You're not as good as the other guys on this thread, Matthew, so I'll let you go and continue with the others. You seem more politically oriented. Racism is and was far more rampant in the Northern states - maybe you should review your history. Even to this day. And I am trying to get this to be oriented towards evidence.
And 'evolution has nothing to do with randomness?' I have no issue with randomness and see how it works in conjunction with NS.
The first point I made was not an attempt to prove ID to you - it was to answer your question that ID doesn't start with a creationist/Biblical/young earth viewpoint - and you asserted that it did and asked for evidence that it did not. I provided that.
Common non-coding DNA. Have you considered the possibility that it isn't actually just along for the ride?
Dr. Yuckay's opinion of ID is irrelevant. DE might be more plausible if it wasn't tied to the assertion that all of it happened here, on this planet, in that short an amount of time. It must be hard to back out of that though given the assertion of the development of species and the existance of fossils that reflect that alleged development.
You assert that DE has something that is axiomatic - I think that part of that axiom is also that it is a purely randomly driven because there is no evidence of any other kind of interference (alien biolab in orbit stuff). But there is also no evidence to suggest that the probably threshold could have been met for it to occur. It would be a far more plausible theory if it recognized that probability indicates that guidance of some kind must have occured - they could probably even point to when it occured (where they think the punctuated equalibrium occurs now maybe.)
And why aren't the chimps continuing to spit out a human every once in a while that we can observe when this coincidental fusion occurs? I didn't read the WHOLE thing in explicit detail because that's not how a discussion happens - someone else here tried to get me to watch a 90 minute video. I'm not going to send you on a scavenger hunt, either. I'm sure you can explain it to me here as you would if we were sitting at a table at IHOP.
Some of the others I've been discussing with seems to have a better view of the facts. I think you just make stuff up. To wit:
Sure he was. He was a biologist.
- Darwin was an observer of the world around him. Who isn't. Biologist? Maybe on the level of a 5th grader today. The point is, the 'scientist' label is not an intimidating one.
Where do you get this little bit of info from? If they thought that, they were most likely basing it on the Bible. - Comte du Buffon was a 'naturalist' (same as Darwin!) who estimated the age of the earth at 75k using a model showing estimates based on the earth cooling. John Phillips looked at the fossil record and strata and determined 100million. No Bible here.
And it is no coincidence that they were arguably the most religious too. In science, there is no such thing as "genetic superiority." Because that is a value judgment.
- What do you mean most religious? Was the Third Reich religious in advocating genetic superiority? Were blacks who sold each other into slavery in the first place religious? Or were both, essentially, triablists.
Nearly all scientists who disagree with evolution do so on religious grounds first, and evidence second. They only favor ID because it sounds so much like Creationism.
- Actually, ID is the only alternative to DE because DE is so flexible. It's randomness versus intent. So if you do not buy DE's arguments, you are kind of forced into ID. No scientists book I have read on ID (I have three) starts with a religious basis. It just starts by picking apart DE OR by making assertions about irreducible complexity. You are completely ignorant of ID.
You can show that *humans* intelligently design. But can you show new species coming into existence without human design? Nope. At best you can claim that humans created all the species in the world. Is that your theory? Because would certainly be interesting.
- In our lifetime, humans will be capable of that. They are already working on it now in other species. Why is it so far fetched? I think it's the DE advocates - who are all athiests - who have a religious stake in the outcome of the science.
They really _need_ the answer to be DE for a psychological reason. Everything about how they live their lives and the decisions they make are driven by the need for this to all be some random outcome.
"The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories", Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
True, this is the only one out there that was able to slip by that is not in a ID-favorable publication. It will take time for the science to spread. It's in for a tough fight and unfortunately a political one - but grant money is on the line.
2) I'm not capable of GENERATING actual probabilities myself but can cite a few that others have developed and are readily available to you - though I think you would only be interested in ones that are peer-reviewed themselves. Try Yockey's "Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology.
3) It also looks a lot like someone learning how to design lifeforms using common templates and revising them.
If you count the number of life forms on this planet and count Deep Blue etc. among them, you'll find that human intelligence is known to have created a minuscule fraction of a percent of overall complex life here.
Whell... extrapolate what has been created and it's complexity from maybe 100 years to 4.5 billion with all the geometric/exponential growth involved and tell me what Deep Blue / Golden Rice looks like then.
The next question to answer is why life on this planet appears to require intelligent agency but life from another planet that acts as an intelligent agent is an exception to this rule. Why suggest the rule at all?
That is a puzzle. For some the answer is an acceptance in a God-like figure. I don't have a good answer. All I am saying is that evidence here on this planet, math and probability, and metaphysics suggest design, not random mutations getting lucky over time.
I reviewed teh Robertsonian Translocation you link to. I'm not sure that it is much more of an argument for DE than the vast amount of common DNA between humans and chimps to begin with.
However, here's something else to consider. The fusion of chromosomes - let's presume that humans are a result of the fusion in a predecessor race's DNA template. How did that happen exactly? In a completely random way? How did speciation occur? Did a male and female chimp have to have it occur at exactly the same time in the same place so they could mate? Because the 46chromo and the 48chromo cannot reproduce together. Given that we know that - it seems to make a very good argument for ID - I can tell you I've seen it happen - in human run genetic engineering where chromosomes are fused all the time - in a petry dish.
-- You are not familiar with ID. The peer reviewed journal articles on it do not discuss dieties.
-- The entire concept letting a government mobocracy determine how to educate a child in a mass production, one-size-fits-all environment is hideous, unnatural, and so are all of the consequences of it, like lawyers deciding what gets taught in a class and what doesn't. Besides, you labeling someone a 'conservative Christian' presumes he is opposed to DE. Given rediculous odds involved in DE having occured, it seems only someone with a lot of faith could buy into it.
-- You brought up aliens. And fairies. I'm not sure why.
-- Doesn't 'man not being one of them' disprove it. Or is that still within the realm of investigation - like fairies? (And is there much else -all species seem to come into existence and then disappear with no 'successor' - can you point to something in the fossil record for me? And I'm pretty skeptical of fossil records minus DNA for analysis.)
-- Find you a function of the spleen? It's a great place to store extra blood that the body may need, particularly when you are working out. In horses you can relate spleen size to race success. People without one are more succeptable to septicaemia. Ok - now you tell me where the missing link is?
-- So can I call it 'Not So Intelligent But Getting There Designers'? Clearly they've shown progress - going from troglodites to humans, no? I imagine a lot of the early life could have been seeding (creating fossil fuels, etc) in anticipation of putting humans on the rock.
-- I do have positive evidence. I don't have to find a bio-lab orbiting the moon because there are many right here on earth. The AI lab at MIT, for example. Or corn with boosted protein yields. Or golden rice.
Neither was Darwin. But many who not too long ago advocated that the earths age was in the 1000s or 10s of 1000s of years old were scientists. As were those who advocated that one race was genetically superior to another. Or that smoking is healthy. AND there are actual scientists who disagree with DE and do have a favorable view of ID.
And you can't help but try to smear my argument with the 'young earth' people, can you?
At least with ID I can show that it has happened and continues to happen. Can you do that with DE?
BTW - I'm not an 'accredited' scientist, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to assert my understanding or continue to investigate. Your mindset is similar to what you attribute to hard core Biblical types: instead of 'God is too complex for you to understand and need not explain itself' your like is 'Science is too complex to understand and need not explain itself.'
- There are athiests who are both skeptics of DE and advocates of ID. Do you enjoy seeing your favorite causes or theories always being straw-manned by crackpots? If you are, say, a Republican, do want me to refer to you as belonging to 'the party of Mark Foley?'
- Don't care what some judge says. I don't suspend my judgement or my reason based on what some jackass in a black robe thinks and neither should you. Besides, under the robe is a lawyer.
- Aliens are not outside the realm of investigation.
- 'Still doing it today' - where? I can understand how a habital planet would be used for seeding or for experimentation. Or that humans did infact evolve over a much longer period of time somewhere else and then moved here.
- Speaking of the fossil record, it is incredibly incomplete, making DE a VERY tough sell.
- Unused organs can be evidence of a primitive designer or that they have functions that we are not aware of yet or that may have been used in utero. The bellybutton LOOKS vestigal on me - but was necessary in utero. Same for the spleen, it seems.
I didn't say that a complicated entity didn't come from something complicated. I'm talking about life on this earth, only.
Be it organic life or artificial life (Deep Blue), man has been 'creating' for much of the last century. Why is it so hard to consider that a lot of life on this planet may have originated in a similar way? Absence of PROOF has never stopped DE.
No, if you did find fossils of that you would simply adjust the theory of Evolution because you can't BUY that there was any other possibile explanation. Just like you said.
I predict there are fossils all over the place demonstating the gradual change from pre-human to human. Oh - that prediction failed? Hello punctuated equalibrium.
See - DE is not disprovable either.
I agree that ID isn't disprovable - but only because it is a fact that you can witness in labs around the world. You can predict and then observer one higher species creating another, be it a weather resistant tree or a chess playing computer.
Can you get someone to hold that in escrow? I don't trust you.
I can postulate a response, though. It's possible that the designer fused the DNA themselves. Speciation in mammals is a much harder sell than it is in bacteria due to the complexity of the organism. mutated humans are typically unable to reproduce - much less find a whole colony who suddenly have a mutation at the same time and then reproduce with each other over a thousand years. I don't see any fossil record of that just like you don't see a 'God' in the sky.
But I will see if anyone in the ID group has considered this - I am genuinely curious and am always willing to be proven wrong.
That's the thing about Evolution. There are so many predictions you can make about it (things you would expect to find) that you do not, yet the theory is 'adjusted', but it is never disregarded. Even in your example, IF there was no fused chomosome, you didn't say the theory was busted, you just said the theory 'had problems.'
A dinosaur having eaten a man - someone suggested that one - I'm sure you could have adjusted the theory again - some kind of rogue alligator species or something - you STILL would not give up on the theory of evolution because of political reasons. Again, timelines and associated assumptions would change, but advocates would still cling ot the theory.
I can't go back and forth with you all day about the intricate design decisions (or random evolutions) that resulted in humans. But there is optimization - NS. All observed mutations in humans are steps backwards - down syndrome, etc.
I'm not an MD, and some of your criticisms of body parts sound valid, but some of them are off and one I can speak to directly. I am a competitive runner/triathlete, I know many others who are, including many professional. Some have no issues at all (most don't), and many are imperfect to begin with. Most training issues come from training in ways contrary to the design of the body and only came into practice because of poorly designed sneakers and coaches following doctrinaire routines. Many who do have problems find releaf when they run more naturally, either running barefoot on grass/turf or in shoes that simulate that (Newtons, Nike Free).
No, actually, it's not that hard to calculate it just like it's not that hard to calculate millions of equations - simultaneously even.
For it to even be possible without some kind of outside aid would require many more years than this planet has existed. True, though, DE is mutations + NS but the dispute is about the mutations, not the NS.
Why are you AGAIN smearing this argument by bringing up the 'God' thing - it's a red herring. Can you please stop? I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Evolution is non-disprovable because the only alternative you see to it is a 'God' and you can't get around believing in that so you are stuck with DE. The DE community is constantly developing new fantastic theories to explain what has happened here on this earth in a 10 billion year lifespan (actually, a lot shorter than that due to habitability issues.)
And I can give you 'rational, positive evidence' to support ID. An advanced races has created a brand new imperfect, inferior one right here on earth. Look at Monsanto. There is your evidence of ID occuring.
I'd also add one other thing - if people really could design themselves better - apart from stupid cosmetic stuff - I think they would. When are you going to get your carbon femur put in?
I am unfamiliar with the fused chromosome example you've given. It's interesting and I will have to look further into it, and see if the leaders of the ID movement can account for it. It still doesn't explain the mechanism for speciation occuring.
I'd also add that, listening to DE advocates, it sounds like that doesn't meet the criteria for science either because it isn't disprovable, either. Unless ID is true. If one of the explanations is wrong, an even more creative explanation is attempted (punctuated equalibrium). If a fraud is discovered (drawings of fetuses of humans looking like fetuses of other creatures), another one is created (Pelt-down man).
Tell me how DE is 'disprovable' other than someone coming out of a space ship and saying 'I made you, here is how.'
Conversely, I can give you an example of DE occuring to match your fused chromosome theory. An advanced race (humans) created a new species (genetically engineered crops). There you go.
Why do you keep bringing God into this? Could we not - at the lowest level - have been designed by creatures that are as imperfect as we are?
With reference to your examples, other than nipples, you are _very wrong_ in your criticism of the design elements that are, in fact, brilliant. You are analyzing the body parts as a child would - "why aren't my teeth made of steel?" Let me evaluate them:
Teeth. They replace themselves, they are designed to reflect the needs of the creature that is eating them.
The Spine - Perfect lightweight design to give protection and structure.
Foot Arches - God Loves pedestrians, and runners even more - though probably not so much shoes and concrete.
Appendix is being discovered to contribute to the immune system and as part of the lymphatic system.
Sinuses are to humidify and heat.
Nipples on men... there may be a genetic capability within some to breast feed. I could postulate that these men with breasts were 'naturally selected' out of the gene pool so as not to compete with women who wanted to bond with their children. Like I said initially - I dunno about that.
A lot of defects you might otherwise point to general genetic defects that you would expect to happen through the messy process of cell division.
Besides, if you actually DO believe in Darwinian Evolution, you must also believe that the current design of the human came out of a fierce process of mutation and NS-driven optimization.
Dr. Steve Brill is wrong and that is a wrong standard for determining science.
This didactic line of argument itself suggests that a theory that may actually be true (and true theories aren't disprovable either) then it isn't science either.
Conversely, the theories that are most easily disprovable are most likely to turn to be false.
I recognize I am using 'disprovable' in a more literal sense than you mean. However, even more broadly, ID is disprovable if you can prove that another theory (like DE) actually occured.
No, actually, mutation is required. Re-shuffling the deck did not get from particles to people.
My first post clearified the difference. NS does not count as Darwinian Evolution. Besides, no one actually disagrees that NS occurs in nature - not even the Biblican Literalists.
Slashdot Mirror
But BF only works online and needs punkbuster.
Does Battlefield 2142 work with Windows XP 64 or Windows Vista 64?
thanks for sharing that.
And 'evolution has nothing to do with randomness?' I have no issue with randomness and see how it works in conjunction with NS.
Common non-coding DNA. Have you considered the possibility that it isn't actually just along for the ride?
Dr. Yuckay's opinion of ID is irrelevant. DE might be more plausible if it wasn't tied to the assertion that all of it happened here, on this planet, in that short an amount of time. It must be hard to back out of that though given the assertion of the development of species and the existance of fossils that reflect that alleged development.
You assert that DE has something that is axiomatic - I think that part of that axiom is also that it is a purely randomly driven because there is no evidence of any other kind of interference (alien biolab in orbit stuff). But there is also no evidence to suggest that the probably threshold could have been met for it to occur. It would be a far more plausible theory if it recognized that probability indicates that guidance of some kind must have occured - they could probably even point to when it occured (where they think the punctuated equalibrium occurs now maybe.)
And why aren't the chimps continuing to spit out a human every once in a while that we can observe when this coincidental fusion occurs? I didn't read the WHOLE thing in explicit detail because that's not how a discussion happens - someone else here tried to get me to watch a 90 minute video. I'm not going to send you on a scavenger hunt, either. I'm sure you can explain it to me here as you would if we were sitting at a table at IHOP.
Sure he was. He was a biologist.
- Darwin was an observer of the world around him. Who isn't. Biologist? Maybe on the level of a 5th grader today. The point is, the 'scientist' label is not an intimidating one.
Where do you get this little bit of info from? If they thought that, they were most likely basing it on the Bible. - Comte du Buffon was a 'naturalist' (same as Darwin!) who estimated the age of the earth at 75k using a model showing estimates based on the earth cooling. John Phillips looked at the fossil record and strata and determined 100million. No Bible here.
And it is no coincidence that they were arguably the most religious too. In science, there is no such thing as "genetic superiority." Because that is a value judgment.
- What do you mean most religious? Was the Third Reich religious in advocating genetic superiority? Were blacks who sold each other into slavery in the first place religious? Or were both, essentially, triablists.
Nearly all scientists who disagree with evolution do so on religious grounds first, and evidence second. They only favor ID because it sounds so much like Creationism.
- Actually, ID is the only alternative to DE because DE is so flexible. It's randomness versus intent. So if you do not buy DE's arguments, you are kind of forced into ID. No scientists book I have read on ID (I have three) starts with a religious basis. It just starts by picking apart DE OR by making assertions about irreducible complexity. You are completely ignorant of ID.
You can show that *humans* intelligently design. But can you show new species coming into existence without human design? Nope. At best you can claim that humans created all the species in the world. Is that your theory? Because would certainly be interesting.
- In our lifetime, humans will be capable of that. They are already working on it now in other species. Why is it so far fetched? I think it's the DE advocates - who are all athiests - who have a religious stake in the outcome of the science.
They really _need_ the answer to be DE for a psychological reason. Everything about how they live their lives and the decisions they make are driven by the need for this to all be some random outcome.
"The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories", Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
True, this is the only one out there that was able to slip by that is not in a ID-favorable publication. It will take time for the science to spread. It's in for a tough fight and unfortunately a political one - but grant money is on the line.
2) I'm not capable of GENERATING actual probabilities myself but can cite a few that others have developed and are readily available to you - though I think you would only be interested in ones that are peer-reviewed themselves. Try Yockey's "Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology.
3) It also looks a lot like someone learning how to design lifeforms using common templates and revising them.
Whell... extrapolate what has been created and it's complexity from maybe 100 years to 4.5 billion with all the geometric/exponential growth involved and tell me what Deep Blue / Golden Rice looks like then.
The next question to answer is why life on this planet appears to require intelligent agency but life from another planet that acts as an intelligent agent is an exception to this rule. Why suggest the rule at all?
That is a puzzle. For some the answer is an acceptance in a God-like figure. I don't have a good answer. All I am saying is that evidence here on this planet, math and probability, and metaphysics suggest design, not random mutations getting lucky over time.
I reviewed teh Robertsonian Translocation you link to. I'm not sure that it is much more of an argument for DE than the vast amount of common DNA between humans and chimps to begin with.
However, here's something else to consider. The fusion of chromosomes - let's presume that humans are a result of the fusion in a predecessor race's DNA template. How did that happen exactly? In a completely random way? How did speciation occur? Did a male and female chimp have to have it occur at exactly the same time in the same place so they could mate? Because the 46chromo and the 48chromo cannot reproduce together. Given that we know that - it seems to make a very good argument for ID - I can tell you I've seen it happen - in human run genetic engineering where chromosomes are fused all the time - in a petry dish.
-- The entire concept letting a government mobocracy determine how to educate a child in a mass production, one-size-fits-all environment is hideous, unnatural, and so are all of the consequences of it, like lawyers deciding what gets taught in a class and what doesn't. Besides, you labeling someone a 'conservative Christian' presumes he is opposed to DE. Given rediculous odds involved in DE having occured, it seems only someone with a lot of faith could buy into it.
-- You brought up aliens. And fairies. I'm not sure why.
-- Doesn't 'man not being one of them' disprove it. Or is that still within the realm of investigation - like fairies? (And is there much else -all species seem to come into existence and then disappear with no 'successor' - can you point to something in the fossil record for me? And I'm pretty skeptical of fossil records minus DNA for analysis.)
-- Find you a function of the spleen? It's a great place to store extra blood that the body may need, particularly when you are working out. In horses you can relate spleen size to race success. People without one are more succeptable to septicaemia. Ok - now you tell me where the missing link is?
-- So can I call it 'Not So Intelligent But Getting There Designers'? Clearly they've shown progress - going from troglodites to humans, no? I imagine a lot of the early life could have been seeding (creating fossil fuels, etc) in anticipation of putting humans on the rock.
-- I do have positive evidence. I don't have to find a bio-lab orbiting the moon because there are many right here on earth. The AI lab at MIT, for example. Or corn with boosted protein yields. Or golden rice.
Neither was Darwin. But many who not too long ago advocated that the earths age was in the 1000s or 10s of 1000s of years old were scientists. As were those who advocated that one race was genetically superior to another. Or that smoking is healthy. AND there are actual scientists who disagree with DE and do have a favorable view of ID.
And you can't help but try to smear my argument with the 'young earth' people, can you?
At least with ID I can show that it has happened and continues to happen. Can you do that with DE?
BTW - I'm not an 'accredited' scientist, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to assert my understanding or continue to investigate. Your mindset is similar to what you attribute to hard core Biblical types: instead of 'God is too complex for you to understand and need not explain itself' your like is 'Science is too complex to understand and need not explain itself.'
- There are athiests who are both skeptics of DE and advocates of ID. Do you enjoy seeing your favorite causes or theories always being straw-manned by crackpots? If you are, say, a Republican, do want me to refer to you as belonging to 'the party of Mark Foley?'
- Don't care what some judge says. I don't suspend my judgement or my reason based on what some jackass in a black robe thinks and neither should you. Besides, under the robe is a lawyer.
- Aliens are not outside the realm of investigation.
- 'Still doing it today' - where? I can understand how a habital planet would be used for seeding or for experimentation. Or that humans did infact evolve over a much longer period of time somewhere else and then moved here.
- Speaking of the fossil record, it is incredibly incomplete, making DE a VERY tough sell.
- Unused organs can be evidence of a primitive designer or that they have functions that we are not aware of yet or that may have been used in utero. The bellybutton LOOKS vestigal on me - but was necessary in utero. Same for the spleen, it seems.
Be it organic life or artificial life (Deep Blue), man has been 'creating' for much of the last century. Why is it so hard to consider that a lot of life on this planet may have originated in a similar way? Absence of PROOF has never stopped DE.
I predict there are fossils all over the place demonstating the gradual change from pre-human to human. Oh - that prediction failed? Hello punctuated equalibrium.
See - DE is not disprovable either.
I agree that ID isn't disprovable - but only because it is a fact that you can witness in labs around the world. You can predict and then observer one higher species creating another, be it a weather resistant tree or a chess playing computer.
I can postulate a response, though. It's possible that the designer fused the DNA themselves. Speciation in mammals is a much harder sell than it is in bacteria due to the complexity of the organism. mutated humans are typically unable to reproduce - much less find a whole colony who suddenly have a mutation at the same time and then reproduce with each other over a thousand years. I don't see any fossil record of that just like you don't see a 'God' in the sky.
But I will see if anyone in the ID group has considered this - I am genuinely curious and am always willing to be proven wrong.
A dinosaur having eaten a man - someone suggested that one - I'm sure you could have adjusted the theory again - some kind of rogue alligator species or something - you STILL would not give up on the theory of evolution because of political reasons. Again, timelines and associated assumptions would change, but advocates would still cling ot the theory.
I'm not an MD, and some of your criticisms of body parts sound valid, but some of them are off and one I can speak to directly. I am a competitive runner/triathlete, I know many others who are, including many professional. Some have no issues at all (most don't), and many are imperfect to begin with. Most training issues come from training in ways contrary to the design of the body and only came into practice because of poorly designed sneakers and coaches following doctrinaire routines. Many who do have problems find releaf when they run more naturally, either running barefoot on grass/turf or in shoes that simulate that (Newtons, Nike Free).
For it to even be possible without some kind of outside aid would require many more years than this planet has existed. True, though, DE is mutations + NS but the dispute is about the mutations, not the NS.
Why are you AGAIN smearing this argument by bringing up the 'God' thing - it's a red herring. Can you please stop? I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Evolution is non-disprovable because the only alternative you see to it is a 'God' and you can't get around believing in that so you are stuck with DE. The DE community is constantly developing new fantastic theories to explain what has happened here on this earth in a 10 billion year lifespan (actually, a lot shorter than that due to habitability issues.)
And I can give you 'rational, positive evidence' to support ID. An advanced races has created a brand new imperfect, inferior one right here on earth. Look at Monsanto. There is your evidence of ID occuring.
-DE is also not disprovable.
-I gave an observable, predictable example of ID occuring and an extremely likely prediction of it continuing to occur.
I'd also add one other thing - if people really could design themselves better - apart from stupid cosmetic stuff - I think they would. When are you going to get your carbon femur put in?
I'd also add that, listening to DE advocates, it sounds like that doesn't meet the criteria for science either because it isn't disprovable, either. Unless ID is true. If one of the explanations is wrong, an even more creative explanation is attempted (punctuated equalibrium). If a fraud is discovered (drawings of fetuses of humans looking like fetuses of other creatures), another one is created (Pelt-down man).
Tell me how DE is 'disprovable' other than someone coming out of a space ship and saying 'I made you, here is how.'
Conversely, I can give you an example of DE occuring to match your fused chromosome theory. An advanced race (humans) created a new species (genetically engineered crops). There you go.
With reference to your examples, other than nipples, you are _very wrong_ in your criticism of the design elements that are, in fact, brilliant. You are analyzing the body parts as a child would - "why aren't my teeth made of steel?" Let me evaluate them:
Teeth. They replace themselves, they are designed to reflect the needs of the creature that is eating them.
The Spine - Perfect lightweight design to give protection and structure.
Foot Arches - God Loves pedestrians, and runners even more - though probably not so much shoes and concrete.
Appendix is being discovered to contribute to the immune system and as part of the lymphatic system.
Sinuses are to humidify and heat.
Nipples on men... there may be a genetic capability within some to breast feed. I could postulate that these men with breasts were 'naturally selected' out of the gene pool so as not to compete with women who wanted to bond with their children. Like I said initially - I dunno about that.
A lot of defects you might otherwise point to general genetic defects that you would expect to happen through the messy process of cell division.
Besides, if you actually DO believe in Darwinian Evolution, you must also believe that the current design of the human came out of a fierce process of mutation and NS-driven optimization.
This didactic line of argument itself suggests that a theory that may actually be true (and true theories aren't disprovable either) then it isn't science either.
Conversely, the theories that are most easily disprovable are most likely to turn to be false.
I recognize I am using 'disprovable' in a more literal sense than you mean. However, even more broadly, ID is disprovable if you can prove that another theory (like DE) actually occured.
My first post clearified the difference. NS does not count as Darwinian Evolution. Besides, no one actually disagrees that NS occurs in nature - not even the Biblican Literalists.