[atlaw]

While it is trivially true that intelligent design cannot be falsified, I fail to see what that has to do with the question of what mechanism intervenes to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

[metmom]

While it is trivially true that intelligent design cannot be falsified,

Trivially true? Trivial?

Somehow I don't think that if some scientific theory (like the ToE for example) couldn't be falsified, that it would be considered a trivial matter to scientists or evos.

Matter of fact, the claim that the ToE hasn't been falsified is one of the main arguing points for it by evos.

Or is a theory not being falsified only trivial when it's a theory they don't like?

[Alamo-Girl]

While it is trivially true that intelligent design cannot be falsified, I fail to see what that has to do with the question of what mechanism intervenes to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

In the first place, it is not at all trivial that there is nothing in the [microbiologists'] laboratory experiments to falsify any other explanation for what the paleontologist observes in his digs.

The two disciplines are distinct from each another as betty boop and I have explained. For instance, in the lab, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In the field, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

When one applies the lab to the field he is making a presupposition that all variation observed in the field must have occurred the same way. It is a statement of faith, a "just so" story to those with alternative explanations.

Likewise, there is no way to falsify the explanation that the ability to mutate and/or adapt was part of the design whether the source was God or an alien race.

Also, I have seen no claim of a mechanism intervening to prevent macroevolution - I have only seen the observation (which you call 'trivially true') worded several different ways that the finding in the microbiologist's lab does not ipso facto explain the finding in the paleontologist's dig.