Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

You evolutionists seem to be doing it all the time here, claiming that the model is correct without doubt, because it fits data.

It isn't our fault that you misconstrue what we are saying.

Mutate and Survive

You can't seem to find any scientific reasons for rejecting our conclusions. You do reject those methods. You claim that finding a match between observations and predictions is "bad logic".

Wrong again. Your claim that a good fit means that the model is the best, that is poor logic.Maximum likelihood estimates are not always best, for example.That does not mean that I'm against maximum likelihood methods in general. That means that I understand the methods and their strength and weaknesses, while you just make poor claims about them.

The best fit means the model is the best we have. How is that poor logic? Do you think the worst fitting model is the best model in science? What poor claims?

No. You reject all of science, the scientific method, and the tools used.They show you the nested hierarchy and you reject it without evidence or logical reasoning.They show you evolution and you reject it without evidence or logical reasoning.The only way to reject the reality of evolution is to reject the science that shows it to you. You are an anti-science creationist. A religiously motivated denier of reality.You keep showing us, again and yet again, sensei, you know nothing.

If you only said that for the specified set of data, this hypothesis gives the best fit, then that would be fine. But you go further and claim that evolution universal common ancestry is a certainty.That is not science. That is biased tunnel vision. I reject that.

Wrong. You don't seem to care about truth. But we knew that already.

Common ancestry is as certain as germs causing disease, both of which are scientific conclusions based on mountains of evidence. You reject science.

The preponderance of the evidence is so strong that in the pop vernacular the conclusion is certain. Science will maintain the philosophical tenet that all conclusions are tentative but for all practical uses common ancestry can only be denied by the intellectually deficient.This is another one of those things you know nothing about, sensei.

This answers your message 377.

Quite the opposite. Evidence for common ancestry is very weak.

Really? This is what you said about the evidence I posted in the "Mutations Confirm Common Descent" thread:"It seems like a good argument for common ancestry of primates, ngl. Though I haven't looked at all of your sources yet, you made a convincing argument."There are many, many more examples of evidence that support common ancestry.

You don't even know what the evidence for common descent is. You most certainly cannot claim it weak. Again, sensei, you know nothing.