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

> 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?

> 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."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message