Those aren’t predictions, those are more like curve fits of data after the fact. Predictions are such things that enable orbital mechanics to be able to put a space probe in the desired location.
But let’s take two specific proteins. Cytochrome C and Histone 3.
Histone 3 is almost 95%+ identical between humans and a plant Arabidopsis Thaliana. Whereas there is substantial difference in plant cytochrome C vs. human cytochrome C. That’s not much of a prediction. That’s a curve fit. And it’s rather ad hoc between proteins in terms of molecular clocking. The assumption is selection accounts for the high conservation in Histone 3, but yet that is another ad hoc assumption falsified the Histone deletion experiments reported by Behe over 20 years ago. But even assuming selection, then that isn’t neutral theory. So neutral theory works for describing divergence between genes except when doesn’t.
The proper form of a prediction is given such and such conditions, the outcome is such and such. After-the-fact curve fitting isn’t much of a prediction
But anyway, the subject of the post was about my essay, which is taking “ID is science” out of the ID/Creation argument. I don’t think anyone found that objectionable here.
Of interest is my other claim in that essay:
The objective of this article is to circumvent, or at least minimize, the metaphysical baggage of phrases like “natural”, “material”, “supernatural”, “intelligent,” when formulating probabilistic descriptions of phenomena such as the fine-tuning of the universe and the origin of life. One can maintain that these remarkable phenomena are not explicable in terms of any accepted normative mechanisms which are known to us from everyday experience and scientific observation, and remain well within the realm of empirical science. However, whether fine-tuning and the origin of life are normative in the ultimate sense, and whether they are best explained by God or the multiverse, are entirely separate issues, which fall outside the domain of empirical science.
Now back to your objections:
You have not articulated any of these predictions.
I think it is more important to highlight where they would fail as a matter of principle. The genomes of Eukarytoes and Prokaryotes are poignant example where a random walk (as in free-of-selection) would fail. The coordination required to evolve trans membrane proteins for the membrane bound organelles of eukaryotes – that level of coordiantion is incompatible with neutral random walks since the intermediates would be dead on arrival. One is certainly welcome to claim evolutionary is science, but I can’t in good conscience say evolutionary theory is science for the case of eukaryote prokaryote issue because it would require statistical miracles.
In any case, this isn’t a topic I was intending to pursue in this thread. However I want to cover the issue in the course I’m developing, and I’d be happy to mention the pro-Evolution viewpoint. So I look forward to you and others articulating the case in favor of evolution, and I’d be happy to give that viewpoint the freedom to be articulated as best as possible.
Although I’d ask to defer evolutionary discussion till much later since, I’m more interested in reviewing the origin of life, which a significant part of the essay which you linked to.
Btw, I’m not familiar with your views about abiogenesis. Whether it requires miracles or not.