On 20-4-2011 23:58, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/20/2011 14:09, andrel wrote:
>> On 20-4-2011 0:14, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2011 14:51, Alain wrote:
>>>> In the case of ID, you effectively need to find and test every single
>>>> protein, enzimes, peptides and aminoacids in existance and their
>>>> predecessors to find at least one that can't possibly happen naturaly.
>>>
>>> That has nothing to do with proving ID.
>>
>> It does unfortunately.
>
> No, really, it doesn't, even if you accept "ID" to mean "intelligent
> design".
>
> You've simply found something that evolution fails at.

indeed

> But nobody has
> proven that there is no mechanism other than ID and evolution.

indeed

>> So what they do is formulate something as a hypothesis that is testable.
>
> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve? Or
> that some intelligence actually created that protein?

That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection. 
Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as 
a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).

I know of no other way of disproving that, than by checking each and 
every protein (etc.). I you know another way how to defuse this bomb, 
feel free to share.

>> If you look closely at the statements of ID you will find that there
>> is no
>> reference to who or what that 'intelligent designer' is or even how many
>> there are.
>
> But there's a reference to intelligence and design. "This protein could
> not have evolved", even if found, does not imply "someone designed it."

But in all likelihood it would imply that it's presence would be easier 
explained by assuming it was designed. By someone, something, a 
committee, or a mad scientist.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message