Joined: Jan. 2007
In response to this:
|What evidence could possibly show that something is not a process of “front loading” but is in fact a random mutation? Answer: nothing.|
|If you are willing to say that rm+ns is pseudo-science which can never be shown to be true, even in principle, then I guess you’re right that nothing can falsify design. |
Now, of all things to say this strikes me as absolutely hair-brained. Phevans has no where stated that the creative power of random mutations and natural selection are pseudo-science. We can determine the statistical likelihood of any particular genetic modification (we find that they are random) and we find that they occasionally aid in the survival of creatures and are then selected for. It is ID proponents who wish to argue that the mutations we observe are non-random. This is their hypothesis and will require evidence for us to believe - namely we will need enough information to reject the (well-established) null-hypothesis.
|ID has nothing to prove. We aleady know that intelligent agency can alter the course of evolution through purposeful changes to genomic information i.e. genetic engineering.|
The question for ID has never been whether or not people can modify genetic information, the question has always been if RM+NS are sufficient (along with other evolutionary mechanisms) to generate information and complexity in the genome - they are. And when this evidence is presented, it is the ID proponents who must fall back on "front-loading" - an untestable and content-less hypothesis (re: anything that works was front loaded, anything that doesn't was evidence the RM+NS never add information to the genome).
We might also notice that KairosFocus now admits that RM+NS can increase the information content of genomes. Does the rest of the ID crowd admit the same?