[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.

[js1138]

[RussP]

"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."

You are missing the point, but evolutionists are masters of missing the point. The point is that I provided a prediction that, if false, would discredit ID theory. The claim was that such a prediction could not be made or has not been made. You're "moving the goalposts," as they say.

And isn't it convenient that evolutionists have a loophole because providing any actual direct evidence for evolution would "take too long."