(May 22, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Alot, even though it;s proponents try to avoid doing so. It predicted that we would not find intermediate steps were we do, and contends that some observed things x would be impossible, and that unrelated organisms would have identical code and function from that code. That was always the problem...even though they didn;t want to -do- science, they wanted to give their absurd beliefs the patina of science, and so accidentally screwed the pooch.
I won;t link their silly website, but if you look it up..you'll find that they still have their falsified predictions up for all the world to see. They know their target market won;t look elsewhere.
Are those unique predictions even if they had not been falsified?
A theory of evolution that postulate speciation to be rapid, but species then remain stable for a long time, would also predict intermediate forms would be rare and hard to find. Different organisms having largely similar genetic code follows naturally from evolution of all flavors. Irreducible complexity can not prove irreducibility and depends on lack of sufficient imagination to conceive of plausible reduction.
There must be some prize for coming up with a “theory” that is not even wrong, and yet can still be proven wrong so trivially and repeatedly.
