Slashdot Mirror

That's all too vague, and not what I asked for. I asked for predictions, of the future.

Okay, to be clear on what you want, "testability" in a scientific sense isn't sufficient? Because in no way is "predictions, of the future" an essential criterion of a scientific test.

For a "test", that will definitively fall out in a quantifiable sense when we are able to specify the specific set of mutations required for a particular biological feature, apply it across the population size that could have a pre-existing state of, or lack of, that feature, and specify the probability of this occurring as a question of what is ultimately chemistry, across the range of biological features that are proposably "Irreducibly Complex". Not by general conjecture as to how it might have formed, but by calculation of what happened and what could have happened with reasonable probability over the population and timeframe. That is, by hard, quantifiable brute-force calculation of the probability necessary changes on the level of chemistry.

As for epidemiology, as we are differentiating natural viruses from designed ones, the implications of an instance being one or the other would be tremendous. It's the difference between concluding the common cold is going around versus that we are probably being attacked by a biological weapon.

That's an assertion with absolutely no proof behind it. Please provide some. So far you haven't.

Although, of course, asking for "proof" in a scientific context is almost never appropriate, I feel confident this actually suffices as that for our purposes:

Fluorescent cats.

There are many, many such equivalent examples, but this one seems particularly... obvious. This biological feature is only explainable as design--because it was factually designed. If you want to modify your stance against design to say "design is not a reasonable explanation for the range of biological features we observe, other than recently, in which case it's plain fact instead", then please do so. Right now you have a universal dismissal of design, which cannot be rendered as a universal statement of biology that remains in any sense "science". That design isn't a factor -previously-, the possibility that remains open, I suppose yields to your psychic powers that no equivalent case of design to what you now have a picture of, before the 20'th century, will ever be identified. Additionally, if you mean you are unconcerned about the scientific question of design, and only care about rejecting theism as your motivation (such that "Intelligent Design" means "design by God", even though it doesn't), please stipulate that too.

That we can replicate is given -- if we didn't, then we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

Replicate--intelligence, technologically or by other means. Which we can't, and we are not "close". That claim's been around since the 40's, and in fact, we're still "20 years away", until another 20 years go by, when we'll again be "just 20 years away". I did not mean "reproduction" in a having-offspring sense.

I would find design a lot more believeable if humans were without misfeatures and vestigial organs. No things like wisdom teeth

Okay, well since you're bringing it up again, with respect to this and the appendix, current scientific consensus is these absolutely did had a purpose, on the basis of our earlier diet, chewing and digestion of it, with the fact dentists were not always available to replace the teeth before migration of the wisdom teeth in the jaw would handle it. Obviously, a "good design" would include functionality over the range of time it needed to be functional, and not only right-this-moment, so I'm not sure where you are going with this. I also don't see how it is a requirement that there are no health problems--that people would be designed to be physically immortal if they were designed a