Bill Cole points out a good test for the "FI" hypothesis

But they aren’t for MYH7. Yet another of your hypothesis’s predictions falsely presented as a fact, and yet another disproof of your ID hypothesis.

Keep those false predictions comin’, Bill!

Bill’s “poof” hypothesis has made three very strong predictions:

  1. Different tissues will have different myosin heavy chains.

  2. There will be only “a few” MYH7 variants.

  3. The polymorphisms being very different in a single animal but very similar across animals.

All three are false. That’s a perfect record, Bill.


Nevertheless, it is still as good or better than any other ID supporting evidence - which makes it (equal) best.


Wrong analogy. The correct one would be “The hypothesis is that the data will confirm general relativity.” Think anyone would have taken Einstein seriously if that was all he had?

Also, if we had no observation of mass causing curvature in space, how would that have confirmed a hypothesis that mass causes curvature of space?

1 Like

As others have noted, that’s not a hypothesis. A hypothesis predicts what observations we should see AND what observations we should NOT see. You don’t have that. You simultaneously claim that design will result in many polymorphisms and conservation of sequence which only begs the question of what design won’t produce. Until you have a null hypothesis you don’t have a hypothesis.


The prediction is that the evidence will show ultimately what we are observing is the direct product of a mind. If you found a mechanism in the prokaryotic cell that could generate complex functional information de novo then you would strongly challenge the hypothesis.

I have been discussing this for 4 years and in the beginning I was merely an evolutionary skeptic. I now believe science is getting to the point it needs to re engage the old design argument given what we are observing in biology.

You can make nit picky arguments as no analogy is perfect but that’s all you guys have at this point. Design is a much better explanation for the origin and evolution of life then any evolutionary theory be it Darwinian, neutral theory or the Shapiro group…

I do believe that common descent explains some of the data but it is only a partial explanation. It certainly does not explain the origin of the mechanism that it is touting that explains the data: sexual and a sexual reproduction.

No, that’s the HOPE, not a prediction of a hypothesis. It’s something you hope will one day happen.

You don’t have an actual hypothesis that predicts “the direct product of a mind”. Because you genuinely have no idea what that would be.

Sure the design argument does. You should understand that by now.

No, it does not. There is no “design argument” that predicts that “there should be some entity with X properties because that’s what some mind would want to make”.

A mind is able to put together a long string of meaningful symbolic sequences. I have seen evolutionists try to explain how the cell can do this for 4 years. We can test a minds ability to do this with human minds.

That’s not a hypothesis. A hypothesis will list specific observations that we should and should not see, and reasons why those observations were predicted.

That’s not a hypothesis. That’s your unfounded opinion.

Are you denying that mutations and natural selection happens?

1 Like

A designer is also able to make ice. That doesn’t mean every piece of ice was made by a designer. You need evidence as to why these specific sequences were the product of design.


I am sorry T I am not going down you chain of faulty logic. Just because something can happen does not mean it explains the data. The mechanisms do not explain what we are observing. Its not even close.

Apply that to your own claims.

Why not?

Because a mind CAN think of meaningful symbolic sequences is not evidence a mind DID think of any specific symbolic sequence.

You just can’t stop making your fallacious argument no matter how many times you’re corrected.

You are not the one setting the requirements of a scientific theory. We can test the hypothesis end of story.

Why do you have such a deep rooted hatred for Irony Meters? :roll_eyes:

Just because a human mind can think of symbolic sequences is not evidence your disembodied mind did create biological genomic sequences.

No, I’m not. The scientific community has set those requirements. The requirements for a hypothesis are a set of observations one should see and not see, and reasons as to why those predictions were made. “I believe the evidence supports my ideas” is not a hypothesis.

Yet you’re still too afraid to test yours.

This is already wrong.

A mind cannot do any such thing. A person can put together a string of symbolic sequences. You need the whole person, not just the mind.

And what that person puts together may be meaningful to that person. There’s no certainty that it will be meaningful to anybody else.

I expect that you won’t ascribe meaning to a cell. So you have already biased your “test” to require a mind.