In a prior post I took Dr. Liddle (sorry for the misspelled name) to task for this statement:
“Darwinian hypotheses make testable predictions and ID hypotheses (so far) don’t.”
I responded that this was not true and noted that:
For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.
Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed
Sorry Barry that that example simply does not work.
Darwinian theory would only predict unused sequences of DNA were it to be the case that unused sequences had no metabolic or other cost . . .
And I will be first in line to cite Darwinian hypotheses that have been falsified. But not the “junk DNA” hypothesis.
Nor will I accept that “no junk DNA” was a positive prediction of ID. It is neither positive, nor is it a prediction.
Dr. Liddle, have you no shame? All I can say is your revisionist history is stunning in its scope and audacity.
Whole books were written by ID proponents about the Darwinist myth of junk DNA. See here.
The ID position has now been largely vindicated and the Darwinist position debunked.
You know that. Therefore, I simply cannot imagine that you assert to the contrary in good faith. If I did not know better, charity would demand that I ascribe your statements to near invincible ignorance. Sadly, that option is not open to me. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are willfully and mendaciously misrepresenting the record.
You made a false statement in the prior post. I posted a second post calling you out. Instead of conceding or retracting you doubled down. Will you double down again or will you retract?