the designers are limited to design as we do by the constraints of the physical world, then these constraints would apply to nature as well, contributing to natural results appearing designed.

I haven't even touched on the influence nature has had on human designs, the possibility of designers emulating nature and the claim that only designers can create complexity (specified or not). "And by the way, reproducibility is one of the cornerstones of a scientific theory, but that's another matter.

Indeed, that is why evidence for evolution is examined by more than one scientist.

"I used an example of macroevolution from single-celled organism to vertibrate, but you can choose many other examples, such as amphibian to mammal.

Fine, the problem is still the same.

"So are you guys going to finally wake up and quit making ridiculous claims about ID theory? Ya, that'll be the day!

When are you creationists going to wake up and view the evidence that is right in front of you?