Bert: The designer is the rationally functioning biological system itself, whose purpose is to maintain and maximize function.

Surely your designer then is immediately falsified by bacterial pathogens. Bacterial pathogens not only lose the majority of their genomes, their functional genes become completely useless. Take leprosy for example, of all of the organisms genes the vast majority have been turned into useless pseudogenes and the remainder have been deleted (compared to Mycobacteria tuberculosis). Comparatively, it's lost functions and its genome is in massive decay. Hence, your designer is falsified surely as the experimental evidence from bacterial genomic studies establish that bacterial genes are neither maintained in all situations and their functional potential is diminished.

Bert: The system employs all the epigenetic mechanisms by which individual systems heal wounds and achieve limited adaptation to the environment during growth and development . I haven't ruled out any mechanisms "”except accidental, undirected DNA copying errors somehow organized into intelligently functioning systems by "natural selection".

But I asked for experimental verification of this. How did you disprove, using experiments, that mutations are not accidental? Did you establish this using a modified ames mutational test that I am not aware of? As I established above, your 'designer' doesn't fit with the established evidence from bacterial pathogens which randomly accumulate mutations in their genes (reducing function) and then deleting them out. The only thing that appears important in the life of a pathogen is the aquisition of pathogenicity factors such as type three secretion systems, fimbriae and other virulence characteristics.

I ruled this out the same way I rule out all obvious mythologies.

You have failed to rule this out experimentally.

That is what matters in science.

If materialists have another mechanistic, deterministic explanation, other than RM&NS, I'd be eager to hear it. In the meantime I accept as the designer the apparent organizing intelligence innate to the system itself.

As I established above, said 'organising' intelligence hasn't been established experimentally, and your description of it is falsified by bacterial pathogens and how they evolve. Again, I asked how did you experimentally verify this.

Bert: Yes. Many of the mechanisms by which individual organisms change and adapt during growth and development are known to science and others await discovery. The mechanisms by which systems upgrade their genome to make epigenetic systems permanent also await discovery. (Lamarckian)

But lamarckianism doesn't work with the established evidence. Do you have any experimental verification that any of these mechanisms actually occur? Again, who at a lab bench determined these mechanisms and how were they at a lab bench experimentally verified? Again, the ames test shows that mutations occur randomly and in many different manners. For example, a lethal mutation can be reverted by a wide variety of mechanisms none of which seem to follow any particular 'design' logic. Just whatever works best and the simpler the mutation (single nucleotide polymorphisms are common revertants for example) the more likely it is to be the revertant- exactly as would be predicted by random mutations selected for under natural selection. How does this fit with what you are claiming?

1) What specifically is the designer and how did you SPECIFICALLY come to identify it and the experimental approach used?

Bert: The designer is the rationally functioning biological system itself, whose purpose is to maintain and maximize function.

Aegeri

2) What methodology did the designer use to create living things, how did you detect it experimentally and how did you rule out other mechanisms?

Bert: The system employs all the epigenetic mechanisms by which individual systems heal wounds and achieve limited adaptation to the environment during growth and development . I haven't ruled out any mechanisms — except accidental, undirected DNA copying errors somehow organized into intelligently functioning systems by "natural selection". I ruled this out the same way I rule out all obvious mythologies. If materialists have another mechanistic, deterministic explanation, other than RM&NS, I'd be eager to hear it. In the meantime I accept as the designer the apparent organizing intelligence innate to the system itself.

Aegeri

3) Is the method employed above in 2 still going on today and how did you experimentally derive this?

Bert: Yes. Many of the mechanisms by which individual organisms change and adapt during growth and development are known to science and others await discovery. The mechanisms by which systems upgrade their genome to make epigenetic systems permanent also await discovery. (Lamarckian)

Simply asserting that life is designed is meaningless scientifically (as I pointed out earlier). It doesn't actually do anything to advance our understanding and it would appear that if life was designed, it certainly still isn't being designed or it was over a very long time ago anyway. This is the importance of the question "how do you tell if the process of design is still going on today". If you simply call evolutionary forces 'design' then there really isn't any point anyway, because that is theistic evolution (which as I've said earlier I already ascribe to).

Again, if 'design' as a scientific theory/hypothesis is to be useful it must naturally make predictions. It must then naturally have experiments that test these predictions.

I can only assume the resounding silence I get from nearly any ID advocate when for experimental proof of their position is because this experimental evidence simply doesn't exist. That does, in a nutshell, kill ID as science.

Oh well. You have a lot of rhetoric but no assertions/evidence of your own. You demand a lot of IDists but none of yourself. A true interlocutor is willing to accept some level of burden. You accept none. I'm through wasting my time with you. You show no sincerity to support your own position.

Ok, let's assume that my experiment evidence is analogical evidence based on observation, which is what all scientific evidence is anyway. What is yours? Do you have any?

I see you're confused.

Let me ask again:

1) What specifically is the designer and how did you SPECIFICALLY come to identify it and the experimental approach used?

2) What methodology did the designer use to create living things, how did you detect it experimentally and how did you rule out other mechanisms?

3) Is the method employed above in 2 still going on today and how did you experimentally derive this?

I'm getting a bit tired of playing round and round the mulberry bush. I'm not falling for goalpost shifting so please DO present the evidence you have. I'm not INTERESTED in what I believe, I'm interested in assessing this 'scientific' evidence from you or other ID theorists that establishes it as science. Believe it or not, science works by experimentation and actually proposing and testing hypotheses. Where are they?

Why are you uncategorically REFUSING to answer such simple questions? You're the one claiming that there is scientific evidence here, that is something slightly more than belief (which is all I see you have at the moment, as you dodge the question continually).

experiment evidence is analogical evidence based on observation, which is what all scientific evidence

Wrong.

Observe->Propose Hypothesis->Falsify hypothesis->Publish results.

Second step.

Independent group repeats experiment->Observes result->Agrees with your hypothesis or rejects it with a new hypothesis->Attemp to falsify new hypothesis or the old one->Publish results.

Ad infinitum.

Science is seperate from witchcraft, crankery, pseudoscience and other idiocy because hypothesis can be tested and repeated independantly by other groups. Your observations are irrelevant unless they can be repeated, tested or verified in some way. Every one of my questions naturally asks "how did you falsify" the hypothesis of a designer at each step. How did you falsify what your designer is? How did you even tell what the designer was to begin with and how did you falsify (experimentally) that? How did you determine what the mechanism used was and how did you falsify it?

Every time I challenged you for an experiment, stuff done at lab benches which ID advocates seem massively allergic to actually doing I might add, you just badgered me for what evidence I have. But that is irrelevant and I could care less what I believe, because I'm not interested in beliefs. I'm interested how you're turning YOUR belief into science and what experiments YOU have to back that up. When you use the word science I can immediately assume you've got experiments to back that up (you are aware right, as I mentioned earlier, science is done at a LAB BENCH and not in books and debates right?). So answer the questions as YOU claim ID has science to support it. YOU back up your claim.

Shift the goalposts again, which you probably will I imagine because let's face it, I know for a fact you haven't got any experimental backing because all the ID advocates you cited earlier don't do any actual research. Heck, I'd be surprised if the discovery institute even has a functional microscope. In any event you'll capitulate shortly by trying to again, shift the burden of proof somewhere it is irrelevant, so long as it isn't on what YOU'RE claiming.

At the moment, it's looking like you were lying when you said there was 'science' in ID. That means testable hypotheses and predictions to me.

Unless you think science is witchcraft where anything goes?

Actually I can assume you have none and your ringing silence and shifting of goalposts is a brilliant indication you have nothing.

Ok, let's assume that my experiment evidence is analogical evidence based on observation, which is what all scientific evidence is anyway. What is yours? Do you have any? Or are you just stonewalling?

Well you were the one demanding experimental verification. I take it from your silence that you have no such verification of your position. I would think that one who demands such would accept parity. Apparently I was wrong. I will offer my evidence when you offer yours.

Actually I can assume you have none and your ringing silence and shifting of goalposts is a brilliant indication you have nothing.

Of course, the irony is that now you are attempting to salvage your sinking ship by maintaing that because I didn't answer your non-answer (let's face it, I asked you first and you failed miserably to even address any issue I raised) is just indicative of how much 'evidence' (IE none) that you have. Again, I don't have to answer your question when you didn't bother showing me any respect by answering mine in the first place.

Of course, creationists and pseudoscientific cranks who don't have evidence constantly engage in your tactics. They never answer questions, merely answer with a question of their own.

Very telling.

Nice dodging! Bravo, bravo indeed!

Well you were the one demanding experimental verification. I take it from your silence that you have no such verification of your position. I would think that one who demands such would accept parity. Apparently I was wrong. I will offer my evidence when you offer yours.

Since you seem keen on experiment support for a position how about you first provide the experimental evidence that supports your position.

Nice dodging! Bravo, bravo indeed!

So I take it you haven't a single thing whatsoever to support anything you say?

Disappointing. You sounded so confident too.

If my assumption is correct that your position is that evolution is non-intentional, then provide the experimental evidence that supports that.

So you've dodged my questions and asked questions of your own I see. But you've ultimately given me a non-answer and tried to shift the burden of proof I see. You are the one however making the extraordinary claim, you back it up. Why are you afraid to do so? I've asked YOU about a designer, I have not told YOU if I adhere to a designer or not. YOU provide me with this evidence and 'science' you are purporting supports the designer.

This is extremely telling, because you're the one throwing around "ID is science" so what science is there? Are you telling me there really isn't any man behind the curtain? That you don't have any scientific evidence at all for a designer?

You and every other design 'theorist' just 'thinks' there is a designer? There isn't a single empiracle basis at all for it, let alone what it is or any mechanisms it used to 'design' life? Thinking there is a 'designer' is as useful scientifically as thinking 'demons' cause disease is useful medically.

Now before you just cite "natural law"

I would be showing you a level of respect you have failed to show me by at least giving you an answer. All you've done is run around with the equivalent of your head on fire. Really, answering legitimate questions with irrelevant questions of your own is quite pointless. Are you telling me this whole ID is science charade is pointless and I shouldn't ask ID theorists science questions? Is this because they have no science behind them at all in reality?

as a given for non-intentionality, you'll first have to provide experimental evidence that the regularities and irregularities that science routinely observes is non-intentional.

So we're practicing the good old creationist tactic of goalpost shifting? Sorry, I've been doing this far too long to fall for that.

Once again:

1) What specifically is the designer and how did you SPECIFICALLY come to identify it and the experimental approach used?

2) What methodology did the designer use to create living things, how did you detect it experimentally and how did you rule out other mechanisms?

3) Is the method employed above in 2 still going on today and how did you experimentally derive this?

Care to answer this time or will I get more nonsense? You're claiming design? Good, fair enough I never disagreed with the concept hence how I asked you how it was experimentally determined. All I asked for is the EMPIRACLE scientific support that you are claiming the ID movement has produced in evidence of a designer.

1) What specifically is the designer and how did you SPECIFICALLY come to identify it and the experimental approach used?

2) What methodology did the designer use to create living things, how did you detect it experimentally and how did you rule out other mechanisms?

3) Is the method employed above in 2 still going on today and how did you experimentally derive this?

Since you seem keen on experiment support for a position how about you first provide the experimental evidence that supports your position. Remember the hosts on this blog are not anti-evolutionists. Instead Mike's term "Intelligent Design Evolutionists" certainly applies to me and I would guess the rest of us here. If my assumption is correct that your position is that evolution is non-intentional, then provide the experimental evidence that supports that. Now before you just cite "natural law" as a given for non-intentionality, you'll first have to provide experimental evidence that the regularities and irregularities that science routinely observes is non-intentional.