kornbelt888: I suspect you assume they share a common ancestor because of your world-view.

Common Descent is a strongly supported scientific assertion.

kornbelt888: They could very well share a common designer.

The nested hierarchy pattern in biology does not resemble design, but is entirely consistent with Common Descent. But to understand that, you would have to be willing to understand what we mean by a nested hierarchy. (For instance, if an organism has tits, it also has three ear bones; and this is true whether it swims, flies, runs, ambles or climbs. This striking correlation is a natural consequence of divergence from a common therapsid ancestor, but unexplained by common design.)

kornbelt888: Observed rates of change of what? Nucleotides?

Genetic change. (Yes, genes are known to consist of nucleotide polymers.) The rate of genetic and morphological change is more than sufficient to transverse the distances required to explain the known biological record. Indeed, observed rates of evolution are much, much faster than required.

kornbelt888: I suspect there is an added ingredient in your confidence that I do not share. Namely, philosophical materialism.

I'm not a philosophical materialist, so your suspicions are misplaced.

I suspect you assume they share a common ancestor because of your world-view. They could very well share a common designer. Your assumption amounts to nothing more than evolution-of-the-gaps.

"We also know the observed rates of change."

Observed rates of change of what? Nucleotides?

"We don't have to know the exact route to determine that an automobile travels fast enough to cross the United States in less than a month. There may be unknown barriers, but my statement concerned being "sufficiently rapid"."

Invalid analogy. We know automobiles are capable of making cross country trips, via various routes. The terrain is well travelled. (I have plenty of personal experience in that area.) It is empirically unknown if mutations can achieve changes in species to the degree you assert. Mutation rates could be a billion times higher than what exists, and this would still be unknown. Position and timing are vital, and it is impossible to know if the right locations at the right time occurred, or even they can occur. In order to know if one can get from point A to point B, one has to know the terrain. You don't know the terrain. There may be mountains there no automobile can traverse. It's an open question.

I suspect there is an added ingredient in your confidence that I do not share. Namely, philosophical materialism. In your mind, something like blind mutational evolution has to be responsible for the difference of species. It's a philosophy of the gaps argument. You're welcome to it. I'm an empiricist. And I'm not convinced.

nullasalus: By evidence, you meant hypothesis? The thing formed by reflecting on evidence? If you say so.

The testing of valid scientific hypotheses. A scientific hypothesis must entail a specific and distinguishing empirical prediction. There are other methods of acquiring knowledge. We can collect facts and catalog them. We can stumble around in the dark bumping into things. Or we can propose and test empirical hypotheses. The last of these is integral to the scientific method.

I was referring to a valid *scientific* hypothesis.

By evidence, you meant hypothesis? The thing formed by reflecting on evidence? If you say so.

nullasalus: No indirect evidence?

I was referring to a valid *scientific* hypothesis. E.g., the retardation of the pendulum is indirect scientific evidence of the Earth's rotation as it is reasonably derived from the hypothesis.

Zachriel: A detailed lith of Roddy McDowall in an ape suit has been discussed previously. There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that the genetic code is the result of intelligent design, and significant evidence to the contrary.

There is no significant evidence to the contrary.

That's just your human-centric view that is causing you to see what you want to see"”just as the Earth appears fixed and the center of cosmic events.

No, that's the application of logic and the reasonable proposition that if something talks like a duck it might be one. Using placeholders to represent abstract entities is a distinctly intellectual exercise and while we can hold the position that an unknown and unidentifed series of chemical pathways mimicked a process having earmarks of intellect, maintaining that this had to happen is manifestly stupid and unscientific.

Bradford: Good. There are instances when intelligent design is so manifestly obvious

If we find a Mars Bar on Mars, then we might very well suspect design. But even the "manifestly obvious" requires careful investigation. I mean everyone knows that heavy stones fall proportionally faster than lighter ones, don't they?

Bradford: (even when the design is not human) that instant recognition is possible.

It's because a Mars Bar resembles a human or human-like artifact that we suspect design. We know lots of things about humans and their artifacts. But no matter what our initial conclusions, we would then subject them to further hypothesis-testing.

Bradford: Identifying features of intelligent design and finding them in objects of unknown cause would at the very least raise a suspicion worth further investigation.

Yes, those things that more closely resemble human artifacts are more likely to lead us to suspect human or human-like manufacture. Without specifics, we can't give any definitive answer, but it is quite *conceivable* that one could reach a valid conclusion (albeit tentative) of design in the case of a human-like artifact found on another planet. (The scientific hypothesis should be obvious, but a human-like artifact would be conjectured to be manufactured by human-like organisms, something we could then test for further confirmation.) As most such examples won't be as obvious as a detailed lith of Roddy McDowall in an ape suit, without a careful scientific investigation, we might end up with false positives, such as a detailed lith of an organism we know from careful scientific examination was *not* designed.

Bradford: A useful strategy could be to distinguish between patterns signaling instant recognition from those requiring further evidence.

Well, there's your problem right there. While we should tend to withhold agreement awaiting further specifics (admitting that it is *conceivable* to reach a valid conclusion of design), you want to leap right to the conclusion, file it away, and say you're done. Instant recognition is a very poor (and certainly not a scientific) strategy. It leads to false positives and substitutes preconceptions for careful investigation.

Bradford: Mountain visages would fall into the former category and coding biological mechanisms in the latter category.

A detailed lith of Roddy McDowall in an ape suit has been discussed previously. There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that the genetic code is the result of intelligent design, and significant evidence to the contrary. That's just your human-centric view that is causing you to see what you want to see"”just as the Earth appears fixed and the center of cosmic events. That's why with even the most "obvious" claims, we have to subject them to scientific investigation.

Bradford: A human-like artifact like a detailed mountain visage. I take the answer to the above posed question is "Yes I agree." Correct?

Zachriel: Yes, as already answered previously, and with the appropriate caveats.

Good. There are instances when intelligent design is so manifestly obvious (even when the design is not human) that instant recognition is possible. We can start with what we observe and infer from that point. Identifying features of intelligent design and finding them in objects of unknown cause would at the very least raise a suspicion worth further investigation. A useful strategy could be to distinguish between patterns signaling instant recognition from those requiring further evidence. Mountain visages would fall into the former category and coding biological mechanisms in the latter category. Do you find any problems with this so far?

Bradford: If astronauts on a distant planet, not before visited by humans, encountered a detailed mountain visage with features resembling but not identical to humans, the astronauts can accurately conclude an intellegent agency as the cause.

Zachriel: I've already answered this several times. Without specifics, we can't give any definitive answer, but it is quite conceivable that one could reach a valid conclusion of design in the case of a human-like artifact found on another planet.

Bradford: You've never answered the question directly.

Sure I have, e.g.,

Zachriel: If stone heads were found on Earth, we might have reason to believe they were built by Earthlings. All you have done is transport something we know a lot about into a place where it is not expected. You could just as easily transport a coke bottle or a candy wrapper.

A dead man stabbed in the back. Alone. In a windowless room with all the doors bolted from the inside.

Zachriel: A detailed lith of Roddy McDowall in an ape suit would be strong evidence that it was manufactured.

Zachriel: Without specifics, we can't give any definitive answer,

Bradford: Why not? Because you feel an answer weakens the anti-ID movement?

No. Because without a careful scientific investigation, you may end up with false positives.

Zachriel: but it is quite conceivable that one could reach a valid conclusion of design in the case of a human-like artifact found on another planet.

Bradford: A human-like artifact like a detailed mountain visage. I take the answer to the above posed question is "Yes I agree." Correct?

Yes, as already answered previously, and with the appropriate caveats.