Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

No, and no. I am giving you the definitions, criteria, and experiments for why evolution is not guided. It isn't guided or directed. Nowhere in any of my posts did I say evolution is guided or directed.

You don't even know what a phylogeny is. How can you hope to respond to the challenge when you don't even understand what a phylogeny is?

You don't even know what the theory of evolution is, so how could you falsify it? You don't even understand genetics or biology.All you have is your extremely uninformed and unscientific reasons for why you refuse to accept a theory that you don't even understand.

The other problem is MrID is only interested in protecting an ideology, not in discovering the truth. We might as well go to a flat Earth website to learn about orbital mechanics.All MrID sees is ideology. That's it. MrID could care less about what science is or how it works. He just wants certain words to be used to describe certain things, facts be damned. Science is just something that must be brushed aside in the name of ideological purity. They know so little about the theory they rail against that they actually demand evidence that disproves the theory in order to accept it. Yet another creationist who doesn't understand what a phylogeny is.

Do you think classical mechanics is wrong because natural gravity guides planets in their orbit around the Sun?Do you think there needs to be an intelligence to guide water so it always goes downhill?Do you think there needs to be an intelligence to guide the precipitation of water vapor into water droplets for cloud formation?

You obviously don't understand what science is. You apparently think science is just defining words.

Funny how you can't show us any of these fantasies.I have shown you experiments that demonstrate how mutations are not guided, and you can't respond. Why is that?

We have the observations that match the predictions made by the theory. That's how we know the theory is accurate. This is how science is done.For example, the predictions and observations found in this thread:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367We have the observed nested hierarchy. We have observed transitional fossils. We have observed orthologous ERV's. We have observed phylogenetic signals in genetic data. Reality supports the theory, and you refuse to even address reality. Instead, you blabber on and on about definitions you have invented.

MrID doesn't even understand how biology works, so he has invented an entire fantasyland that he calls Evolution (and biology). These threads have demonstrated that he doesn't even understand what a mutation or an allele are, much less the connection between genotype and phenotype. He's like a crazy person telling everyone that 5G causes cancer without even knowing what radio waves are.

When it comes to biology in sci-fi it is just different levels of Stan Lee. Most of the biology in sci-fi is about as accurate as physics in Star Wars. Somehow I manage to shut my brain off and mostly suspend my disbelief. Speaking of the Hulk, rapid and large changes in biomass are one of the hardest sci-fi tropes for me to look past. Seeing an alien go from a 5 pound juvenile to a 500 pound predator is preposterous. There's a 10% conversion of energy from each trophic level, and only a small percentage of that energy conversion can be used to produce biomass. So for a 500 pound increase you are looking at somewhere around 10,000 to 50,000 pounds of ingested food at best. (in retrospect, a ratio of 5-10 might be more accurate)

First off, evolutionist is a silly term. If someone accepts the theory of relativity we don't call them relativists or Einsteinists. If someone accepts the theory of germs we don't call them germists or Kochists. So why the term for people who accept one of the most well evidenced theories in biology and science in general?We also see the term evolutionist used to describe things that aren't even evolution. For example, we often hear about the Big Bang being evolutionist, or the geologic history of the Grand Canyon being evolutionist. It gets a bit silly at some point.

Consensus science would be the best term. Biologist would be another.

The point is that over 99% of biologists accept the theory of evolution. There is no debate within science. The only debate that exists is outside of science, and the dissenters are basing their rejection of the theory on their religious beliefs. The sides really are science and religious dogma.

You reject the scientific consensus of evolution because of religion, not science.

And yet you can't name those assumptions.