But I wonder – which flagellum did you have in mind (there is more than one kind, you know)?

As for evidence for evolution, I’ve always been fond of molecular phylogenetics. I know that some in the ID camp are giddy to toss out ‘anomalies’ and accusations of investigator bias as ‘proof’ that the methods are unreliable, but in my experience, such accusations are wildly embellished (I recently read that Wells chickened out of a challenge to test his claim re: investigator bias) and according to Kuhn, a few anomalies are never sufficient to overturn a theory.

Other than exasperated claims that ‘evolution can’t explain THIS!’, I do wonder what sort of ‘empirical evidence’ you will marshall…

I will say that I do not often post here or even read this site often, so do not interpret a lack of prompt reply as my running off.

“As far as falsifying ID,,, simple evolve a flagellum!”

Without assuming some restrictions on the nature of the intelligent designer, this is not a falsifiable test. Interference from an omnipotent, immaterial entity would be undetectable and hence could not be excluded as an explanation for any observation.

Please try again — I’d love to see a falsifiable, testable prediction based on ID.

As far as falsifying ID,,, simple evolve a flagellum!

Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

Bacterial Flagella – A Paradigm for Design – Scott Minnich – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N949Ysm0KTY

You seem quite self-assured that evolution has solid evidence that can withstand scrutiny,

My only comment here was on Gil’s extrapolation of his supposed credentials into an area wherein he has none.

and as such I invite you to present your strongest piece of evidence to see if it can truly bear against the empirical evidence we can overwhelmingly present against it.

I’ve never seen any empirical evidence presented that supports creationism or ID. I have seen the usual supposed ‘problems’ for evolution and the requisite claims of victory thereafter, but never any actual positive empirical support. Perhaps you are the first person to be able to do this?

If it stands I promise you I will become a atheist troll on UD and disparage the stellar credentials of Gil as you have done. Deal?

Ah, so I am an athest troll because I fail to see how Gil, whom you apparently see as a hero of some sort, whose ‘credentials’ are in computer model making, give him some sort of uber-authority on all things biology-related.

I doubt that I or anyone could prresent anything that could ever change your mind, so please stop being disingenuous.

*****
I would certainly welcome such a challenge, because all of my computer sims have been verified through empirical testing (FEA in the shop, AI in international competition, and GN&C through empirical testing at Yuma Proving Ground, where our systems hit the target after having been released from C-130s at 17,000 feet MSL.)

And so you, having sufficient experience and knowledge and producing these amazing computer models, would then be able to tell is an amateur with no real experience in making such things were just spouting off. You would be able to tell whether or not the person knew their stuff. I agree.

I am thoroughly familiar with “biological” evolutionary computational algorithms, and they are all a Himalayan pile of BS concerning their relevance to the real world of biology.

You may be familiar with the algorithms, but are you sufficiently familair with the biology? See, that is sort of my point.

They are transparently designed and rigged from the outset to produce results that comport with a conclusion that was reached in advance.

I see. So why not just look at actual evidence and see how it fits with the results? I, for example, would love to see “Mendel’s Accountant” run a sim with a starting population of 4 breeding pairs. But it is my understanding that it cannot handle a population of less than 1000. Interesting rigging.

They have nothing to do with biological reality, and cannot be tested as to their validity, as my computer sims can, and have been.

Such as?

The bottom line is the following: Anyone who claims that computer simulations have any relevance to biological evolution is not just peddling bullshit, he’s giving snake-oil salesmen a good name.

Got it.

GN&C through empirical testing at Yuma Proving Ground, where our systems hit the target after having been released from C-130s at 17,000 feet MSL

Do you mean the computer was broken after that?

I would certainly welcome such a challenge, because all of my computer sims have been verified through empirical testing (FEA in the shop, AI in international competition, and GN&C through empirical testing at Yuma Proving Ground, where our systems hit the target after having been released from C-130s at 17,000 feet MSL.)

I am thoroughly familiar with “biological” evolutionary computational algorithms, and they are all a Himalayan pile of BS concerning their relevance to the real world of biology. They are transparently designed and rigged from the outset to produce results that comport with a conclusion that was reached in advance.

They have nothing to do with biological reality, and cannot be tested as to their validity, as my computer sims can, and have been.

The bottom line is the following: Anyone who claims that computer simulations have any relevance to biological evolution is not just peddling bullshit, he’s giving snake-oil salesmen a good name.

Your objection might be valid if we were all instilled with Mozart’s genius. But that hasn’t turned out to be the case, has it?

Further, writing computer code/models is no more the job of a ‘scientist’ than is being an electronics technician is despite earning a degree called a ‘bachelor of science in electronics engineering’.

Instead of trying to argue via extrapolated and/or embellished credentials, wouldn’t it be nice if anti-naturalists could rely on the strenght of their arguments? Unless, of course, THAT is the problem?