But it's not Science!
by MikeGeneA common thread among many participants in the debate about Intelligent Design is the high value that is associated with the label "Science." Many ID proponents insist ID is Science, while the critics of ID insist that it is not Science. Why is the label so important? Could it be that our culture has shaped us to equate Science with objective truth, while non-science is relegated to the realm of subjective mumbo-jumbo? I suspect this notion, or something similar, is at work. But in that case, is it really true that non-science is subjective mumbo-jumbo?
Consider the myriad of "pro-science" blogs out there. Everyday, scores of people offer their opinions and arguments about a variety of topics related to science. And while the bloggers talk about science, defend science, provide some free education, build on science, praise science, etc., their blogs are not Science. Their blogs are non-science. Does that mean they blog nothing more than subjective mumbo-jumbo everyday? That their "pro-science" blogs are no different from some teen-ager blogging about a party they went to the night before? I don't think so. Then again, I don't think non-science = subjective mumbo-jumbo, as there is a lot of room between science and subjective mumbo-jumbo.
June 14th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Indeed, the "pro-science" blogs, and this blog, are not science. But they're about legitimate fields of science.
ID is not a legitimate field of science.
Can you think of any accomplishments or technologies in biology that ID has helped bring about? Any scientific discoveries of design (as opposed to selection)? Any professors of Intelligent Design? Anything positive piece of testable evidence that ID explains better than evolution (as opposed to gaps or other claims rooted in incredulity)?
All "no"'s across the board.
Comment by Daniel — June 14, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Attempts at demarcation have always had political and social motivations, rather than scientific motivations. There is a lot of rhetorical power in being able to say "I'm doing science and you aren't."
Comment by macht — June 14, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
I think that science is an inherently religious enterprise. Scientists have to keep telling themselves it's science they are doing because they can't bear to admit the truth, much like biologists have to keep telling themselves the things they are observing are not designed.
Comment by Mung — June 14, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
What rhetoric? It's a statement of fact – IDers aren't in the lab or in the field studying causation of design, but biologists ARE in the lab and the field studying mechanisms of selection.
Keep telling yourself that.
Comment by Daniel — June 14, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
"Can you think of any accomplishments or technologies in biology that ID has helped bring about? Any scientific discoveries of design (as opposed to selection)? Any professors of Intelligent Design? Anything positive piece of testable evidence that ID explains better than evolution (as opposed to gaps or other claims rooted in incredulity)?"
Can you think of any accomplishments in physics that string theory has helped bring about? Any scientific discoveries of string theory? Any professors of string theory (as opposed to professors of physics, per se)? Anything positive piece of testable evidence that string theory explains better than rival theories?
Quantum Mechanics had no "professors" for years, and plenty of consensus detractors. ID is relatively new as an approach to design detection in biological systems and there is an entrenched ideological establishment to be overcome. Time will tell.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 14, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I wasn't using the word 'rhetorical' in the sense of being empty words. I was using it in the sense of being able call what you are doing "science" has a lot of persuasive power as far as getting grants, being able to teach in certain public school classes, etc. These are the political and social motivations I was talking about.
I agree with that if people aren't testing their theories, making predictions, etc. (aka, "in the lab") then we shouldn't count it as science. But, unfortunately, most of the discussion about whether ID is science or not tends to deal with whether it is talking about the supernatural or whether it is falsifiable or other silly things. In these cases, it is just empty rhetoric.
Comment by macht — June 14, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
"What rhetoric? It's a statement of fact – IDers aren't in the lab or in the field studying causation of design, but biologists ARE in the lab and the field studying mechanisms of selection."
False dichotomy. Some biologists ARE IDers. One can be a biologist without believing RM+NS is responsible for all the biological systems that exist.
Lab work is lab work. What counts is the interpretation of data, no matter what grunt does the actual lab work. So far, the "mechanisms of selection" has not been demonstrated by anyone to be powerful enough to create all the biological systems that exist. Quite the opposite, IMO.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 14, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Fair enough criticism of String Theory. Indeed, it's certainly not a proven theory, and is largely a speculative tentacle of quantum mechanics. But there are still differences between ID and ST – namely that ST does indeed make testable predictions that could distinguish it from alternative theories (we just don't have the technological capability of measuring things at such tiny lengthscales) – or so I'm told (I'm not a theoretical physicist).
Still, point taken – I wouldn't call ST valid science either.
Yet those few are not actually doing research (in lab or field) either. Behe is of course the lone exception – he at least tried to test his IC notions, but failed (see Behe & Snoke, 2004 in the journal Protein Science). So to your statement:
Yes, and there are a few biology PhD's out there with such fews (not many though), but they aren't even trying to back up their views with hard data (again, Behe's failed attempt is the exception).
Anyway, that's an Appeal to Authority fallacy: the science isn't about who says it, it's about what's being said, and in this case, there's no evidence for the belief that RM+NS fails to explain the pattern of life.
Macht said:
Oh ok. That's a reasonable statement – sorry for the misunderstanding.
Comment by Daniel — June 14, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
The Brass Tacks of it all:
If a given feature of a biological system were designed by an intelligence, how could we detect it? This seems to qualify as a perfectly scientific question. The anti-ID crowd treats the questions as if it is not, waves it away as if it is a "religious" question, and then slogs away on a preposterous anti-intellectual course against the obvious. It is they who are really anti-science. The science of Information Theory and it's related fields (statistics, engineering,etc) and physics itself will ultimately be the downfall of the pure darwinistic (RM+NS) consensus view. There is nothing religious about it. The biological systems we see operating in DNA and within the cell are best explained as the result of an intelligent engineer. Only a commitment to a-priori anti-intelligence view causes people to deny the obvious.
And no religious slurs, please. I'm a non-religious agnostic who happens to have absolutely no a priori commitment to the anti-intelligence-causes-at-all- costs view.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 14, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
"there's no evidence for the belief that RM+NS fails to explain the pattern of life"
That RM+NS fails to explain all bio-systems that exist is not a belief, it's a fact. Where are all the blow by blow accounts of how (to use Behe's favorite bio-system) the flagellum came to exist? Where is the delineated account of how the first cell came to exist? RM+NS has not "explained" these things.
RM+NS is not an account of anything. It is a generalized principle that can be demonstrated to act on preexisting systems within certain limits. It has not been demonstrated to be responsible for all biological systems.
Just wondering, but, how would you go about falsifying RM+NS in any given instance of a biological subsystem?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 14, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I think you're highlighting a key point here. Theistic evolutionists have been saying for literally centuries that it's perfectly ok to be informed by both science and theology, and to let science explain how Nature works while letting theology explain why it does so.
Comment by Mark Nutter — June 14, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
That's a circular question, which would be better phrased as "Can we determine if a given biological system was designed by an intelligence?" Because we don't know what the hallmarks of design would be, no, we can't determine that without a priori assumptions.
And thanks for referencing more arguments from the gaps and incredulity, and flat-out incorrect statements about RM+NS. That was a good laugh.
Behe's attempt (already mentioned) would be an okay start. Another would be the demonstration that a sequence of intermediates did not follow a Descent With Modification pattern, as it did in an article I described here and here. (if you want to discuss specifics of those posts, please leave comments on my blog, but I'll respond to general comments on those here).
Comment by Daniel — June 14, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
What exactly is your point here? You seem to be talking entirely past Mike, and to have entirely missed his point. Are you trying to claim that only science, and statements about science, can be objective truth after all?
Comment by Deuce — June 14, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
If I missed MG's point, please illuminate me.
I was trying to claim that science blogs are not themselves science. They're about science, from an individual's point of view. Blogs aren't peer-reviewed. They quote and then editorialize science.
We treat the peer-reviewed journals as the objective parts, as much as any human enterprise can be anyway, and the evidence presented in figures and tables as empirical evidence.
It's partly semantics, to be sure, but an important distinction I would wager.
Comment by Daniel — June 14, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
That RM+NS fails to explain all bio-systems that exist is not a belief, it's a fact.
That depends on what you mean by "explain". Do the laws of physics "explain" the path of a ball through a pinball machine? (Assuming that no one is working the flippers.)
It's a fact that we can't calculate the path of a ball mathematically, simply because we can't make accurate enough measurements to describe the starting conditions. In that sense, physics can't explain what's happening.
But we can also observe that the path of the ball is consistent with the laws of physics: It doesn't suddenly accelerate uphill, or hover in mid-air. It seems reasonable to take it on faith that we could calculate the path of the ball if we were able to make accurate-enough measurements.
It's certainly possible that the ball is being nudged slightly by some invisible intelligent agent. But in order to believe that, we'd want some positive evidence that the agent existed, not just the negative evidence that we can't make accurate calculations today.
Comment by chaosengineer — June 14, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
"If we wish to alter the state of motion of a body, e.g. a sphere resting on a horizontal plane, by the use of our muscles, then a certain effort, increasing with the resulting change in velocity, is required. This effort, which we call force, is a direct sensory impression, and hence not further definable"¦ All about us in nature we see changes taking place in the state of the motion of bodies, without exertion of muscular effort on our part. We interpret the cause of these changes as "forces" which operate on the bodies in the same way our muscles do. The investigation of these forces, which may be of a very diverse nature, is an important problem in physics. In mechanics, however, we take the force to be given, and confine ourselves to computing the effects (Joos, G. & I.M. Freeman. 1986. Theoretical Physics. 3rd Ed. Dover. Mineola, NY. p. 84.)."
There is something glaringly wrong with these statements.
Muscles don't move spheres across horizontal planes!
Of course, we don't simply alter the state of motion of a body via the application of a force by the use of our muscles. We engage our brains. Depending upon the degree of difficulty, and setting a sphere rolling across a horizontal plane is not terribly difficult, we engage our intelligence.
So its interesting that force is accepted as an elemental "undefinable" term and the ground of mechanics, and that not on the basis of what we observe passively but in terms of our own actions. (Imagine if you never moved but only observed motion. Would it ever occur to you that "forces" are operating in the perceived motions?)
Doesn't seem to be anymore radical a thesis that intelligence is a fundamental causal category than the notion that "forces" are causal.
Uh, actually, reagardless of what the physicists' consider as problems, seems like a major problem to me.
Comment by Rock — June 14, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
His point was that science does not comprise the entire realm of objective truth about things, so that simply trying to categorize ID as outside of science isn't really an argument against it. Thus, responding by saying that ID isn't legitimately science is perpendicular to what he was talking about.
Comment by Deuce — June 14, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
June 14th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Deuce,
Are you suggesting that ID is objective truth? Nonsense. What in biology looks to you like a machine looks nothing like a machine to me. All of ID is built around similar subjective analogies.
Of course you'll come back with the claim that my view is subjective too. And to an extent, it is – but given the absense of a designer or similar causal agent of design, the view that Natural Selection is correct best fits the principles of the natural world as humans have thus far been able to observe, reproduce, test, measure or otherwise experimentally control.
That you believe a designer to exist is the subjective part, unless someone can demonstrate the existence of such an entity.
Comment by Daniel — June 14, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 1:14 am
Actually, scientists and mathematicians have been seriously working on the question of how to identify intelligence for years, going back at least to the work of Turing. It has turned out to be a very difficult question, probably because intelligence itself is poorly understood. Current theories suggest that intelligence works by randomization/selection mechanisms that have a lot in common with natural selection. If the basic mechanisms are indeed similar, then it is likely to be very difficult to distinguish between the products of natural selection and the products of intelligence.
Comment by trrll — June 15, 2006 @ 1:14 am
June 15th, 2006 at 1:23 am
Not necessarily. There are many reflex muscle actions that do not involve the brain. For example, an animal with its brain removed is still capable of going through the motions of walking, as anybody who has seen a chicken with its head cut off can attest.
As a matter of fact, the major insights in physics seem to have mainly resulted from observing motions not impelled by humans. Gallileo's swinging chandelier, Newton's analysis of the motion of the planets. These supplanted earlier, incorrect notions that seem to have been based upon introspection, such as the notion that objects "prefer" to be at rest. So seeking explanations basesd upon intelligence turned out to be an obstacle to progress in physics, just as (based upon the lack of any major scientific discoveries by ID advocates) it seems to be in biology.
Comment by trrll — June 15, 2006 @ 1:23 am
June 15th, 2006 at 1:35 am
So what?
Comment by MikeGene — June 15, 2006 @ 1:35 am
June 15th, 2006 at 8:09 am
I was thinking that it is really scientific discoveries that have led to ID advocacy, and if science can't shed any further light on ID, then that is a problem with science.
Comment by samohth — June 15, 2006 @ 8:09 am
June 15th, 2006 at 10:58 am
MG said:
Ok – going back and re-reading your original post and my response, I missed something there and spoke past you. You were accepting that ID is not science, but arguing that it is still objective, correct?
So on what basis do you argue that ID is objective?
Clearly there are theological and philosophical viewpoints being carried into the argument by ID supporters a priori making ID a subjective viewpoint, correct?
Comment by Daniel — June 15, 2006 @ 10:58 am
June 15th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Hi Daniel,
You write:
No, I said, "there is a lot of room between science and subjective mumbo-jumbo." I'm simply noting that just because ID is not science does not mean it is subjective mumbo-jumbo. Pointing out that "ID is not a legitimate field of science" doesn't really tell us much, as the realm of non-science is a very large and diverse realm. After all, nothing that you have posted here, or have posted on your blog, is "a legitimate field of science." The same goes for all the pro-science blogs. But does that really tell us that much about all the blogging?
Consider PZ Myers blog. Sometimes, he posts excellent summaries and tutorials of some current scientific research. Other times, he posts angry diatribes about religion or politics. Yet it is all non-science. Does that mean its all the same? So what's the point of claiming that ID is not science? I can understand the significance of this from a socio-political perspective (although its beginning to sound like an anachronism in the post-wedge world), but apart from such concerns, what's the point?
Comment by MikeGene — June 15, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
kornbelt wrote:
If a given feature of a biological system were designed by an intelligence, how could we detect it? This seems to qualify as a perfectly scientific question.
It's not scientific at all. Science isn't about how we detect things. Science is about how things work and how they came to be. There is descriptive science, but it's mainly a foundation for hypothesis testing. Legitimate scientific questions regarding design would be, "How was structure X designed? What were the design parameters? For what purpose was structure X designed?" These are the kinds of questions addressed by real sciences that involve the study of design and designers (i.e., anthropology and criminal forensics). They lead to testable hypotheses. As for the question you posed, why aren't any ID proponents actively producing new data flowing from it?
The science of Information Theory and it's related fields (statistics, engineering,etc) and physics itself will ultimately be the downfall of the pure darwinistic (RM+NS) consensus view.
Pure Darwinism died a long time ago, because MET is far more than RM+NS. You'd know this if you bothered to try and understand before attacking.
There is nothing religious about it. The biological systems we see operating in DNA and within the cell are best explained as the result of an intelligent engineer.
What biological systems have you seen operating in DNA? Your statement is unintelligible to me, as someone who works with DNA every day.
That RM+NS fails to explain all bio-systems that exist is not a belief, it's a fact.
I agree, but your problem is that you don't even realize that MET is much more than RM+NS. For example, there's drift.
Where are all the blow by blow accounts of how (to use Behe's favorite bio-system) the flagellum came to exist?
They're around; more importantly, the notion that it is irreducibly complex has been demolished, since a subset of flagellar components makes up a secretion system (which one begat the other is irrelevant). Where's a single blow-by-blow account of how it was designed?
RM+NS is not an account of anything. It is a generalized principle that can be demonstrated to act on preexisting systems within certain limits.
It's not a principle, it's a mechanism. What limits do you claim bind it?
It has not been demonstrated to be responsible for all biological systems.
It's the best explanation there is, because it is supported by the data–which you seem to be afraid to examine. That being said, it's not the only mechanism in MET.
Just wondering, but, how would you go about falsifying RM+NS in any given instance of a biological subsystem?
Quite easily. If the sequences of its protein components could not be placed into nested hierarchies based on their sequences, and those nested hierarchies weren't congruent with those of the organisms whose genomes encode those components, RM+NS is falsified.
The important point that eludes you is that this has been observed on rare occasions, leading to our understanding of non-Darwinian mechanisms like horizontal transfer.
But in the vast, vast majority of cases, (literally gigabytes of data), allowing for defects in our quantitation of changes (a mutation and reversion to the original state will be scored as 0 events instead of 2), the data are perfectly consistent with RM+NS and non-Darwinian mechanisms like drift. Thus, MET repeatedly passes tests designed to falsify it.
Those data, and the tools to analyze them, are freely available to the public on the Web, but no ID advocate points people to them. I wonder why?
Comment by Smokey — June 15, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
A fair point about PZ Myers, but then what sounds like a non sequitur about ID (at least it sounds like that to me). What PZ writes is about science (diatribes aside), but his blog is indeed itself not science. The parallel is that you write about ID, but your blog is itself not ID.
The point is that we're comparing the topics of discussion going on at pro-science blogs and pro-ID blogs, IOW I think we're implicitly comparing science and ID in terms of subjectivity or objectivity.
So what is the difference between subjective and objective? I'm under the assumption that the difference is whether the item under consideration (ID, in this case) requires a few given a priori assumptions. ID as a theory rests on a few such assumptions that cannot be independently verified (not the least of which is the need for a designer or other such causal agent; but also the undemonstrated views that features like the flagellar motor could not have arisen by natural means, that large macromolecular aspects of cell biology are machine-like, etc.). Yet adherents to this theory believe such assumptions to be true – as I understand the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, that sounds like a subjective view to me.
Comment by Daniel — June 15, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Hi Daniel,
You write:
I'm simply pointing out that the realm of non-science is a very large and diverse realm. So I am trying to understand the significance of declaring that ID is not science. Apart from the socio-political sideshow, why is it important that ID is not science?
All I am pointing out is that just because all the "pro-science" blogs are not doing science when they blog, it does not mean their blogs are all nothing more than subjective mumbo-jumbo. Do you disagree and think that anything that is not science is subjective mumbo-jumbo?
Comment by MikeGene — June 15, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I guess I was dodging the "mumbo-jumbo" part and focusing on the subjective part, because "mumbo-jumbo" sounds like a vague, hand-waivy concept. But no, I generally wouldn't call your version of ID mumbo-jumbo, but that's because your views sound at least somewhat reasonable and well thought out, unlike the views of many other IDers out there.
I could go into a long speech about why conflating the boundries between academic disciplines runs counter to intellectual integrity, but that would be probably not be too distinguishable from the socio-political sideshow you mention. I know you're not advocating teaching ID as science, but many IDers are, and refuting such IDers is probably the sole point of demonstrating that ID is not science.
That you can accept or believe in certain things – assumed (and very likely correct) Truths, can indeed be done independently from science. I don't know of any but the most ardent atheist who argues that this is not the case. Such a concept of Truth is certainly not mumbo-jumbo, but it's certainly not the same thing as demonstratable Fact.
Truth is a moral guide; Facts on the other hand, help to guide our understanding of such Truths, and to help us navigate the physical world, innovate, etc. But again, we ID critics are largely asserting that it is important to avoid conflation of these terms.
Put in concrete terms, believing in certain things and the view of purpose in the our lives has great impact in guiding us, even if those beliefs are incorrect. Even atheists need to find some Raison D'Etre. Yet in making daily decisions, it helps to know precisely the reasons why things work the way they do in the natural world, independently of how we'd like they worked.
Hopefully that makes some sense……
Comment by Daniel — June 15, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
""If a given feature of a biological system were designed by an intelligence, how could we detect it? This seems to qualify as a perfectly scientific question.""
"It's not scientific at all. Science isn't about how we detect things."
Tell that to the SETI crowd. Tell that to information theoriest. Your brand of science is limited. And those who cling to MET at all costs, are shown to be arbitrary and anti-science.
""The science of Information Theory and it's related fields (statistics, engineering,etc) and physics itself will ultimately be the downfall of the pure darwinistic (RM+NS) consensus view.""
"Pure Darwinism died a long time ago, because MET is far more than RM+NS. You'd know this if you bothered to try and understand before attacking."
While MET contains more than RM+NS, RM+NS is alledgedly the process by which all unique biological components are constructed. Things like gene transfer cannot account for the origin of a gene to begin with.
""There is nothing religious about it. The biological systems we see operating in DNA and within the cell are best explained as the result of an intelligent engineer.""
"What biological systems have you seen operating in DNA? Your statement is unintelligible to me, as someone who works with DNA every day."
I didn't say DNA alone.
""That RM+NS fails to explain all bio-systems that exist is not a belief, it's a fact.""
"I agree, but your problem is that you don't even realize that MET is much more than RM+NS. For example, there's drift."
Again, drift cannot explain the origin of a functional component.
By the way, I'm all for RM+NS, gene transfer, and all other concepts and mechanisms. And if MET could actually account (and I use that word very deliberately) for life as we know it, I would heartily accept it as compete. The point is, however, MET has not demonstrated this by a long shot.
""Where are all the blow by blow accounts of how (to use Behe's favorite bio-system) the flagellum came to exist?""
"They're around;"
Where? I've read plenty on the subject. Please provide a reference to a blow by blow, step by step description of the creation of the flagellum.
"more importantly, the notion that it is irreducibly complex has been demolished, since a subset of flagellar components makes up a secretion system (which one begat the other is irrelevant)."
Please cite references. I would appreciate it.
"Where's a single blow-by-blow account of how it was designed?"
There is none. ID is not about how a component or components are designed. It's about *detecting* design based on information and process theories (and related.)
""RM+NS is not an account of anything. It is a generalized principle that can be demonstrated to act on preexisting systems within certain limits.""
"It's not a principle, it's a mechanism."
Correct. It is a mechanism. But it is not an account. How about providing precise accounts for the flaggelum.
"What limits do you claim bind it?"
Physical limitations and limitations of foresight, for starters.
You see, NDE or MET (take your pick) makes some very positive claims about biological systems. I believe some of them are correct and are empirically verifiable. However, so far, I consider any extrapolation or inference to any and all biological systems to be specious. It may be true, but it hasn't been demonstrated. And I think some things, like the flagellum invalidate it has a total explanatory process.
"It's the best explanation there is, because it is supported by the data"“which you seem to be afraid to examine."
It may be the best undirected explanation there is. But I have no reason to limit myself to such a limited hypothesis, in light of what I actually see operating in cell. What do you mean by "support?" Do you mean provide a precise account? Of course not. Do you mean compatible with? Well, that depends on an a prioi decision regarding the biosystems themselves. If you mean that it hasn't been falsified, fair enough. But that's no better "support" than saying an intelligence designed it. So what is the positive evidence for design? What we know about informational based processes and things like the existance of the flagellum, not to mention the way DNA works.
"Best explanation" is a matter of opinion, I suppose, but to one who is not committed to irrational causes, I have no trouble considering the informational concerned, the process control content, etc, and comtemplating an intelligent source contra an irrational source. At this point, to me, it is indeed the best explanation we've got.
""Just wondering, but, how would you go about falsifying RM+NS in any given instance of a biological subsystem?""
"Quite easily. If the sequences of its protein components could not be placed into nested hierarchies based on their sequences, and those nested hierarchies weren't congruent with those of the organisms whose genomes encode those components, RM+NS is falsified."
Not hierarchies of any *accounts* of the specific set of genes were created that produce the flagellum. If such an account exists, please provide.
"The important point that eludes you is that this has been observed on rare occasions, leading to our understanding of non-Darwinian mechanisms like horizontal transfer."
HT doesn't account for functional parts to begin with. I'm all for HT, by the way. In fact, I'm all for MET in general. However, so far, it hasn't come close to explaining (ie, giving a precise account with no gaps) how most of the cellular machinery came to exist. "Best explanation we got" is no explanation here, because in reality MET provides no precise accounts of the creation of things like the flagellum, or how the cell "executes" DNA. By all means, give it a shot. Or if you're really bold, try giving us an account of how DNA came to exist, and how the first cell came to exist, able to "execute" DNA in such a cooperative process.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 15, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
kornbelt888,
Your focus on the incomplete description of the origin of the flagellar motor (or any individual feature that you might indicate) seems to suggest that you would not accept "MET" until the origins of every biological feature have been elucidated. In any case, similar arguments have been made for over a hundred years (see the eye, the feature, major transitions in phylogeny, the complement system, etc.) One by one, biology has explained each of these – but still we may one day run into a feature that is beyond our technological capacity to explain, and the flagellum might be it.
That one, or a few, amongst the countless features in biology remains beyond clear explanation is a poor logic for rejecting a theory when that theory has been demonstrated so many times in similar systems.
Why is this one example, the bacterial flagellum, sufficient to refute the vastness of evolution as a theory?
Comment by Daniel — June 15, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Daniel:
That you believe a common ancestor to have existed is the subjective part, unless someone can demonstrate the existence of such an entity.
Comment by Mung — June 15, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Toward Automatic Reconstruction of a Highly Resolved Tree of Life is a good paper to start with. This particular presentation of the data suggests that the last universal common ancestor was a gram-positive thermophilic bacteria.
Comment by Daniel — June 15, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Laughable, and heard all too often as if it were in some sense meaningful. Natural selection is a "mechanism" by which a variation either increases or decreases in a population. Drift is also a "mechanism" by which a variation either increases or decreases in a population. So claiming that MET is much more than RM+NS and then making reference to drift to prove it is amusing.
Comment by Mung — June 15, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
June 16th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
IMHO, the problem with the "demarcation" arguments it that they bypass more fundamental questions about epistemology. I think the ID movement unwittingly gave away part of the store by pushing ID as "science." This was driven by American constitutional law and politics (if it's "science," arguably it gets taught in public school). The real question should be not is it "science," but is it "true," and how do we "know" what is true. This circles back to the original point of the post — "pro-science" demarcation arugments often assume a near-positivist epistemology, which is a bankrupt stance that has been left behind long ago by most philosphers of science.
Comment by dopderbeck — June 16, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
korn wrote:
Your brand of science is limited.
What is my "brand of science," according to you?
And those who cling to MET at all costs, are shown to be arbitrary and anti-science.
I only embrace MET because it is consistent with all the evidence.
While MET contains more than RM+NS, RM+NS is alledgedly the process by which all unique biological components are constructed. Things like gene transfer cannot account for the origin of a gene to begin with.
Sure they can. The definition of an individual gene is often very fuzzy. Are you trying to claim that there are no chimeras between existing genes and genes brought in by HT?
I asked, "What biological systems have you seen operating in DNA? Your statement is unintelligible to me, as someone who works with DNA every day."
I didn't say DNA alone.
I never said you did. You made a claim about systems "operating in DNA and within the cell," which means that they must operate in BOTH. Please answer the question or just admit that it was gibberish.
Again, drift cannot explain the origin of a functional component.
Why not?
The point is, however, MET has not demonstrated this by a long shot.
The point is that your eyes are closed. How much testing of predictions of MET have you done using the freely-available sequences and sequence analysis tools?
Where? I've read plenty on the subject. Please provide a reference to a blow by blow, step by step description of the creation of the flagellum.
First you have to specify WHICH flagellum. If you've "read plenty," how can you possibly not know that there are multiple flagella present in living organisms, some of which have no discernible relationships with each other?
Please cite references. I would appreciate it.
I will, after you specify one of the many flagella present in nature.
There is none. ID is not about how a component or components are designed. It's about *detecting* design based on information and process theories (and related.)
So, given your attempt to make an analogy with SETI, are you claiming that if SETI researchers detect putative communications from other worlds, they will not analyze them further to determine their origin?
Correct. It is a mechanism. But it is not an account. How about providing precise accounts for the flaggelum.
What makes you sure that there is a single one?
And I think some things, like the flagellum invalidate it has a total explanatory process.
What about the verifiable fact that flagella of totally different origins are found in nature?
It may be the best undirected explanation there is. But I have no reason to limit myself to such a limited hypothesis, in light of what I actually see operating in cell.
What have you actually seen, and why do you refuse to examine even a few kilobytes of the gigabytes of available sequence evidence?
What do you mean by "support?" Do you mean provide a precise account? Of course not. Do you mean compatible with? Well, that depends on an a prioi decision regarding the biosystems themselves.
No, it doesn't, and the term "biosystems" is gibberish in this context.
If you mean that it hasn't been falsified, fair enough. But that's no better "support" than saying an intelligence designed it.
It's far better, because the sequence relationships aren't consistent with it being designed by an intelligence.
So what is the positive evidence for design? What we know about informational based processes and things like the existance of the flagellum, not to mention the way DNA works.
"The flagellum" is ludicrous, as there are many unrelated flagella in nature. How does DNA work, according to you, as someone who won't look at the sequence relationships for himself?
""Just wondering, but, how would you go about falsifying RM+NS in any given instance of a biological subsystem?""
"Quite easily. If the sequences of its protein components could not be placed into nested hierarchies based on their sequences, and those nested hierarchies weren't congruent with those of the organisms whose genomes encode those components, RM+NS is falsified."
Not hierarchies of any *accounts* of the specific set of genes were created that produce the flagellum. If such an account exists, please provide.
The term "account" wasn't in your challenge, and it is irrelevant in this context. MET makes clear, testable predictions, and you are afraid to look at the data. Aren't the goalposts getting heavy?
"The important point that eludes you is that this has been observed on rare occasions, leading to our understanding of non-Darwinian mechanisms like horizontal transfer."
Or if you're really bold, try giving us an account of how DNA came to exist, and how the first cell came to exist, able to "execute" DNA in such a cooperative process.
Why would I be so idiotic as to assume that the first cell contained DNA, when the data point to RNA?
Comment by Smokey — June 15, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
More response for Mung on that quote – the evidence for common descent and macroevolution is vast, across an enormous amount of data.
Some educational sites for your viewing pleasure:
The famous 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution
Berkeley's Patterns in Macroevolution and Lines of Evidence
PBS's Understanding Deep Time
And a very extensive reference list for research on identifying the root of the Tree of Life supporting the universal common descent and trying to narrow down the identity of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
I realize that you're probably so convinced of your views that this probably doesn't help, but just in the possibility that you're open-minded about looking through presentations of the scientific evidence, there's a small sampling of it.
BTW, does ID have anything to say to any of these other than hand-waivingly saying that you don't accept all this data? Has ID started to narrow down its inferred Designer yet?
Comment by Daniel — June 15, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
From one of the educational sites:
Hmm, I wonder if the same can be done with respect to his claim about modularity. But I don't see how that follows wrt analogy.
Comment by Guts — June 15, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Guts,
It looks to me as though you are conflating efficiency of mechanism with energy efficiency.
Is having multiple, active molecular motors moving a single organelle on different tracks and in different directions an efficient mechanism?
Comment by Smokey — June 15, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Smokey:
I don't see where he rules out the mechanism by which these machines convert energy. That seems rather ad hoc (especially since it's explicitly tied to rotation).
Smokey:
What are you referring to?
Comment by Guts — June 15, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Guts,
Good one! A very fine example of how you can find a completely random example of just about anything in biology.
How does that refute the entirety of common descent though?
Comment by Daniel — June 15, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Daniel:
I don't think it does. I think this particular example (and there are many like it) causes me to "be extremely suspicious " about evolution's foresight.
Comment by Guts — June 15, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Guts,
Oh ok. For myself, I'm not so sure I ever liked the arguments for imperfection as a requirement for evolution and natural selection. There are countless examples of biology generating better features than our engineers or pharmacists could themselves create.
I'm not so sure that this is a problem though – genetic algorithms can produce such seemingly perfect efficiency and complexity as well.
Comment by Daniel — June 15, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Guts asked:
"What are you referring to?"
Life. Don't all efficient designs in which things are moved by multiple motors involve turning the motors off and on?
Comment by Smokey — June 15, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
June 15th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Daniel:
I agree but for vastly different reasons than you might, but thats for another thread.
Comment by Guts — June 15, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
June 16th, 2006 at 2:50 am
Peer review provides a critical level of quality control for scientific research. There is certainly good reason to doubt whether an area of study that fails to generate peer-reviewed publications is scientific. Nevertheless, it betrays a profound misunderstanding of science to think that science is limited to peer-reviewed reports. A lot of science goes on before a research project reaches the level of peer-review. And some significant research in private industry is not submitted for publications because it would reveal proprietary information. Another important aspect of science is open discussion, such as one encounters at scientific meetings and on some of the better scientific blogs.
Comment by trrll — June 16, 2006 @ 2:50 am
June 16th, 2006 at 2:59 am
There are, in fact, numerous reasonable hypotheses in both of these areas, which have led to important research. For example, here is a recent hypothesis regarding the stepwise origin of the flagella, which also cites some earlier proposed evolutionary pathways. Of course, science is about discovery, not final explanations–indeed, the assumption that the explanation for something is completely known is invariably an obstacle to scientific progress.
Comment by trrll — June 16, 2006 @ 2:59 am
June 16th, 2006 at 3:13 am
This seems a remarkably foolish claim. After all, computer simulations have shown that genetic algorithms are among the most powerful methods of optimization, so one would expect that biological systems would tend to be close to the maximum efficiency for a system of that design. Of course, like every other optimization method, it can get "stuck" in a local optimum, when better performance can be achieved with a radically different design–a mistake that humans frequenly make as well (although genetic algorithms are better than many optimization methods at escaping from such local optima).
The one thing that humans can do that evolution cannot is know when to give up–for example, a human may recognize diminishing returns and stop trying to optimize the efficiency of an engine once they attain the thermodynamic limit of efficiency, while because evolution is not goal-directed, it will continue to mutate and select indefinitely.
Comment by trrll — June 16, 2006 @ 3:13 am
June 16th, 2006 at 4:14 am
Hi Daniel,
I don't think Mike intended this thread to be a discussion of universal common descent, but I hope he'll forgive me for keeping it alive. If the discussion continues, I can open up a new "open thread".
Your citation of Ciccarelli et al.'s article and the referance to the "Tree of Life" website does not resolve the question of whether there existed a common ancestor of all life. Those articles are all premised on the assumption that there is a single tree of life (with all life descending from a single ancestor), which can be figured out, and can therefore not be used to support this hypothesis. As Elliott Sober and Michael Steel writes, in a discussion of the testability of common descent: "Whether one uses cladistic parsimony, distance measures, or maximum likelihood methods, the typical question is which tree is the best one, not whether there is a tree in the first place." (Journal of Theoretical Biology 218:395-408, 2002)
The "educational sites" deal only with common descent of higher groups (e.g. apes and man), and although suitable for countering creationist notions of "created kinds", do not establish the existence of a universal common ancestor of life.
Comment by Krauze — June 16, 2006 @ 4:14 am
June 16th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Sober and Steel faced a difficult problem, in that they were trying to justify publication of a new statistical approach to addressing what is generally regarded as a long-settled question (which is, of course, why the "typical question" is not whether there is a tree, but what tree is best). And in fact, they do not rebut other evidence for a common ancestor, such as the commonality of the genetic code–their main argument for their approach is that it is quantitative, and that their method of lineage analysis is less vulnerable than conventional methods to being fooled by evolution from multiple ancestors under a "different and more complex process model in which different traits evolve according to different rules."
Comment by trrll — June 16, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
June 16th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
True, but when there's absolutely zero peer-reviewed science out there supporting (a) particular claim(s), that raises a lot of red flags. Especially so when those claims have been circulating for decades, a century even (are the arguments of gaps in evolution of the eye, for instance, all that different from the claims of the complement system, the bacterial flagellum, etc.) and still no such critically reviewed studies supporting ID (or creation science before it)?
However, yes, critical response and discussion of science is very important too.
Krauze,
Yes, we've gotten a bit off-topic for this thread. Very fun discussion though.
For the Tree of Life and the LUCA, I partly disagree. The consilience of information from all of the fields of biology strongly support the conclusion that there is a common origin for life. What's still up for grabs is identifying the LUCA, but Ciccarelli and others are using various techniques to build a description what this organism was probably like.
You're not at all wrong though when you say those papers are premising their studies on the assumption that there is a Tree of Life, but that there is a Tree of Life is pretty much beyond doubt amongst biologists. The Berkeley, TalkOrigins and PBS sites I linked to describe the body of evidence for those assumptions. This is reflected nicely by the quote from Sober andSteel that you mention, so I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say "…which can be figured out, and can therefore not be used to support this hypothesis."
Good point though – those resources don't spend much time on the cellular and molecular evidence linking not just phyla but kingdoms in the tree of life, and I don't have a handy reference for that, but generally the evidences surround the cellular and molecular homologies between animals, plants, fungi, protists, eubacteria and archea. Going back that far, there are obviously no fossils or biogeography lines of evidence. Biologists generally find this phylogenetic basis for linking the kingdoms rather convincing in light of the more provable connections between homology, transitional forms, biogeography, etc.
Comment by Daniel — June 16, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
June 16th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Daniel:
Except I wasn't talking about common descent and macroevolution. I was talking about common ancestors, and whether "someone can demonstrate the existence of such an entity."
Daniel:
A more likely reason that it doesn't help is that it doesn't address the issue I raised.
You have to demonstrate the existence of a common ancestor, otherwise your belief that there is a common ancestor is purely subjective. How do you propose to demonstrate the existence of your hypothetical (subjective) common ancestors?
If they didn't exist, they can't very well have been an ancestor to any entity living today. So who are they? How are you going to demonstrate that they exist? Which of your provided links identifies the common ancestors? When did they exist, and where?
How about that Deep Time link? Do they take the same view of deep time of Henry Gee? Do they bother to mention, as he does in his book, that you cannot identify ancestors and descendants because of deep time?
Comment by Mung — June 16, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
June 16th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Hi Daniel,
But one has to wonder whether our culture shapes us into thinking that all non-science boils down to vague, hand-wavy, purely subjective concepts. I'm still left wondering about the significance of ID not being science. I can understand pointing out this fact from a reactive position. That is, if someone says ID is science, another person will react and point out it is not science. Or, if a group of people try to use the democratic process to insert ID into the science curriculum, others can react within the same process by pointing out that ID is not science. All of this is understandable.
But is there a proactive reason for pointing out that ID is not science? If so, what in the world can it be? I don't expect you to answer this question as you acknowledge, "I know you're not advocating teaching ID as science, but many IDers are, and refuting such IDers is probably the sole point of demonstrating that ID is not science." But I wonder if there are others who make the "ID is not science" argument for other reasons.
Comment by MikeGene — June 16, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
June 16th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Mung:
Yes, the additional response was an aside – the first link (Ciccarelli et al.) was the direct response to your request for such an entity. No, we don't know for certain what this entity was, but the point is that the list of possibilities is being narrowed down nicely.
So you don't like my aside, big deal. Address my direct response to you then, instead of pretending that I dodged you. IOW, why would you argue that the LUCA was not a gram-positive thermophilic bacteria, as Ciccarelli et al. suggest (please site why you think their conclusions are unjustified). And who the hell is Henry Gee? (please link to a resource so I can understand what claims you're talking about).
MG:
Of course our culture doesn't promote that all non-science is vague, hand-wavy, purely subjective concepts. Some subjective concepts can get very precise and detailed (and therefore wouldn't be mumbo-jumbo), and yet there can be very legitimate arguments made from an alternative point of view. We treat each as valid – instances of different views of history are an excellent example of this (in a war, both sides see things differently, and it's a matter of opinion who is more accurate).
As for proactive reasons for pointing out why ID is not science, the best I can think of is for the purpose of disclaimers or full disclosure statements used in arguing certain views (even using somewhat scientific anectdotal observations). Or just simple statement of fact in trying to categorize exactly what ID is. Either way, I think you're largely right, and the "ID is not science" statement is, on the whole, a reactive statement.
Comment by Daniel — June 16, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
I did address your response. Apparently you haven't even grasped the issue at hand, even though you were the one to raise it. How have your sources demonstrated the existence an actual ancestor?
You:
Me:
Your common ancestors are subjective, unless you can demonstrate the existence of each entity. How do you propose to do that?
A simple Google on your part is too much to ask I suppose.
http://www.henrygee.org.uk/
Think context now, i.e., Deep Time.
Comment by Mung — June 18, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Mung,
Come now, are you seriously suggesting that the huge repository of evidence, from nested heirarchies of the entire tree of life, to homologies ranging from cell/molecular to the fossil record, and the sharing of the genetic code and a master set of regulatory genes, is all subjective? Those common aspects and indications of common origin exist – that's not a matter of opinion.
As I said though, Ciccarelli (and others in the reference list) proposed and implemented a series of methods for narrowing down what the LUCA was, and the debate on who the LUCA was still rages though. But amongst biologists, there is no debate anymore as to whether a common ancestor actually existed. If you disagree, however, provide an alternative explanation for the evidence (paleontological, evo-devo, comparative anatomy, cell and molecular biology, etc.), have it be parsimonious, and find some way to put your claims to the test.
But what I'm not going to do is to teach the equivalent of an introduction to biology or evolutionary biology course in the course of this blog discussion. You'll have to go back to school for that.
Thanks for the link on Gee – and I have followed it up with 15min of googling him and the terms "deep time common ancestor". In particular, I found this description of Gee's views of deep time, including these quotes from Gee:
I think the first of the three very succinctly describes a deep misunderstanding of paleontology. If that view were correct, many fields besides paleontology would be completely ruined as well (think astronomy, for one, which relies on snapshots of millions or billions of years ago in space).
Claiming that a series of snapshots in space-time over millenia cannot be lined up chronologically, and that conclusions from this cannot be made, is just foolhardy.
But heck, I'm not familiar with Gee – maybe my brief google searches of his claims is missing some crucial information, and I'm misunderstanding him. Am I?
Comment by Daniel — June 18, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Hi Daniel,
It took a while, but I've finally opened a new thread where we can discuss the subject of universal common descent. My reply to you is here.
Comment by Krauze — June 18, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
June 18th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Sorry, I just noticed that the link to the Henry Gee quotes wasn't working. Here's the site I was referring to:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkortho...
Comment by Daniel — June 18, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
June 19th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
What I am arguing, and I don't see why this is so difficult to comprehend:
You:
That you believe a designer to exist is the subjective part, unless someone can demonstrate the existence of such an entity.
Me:
That you believe a common ancestor to have existed is the subjective part, unless someone can demonstrate the existence of such an entity.
Until you demonstrate their existence, your belief in their existence is purely subjective. You made the rules, not me.
Take the LUCA for example. You seem to think it had certain characteristics. Does that really demonstrate that it existed? And how do you determine those characteristics?
If we were to propose the characteristics of a designer, would that satisfy you that the existence of such an entity had been demonstrated?
I'm just demanding that you to be consistent, else your demand is irrational.
Comment by Mung — June 19, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
June 20th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Because some people want ID taught in science class. The attempt to pass it off as science is really the only reason anyone criticizes it.
Science is objective truth, made objective through the specific technique of insisting that findings be based only on assumptions that we all agree on, such as the existence of reality and our ability to perceive it. ID depends on an additional assumption that we do not all share: that there exists a non-biological intelligent agent capable of designing all life on Earth. You can insult such an assumption as "mumbo-jumbo" if you want, but the problem with that assumption isn't its quality. The problem is that some people don't believe it and there's no way to demonstrate the Intelligent Designer as currently defined by any ID theory.
Comment by don provan — June 20, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
June 20th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
[...] For an interesting conversation that I've gone and gotten myself into, check out this open thread at Telic Thoughts. (cont'd from here) [...]
Pingback by Migrations » Blog Archive » On molecular homology and common ancestry — June 20, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:48 pm
"Why is this one example, the bacterial flagellum, sufficient to refute the vastness of evolution as a theory?"
I never said it was, nor do I think it is.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 22, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:51 pm
"There are, in fact, numerous reasonable hypotheses in both of these areas, which have led to important research. For example, here is a recent hypothesis regarding the stepwise origin of the flagella, which also cites some earlier proposed evolutionary pathways."
I'm not impressed with Matzke's arguments. See Dembski's reply here:
http://www.designinference.com...
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 22, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:14 am
Don Provan:
What up with that. The primary issues, as I understand it, is that biologists want to have their works seriously considered when they are submitted to journals, and biologists would like the privelage of being able to speak their mind, and debate the issues without committing career suicide. The classroom is a sideshow!
Comment by bFast — June 23, 2006 @ 12:14 am
October 17th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
[...] I moved over to the blog, Telic Thoughts, one critic, Daniel, had this to say: But no, I generally wouldn't call your version of ID mumbo-jumbo, but [...]
Pingback by Intellectual Honesty | The Design Matrix — October 17, 2008 @ 7:47 pm