The Road to Truth
by BradfordMike Gene authored a short blog item at The Design Matrix entitled Evidence and Truth. Quoting:
Yes, evidence is important when making decisions about our natural and social world, but relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world. We know this simply from the fact that in court rooms around the world, judges and juries have followed the evidence before them to determine guilty people are innocent and innocent people are guilty. This holds true even if we rule out corruption and biases.
With advances in DNA technology there have been headline stories recently of convicted criminals cleared of serious charges like rape after having spent years in prison. New technology produced new evidence clearing them of a crime for which juries, lacking such evidence, had voted for conviction. Advances in scientific research are made possible by technological progress. That in turn leads to more and sometimes contrasting evidence that can impact theories. More from the link:
Right there, in that scene, we see the difference between evidence and truth. Relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world.
Our understanding is shaped by our preconceptions. Here are some questions:
* If you are an ID critic the confirmation of what types of hypotheses would convince you that ID was a scientifically valid theory? What predictions?
* If you are an IDist what type of evidence would convince you that ID has no plausible future in the realm of science? Philosophy?
* Make two assumptions regardless of what you believe. Assume that evolution occurred as specified by mainstream theory but also assume that it was front loaded in that from the very first cell to the present time key phenotypic innovations were enabled by genomic features found in ancestral organisms. If we replayed the tape of natural history from the begining what would have to be front loaded at the outset to enable adaptation; evolution? Surely a capacity to replicate but what if anything else? Mechanisms that maintain genomic integrity? A genetic code? Mechanisms that enable gene expression; regulation? What?
And if initial cellular properties were specified but different from those actually found in earthly primordial cells, what would a replayed tape look like? Were eukaryotic life forms inevitable?
July 21st, 2008 at 5:44 am
Let's look at the evidence Einstein provided to prove that Relativity was a scientifically valid theory and superior to Newton's theories:
1) Einstein had an actual theory. That is, he had a connected series of hypothesis which made predictions about the world.
2) Einstein's theories predicted almost the same thing that Newton's theories predicted at ordinary speeds and gravitational fields.
3) Einstein's theories made predictions that were measurably different from Newton under some conditions.
4) When those predictions were tested, the results followed Einstein's theories and not Newtons.
So, as an ID skeptic, I'd like to see theories and data like above.
I'd be interested in the answers to this question too.
Comment by CeilingCat — July 21, 2008 @ 5:44 am
July 21st, 2008 at 7:54 am
Very simple:
A scientific proposal of the form: If you perform this experiment, ID uniquely predicts you will get nontrivial result A. Here is the equipment you would need. Here is how you’d do the experiment.
The lack of a scientific proposal of the form: If you perform this experiment, ID uniquely predicts you will get nontrivial result A. Here is the equipment you would need. Here is how you’d do the experiment.
It doesn’t need evidence to have a future in a soft discipline like philosophy. If you want it to be part of your philosophy (or theology) then go right ahead.
Comment by David Heddle — July 21, 2008 @ 7:54 am
July 21st, 2008 at 8:17 am
One fundamental difference between science and law is that all scientific conclusions are considered tentative, while legal proceedings try to reach a definite conclusion based on the available evidence. That's one reason why the standard of proof in criminal trials is so high.
Valid scientific hypotheses that entail specific and distinguishing empirical preditions.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 8:17 am
July 21st, 2008 at 8:27 am
Dean, to the biology department: "Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for laboratories and expensive equipment and stuff? Why couldn't you be more like the math department - all they need is pencils, paper, and waste-paper baskets. Or better yet, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper."
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 8:27 am
July 21st, 2008 at 8:31 am
By the way, isn't there already a thread on this at Telic Thoughts?
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 8:31 am
July 21st, 2008 at 10:29 am
This is trivially easy really. Making a valid hypothesis is something the average high school student can do. The fact that the ID movement cannot accomplish this trivial task is a clear indication that they are talking philosophy and theology and not science.
Nothing would need to be front loaded to enable evolution. All you would need is the ability to replicate with variation. No code, no gene expression, no genes, no regulation. Just descent with modification.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 21, 2008 @ 10:29 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:09 am
Ceiling Cat, if the standard set is laws of physics like Einstein's ToR then all theories of natural history will fall short of the mark.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:09 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Todd:
The point is what physical evidence assures us that descent with modification would be a continuous process if the entity needing modification is a precellular self-replicating molecule?
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:13 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:18 am
Zachriel:
Every human endeavor operates within a philosophical framework. It could be nothing more than the universal explanatory sufficiency of a reductionist approach. Or the belief that if x replicates it's evolution to whatever is currently present is a given.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:18 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:22 am
Zachriel:
I would point to human nature and its tendency to draw conclusions leading the theories regardless of how tentative we proclaim them to be. IOW, conclusions limited by available evidence (in turn a limitation of technology in many instances) restricts the accuracy of inevitable legal and scientific conclusions.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:22 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:26 am
David Heddle:
It's a question of need not desire. Any theologian thinking a non-trivial theology or philosophy could be constructed in the absence of intelligent causal chains, generated by intelligent sources, does not belong in the field of study. You may not need evidence to construct a consistent philosophy but the philosophical outlook employed by one constricts his view of what is possible. Downward causation paradigms are as philosophically plausible as their counterparts. Evidence can also be consistent with them. They are ruled out of hand by those thinking an initial cell must have resulted from a confluence of unspecified natural froces.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:26 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:43 am
What about Mike's article in which he used ID reasoning to conclude that enolase must have a function in the degradosome.
What about certain things we would expect based off of two competing assumptions: Intelligent Design vs. a process that is blind and rooted in Scientific Materialism? Such as the existence of encoded information, a method to transcribe this information then utilizing a design material (proteins) to yield nanotech machines? If you have two competing ways to view this…. which one seems more intuitive?
Then consider that one of the most fundamental materials is found solely in living organisms. No other natural source has been shown to be able to produce nucleotides, let alone nucleosides.
Comment by Doug — July 21, 2008 @ 11:43 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Bradford,
I don’t really know what your string of response means. Then again, I almost never know what IDists are saying on the topic of “ID is science.” They never give a nice simple straightforward response: “oh yes, we do have some experiments planned, and here are the proposals, if you are interested…” That simplicity is what I am used to, as a scientist who works with other scientists. The response from IDists is almost always some variation of metaphysical gobbledygook. Bleh.
Comment by David Heddle — July 21, 2008 @ 11:48 am
July 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
David Heddle:
The title of the blog entry is not ID is Science but The Road to Truth.
What works insofar as answering the question posed:
If we replayed the tape of natural history from the begining what would have to be front loaded at the outset to enable adaptation; evolution? Surely a capacity to replicate but what if anything else? Mechanisms that maintain genomic integrity? A genetic code? Mechanisms that enable gene expression; regulation? What?
The only answer provided cites the adaquacy of a self-replicating molecule. You get a cell from molecular descent with modification. Is that the type of science that works for you and those you work with David?
Is that what natural theology is- metaphysical gobbledygook? Who gets to don the priestly robes and explain that nature shows the plausibility of conventional origin explanations to IDiots? I'm upgrading swamp terminology.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I have a question related to two ongoing discussions (see “Remarkable Nucleotides”):
I would like to know what material facts or predictions of the “RNA World Hypothesis” distinguish it from my own “Rock’s DNA World Hypothesis.” Here’s my prediction: The RNA hypothesis doesn’t make any predictions that distinguish it from the DNA hypothesis.
So how am I to decide between such hypothesis?
How do I decide between two different theories that make the same predictions?
Comment by Rock — July 21, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Rock:
I recall seeing that very same question raised many times when the concept of front loading is discussed.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Occam’s razor
Which theory is simpler?
Elegance
Which theory is more beautiful?
correspondance
Which theory corresponds more closely to what is true about the world?
Notice these are objective properties but our knowledge of them is subjective. That is why predictions and experiments are so important.
This is a challenge from a friend for IDers and from a skeptic to Darwinists.
Peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 21, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Rock,
If you were a believer I would suggest a 450 year old book
(The Arraignment of Error by Samuel Bolton)
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 21, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 7:18 pm
If God exists it is by his grace (my own mother’s name) that I am what I am., FMM. My argument has never been with God. God does not even deign to argue with fools like me. I have argued with his self-appointed spokesmen. FMM?
Comment by Rock — July 21, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I don't know what you mean by "continuous process." I don't know what sort of "assurance" you are looking for either. I don't think anything is "assured," I simply suspect that the process, once started, would be more likely to continue the longer it runs. Even if one period of self replication hit a critical failure point I would expect that process to have already altered the molecular landscape enough that the emergence of a additional self replicating process would become more likely.
Intuitive, eh? So its knowledge though intuition then. I find which is more intuitive to often be unrelated to which is more rational and to often to be unrelated to objective truth.
If two starting points lead to exactly the same results from that point forward then you typically favor the simplest explanation. For example, Front Loaded Evolution can be rejected as superfluous because it adds nothing over the simpler explanation of just Evolution. When it comes to life a slightly simpler form capable of slight modification is always a simpler origin explanation than any designer able to create the form from scratch (especially a magical all knowing and all powerful designer). If its truly just a matter of history then since we cannot travel back in time we may never truly know, but even then we can look for clues that might have been left behind. Of course if both theories truly make identical predictions then it doesn't really matter which one people believe.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 21, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Bradford: The point is what physical evidence assures us that descent with modification would be a continuous process if the entity needing modification is a precellular self-replicating molecule?
That's not hard to understand. Living cells have been replicating for billions of years. Pretty good evidence for someone wanting assurance that this is a real process. OTOH, with favorable conditions we can construct a self-replicator with raw material obtained from living cells and initiate a reaction that lasts for minutes… hours… and at the end we have a recorded event. A start and finish. No evolution of even a small biological system much less vast cellular complexity over billions of years.
That's a nice personal opinion supporting what you wish were the case but where do you think all those nitrogenous bases, sugars and phosphate groups come from to support this ever growing proliferation of RNA molecules?
??? If a replicating process is short circuited it is likely because the conditions for it are no longer favorable, the supply of needed biomolecules is exhausted or contaminents are compromising the process. Since the track record for this type of process is limited to carefully controlled lab environments your views look very much tainted by your wishes.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:24 pm
So the fact that cells have been replicating for billions of years is evidence that something wanted cell replication to be very robust? I guess something wants dirty dishes in my sink too, cause they've been there longer than I care to admit. You really can't even conceive of the idea of something happening "just because," can you? If your mind the very fact that there is a current outcome has to mean that outcome was likely or inevitable or desired. You must at least realize that this entire pattern of thought is a metaphysical position; reason alone does not dictate the conclusions you draw from the evidence.
So even once man can demonstrate an exact process to turn abiotic chemicals into self replicating evolving proto-life it won't mean a thing until we let that proto-life sit for a few billion years? I guess you've crafted a fairly large comfort zone to pad your metaphysics from encroaching reality. You don't have to go to such lengths, really. Once a natural origin of life is so well supported that even you can no longer ignore it away then you can simply claim that chemistry itself was where God front-loaded life into the universe.
Your question perfectly illustrates the basis for my opinion (I never stated it as more than an opinion). You seem to assume there must be a single process which has a forced chain of causation from nothingness to the first cell. I am open to the idea that many different processes might be required. Perhaps process A catalyses the formation of phosphate groups. Phosphate groups would be like crap to this process, but the process might exhaust itself once it has converted its environment. So process A stops or slows, but now you have a landscape filled with an abundance of phosphate groups that otherwise couldn't be supported in that environment. In the mean time Process B might use the phosphate groups for something. If it wasn't for Process A you never could have had Process B but once Process B starts it may no longer require Process A. In the mean time here we are studying Process XYZ and you seem to expect all the details of Process A to be abundantly obvious 4 billion years later. That's not a reasonable expectation. The only reasonable expectation is that science makes continuous progress when following the implications of an abiogenesis theory. This progress has been demonstrated to you many times, but you aren't satisfied with mere progress. Science needs to work backwards one step at a time, but you aren't happy with any theory that can't jump directly to the beginning.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 21, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Todd:
Nice try Todd. Billions of years of cellular replication is good evidence that cellular replication is a robust process. This greatly contrasts with your replicating SRM to cell story- a product of the imagination, not to be confused with science.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:07 am
Huh? I assume that you aren't claiming that only physics has a body of theory that makes predictions about the world that can be tested. What you actually are claiming, I have no clue.
Comment by CeilingCat — July 22, 2008 @ 1:07 am
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
So, you’re telling me, TB, to reject my own hypothesis because RNA is simpler than DNA. Shouldn’t I rather reject my hypothesis because its incorrect? I can’t imagine why I would reject a more complicated but correct hypothesis for a simpler but incorrect hypothesis. And just how much simpler is RNA compared to DNA? And does it matter in the grand evolutionary design of things? Life itself doesn’t seem to discriminate on that basis. There’s DNA and RNA, and protein too. If simplicity were the test, one, not three, should suffice. Or not?.
Comment by Rock — July 22, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
TB
That might have been true when we thought evolution was just random mutation filtered by natural selection. But today we have epicycles like punctuated equilibrium, horizontal gene transfer and genetic drift. In fact almost every new observation requires a new epicycle. Evolution has become so complicated very few people understand it a fact that the establishment constantly reminds us of.
If nobody but the experts understand a theory it is a good bet that it’s incomplete.
Evolution as it is now conceived is much more complex than frontloading. In fact the difference between the two is as vast as the difference between Heliocentrism and the Ptolemaic system.
That is one reason why ID is so attractive to the non experts with nothing invested in the status queue.
Simplicity matters
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 22, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I said no such thing. I was talking about theories, you seem to be talking about specific artifacts.
Seems like a good reason to reject it to me.
In your example you claim both theories make completely identical claims. How can you claim the simpler theory is incorrect when it perfectly matches the predictions of the complex theory?
Irrelevant. I'm not talking about RNA verse DNA.
You seem to be confusing the complexity of the result with the complexity of the theory. These things are not the same. Do you believe a complicated outcome must have a complicated theory to describe it?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 22, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Strawman. Has anyone ever suggested that evolutionary theory is complete?
Given these vast differences you mention it should be trivial to provide some distinctive testable claims and predictions. So where are they? Lets hear them, what are these massive differences.
Another reason is that all you need to contribute to ID is instinct and intuition. None of that pesky time consuming science is required. No need to understand a vastly complex field when you can replace all that complexity with "god did it!"
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 22, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
fmm:
It's also a good bet if everybody understands it. It's always a good bet.
Are there any non-experts that understand quantum theory? General relativity? Statistical mechanics? Population genetics? Game theory?
It's a ridiculous statement, fmm.
Comment by Raevmo — July 22, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
TB
The vast differences I mentioned are in complexity not in predictions.
Besides I offer predictions all the time it’s just that Zach always rejects them out of hand .
A simpler theory does not do away with the need for science. Did Heliocentrism make astronomy obsolete?
Raevmo
No one that I know of claims quantum theory or general relativity are complete theories of physics. Lots of people think evolution is a complete theory of nature
These aren’t even theories they are disciplines. Are you now saying that evolution is a discipline and not a theory after all? I can't keep up with all this shape shifitng.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 22, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 am
fmm:
But you must admit that they are beyond the grasp of the vast majority of non-experts. Do you have some theological reason to suppose that a (more) complete theory encompassing both would be understandable for non-experts? Perhaps something along the lines of "the good Lord would want His creation to be understandable to >95% of humanity".
Lots of people think silly things, doesn't make them true.
Depends on your definitions of theory and discipline. Perhaps the Theory of Games is better regarded as a set of mathematical tools, but it seems to me that SM and PG are theories according to this Wikipedia definition:
Comment by Raevmo — July 23, 2008 @ 2:05 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 am
Raevmo,
Nope, just an observation that’s been around since Occam that given two explanations for a Phenomenon the most likely to be true is the simpler one. This has always been a guiding principle in science and it’s a major factor driving folks looking for a theory of everything today.
TB said he rejected ID because “evolution” was simpler
When I pointed out that it’s undeniable that frontloading is simpler than MET suddenly simplicity is unimportant. I wonder why that is?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 23, 2008 @ 7:32 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:53 am
That's not quite correct. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate means "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Parsimony. In other words, the
Theory of Gravityis preferred over theTheory of Gravity + Angels. TheAngelsare extraneous, tacked on. (That doesn't mean angels don't exist, only that they add nothing towards making the same empirical predictions.)Similarly, the
Theory of Evolutionis preferred over theTheory of Evolution + Front Loading. However, if there are specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in the latter theory, then it would be preferred even if it were more complex, and even if it were less understandable to laypersons. In that case,Front Loadingwould not be extraneous.Comment by Zachriel — July 23, 2008 @ 7:53 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
How is Front Loading "simpler" than evolution? Lets look at the initial conditions required for these two theories:
evolution: organic molecules.
front-loading: evolution + magical all powerful being who can predict chemical reactions billions of years into the future and with the technology to build something as complex as a cell.
You really think a theory with the axiom of a designer is "simpler" than a theory that needs no such axiom but otherwise explains all the same things?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 23, 2008 @ 10:26 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
TB:
It’s simpler assuming the existence of a designer. I like the majority of humanity assume the existence of a designer for other reasons than design but once his existence is entertained frontloading is easy breezy.
The designer is an axiom of frontloading the same way gravity is an axiom of Heliocentrism. Heliocentrism is much more complex than the Ptolemaic system if it must also explain gravity but once you assume gravity it’s no contest.
I thought evolution was neutral as to the existence of God? If that is the case Frontloading is undeniably much simpler.
If evolution positively asserts that no designer exists that is a whole different kettle of fish. Is that what you are saying?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 23, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Haha, if you can make such grand assumptions then so can I: assuming the existence of a proto-cell then evolution once again becomes the simplest explanation for the first cell ;).
You don't need gravity for Heliocentrism any more or less than you need it for the Ptolemaic geocentric model. All you need to compare those is geometry.
Science is neutral concerning god, but neutrality definitely does not support the axiom "God exists." God, if he exists, is an initial condition just like the presence of organic molecules or phosphate compounds. By your "logic" once you accept god then "god did it" becomes the only reasonable explanation for anything because "god did it" is always simpler than any other explanation.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 23, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
TB
Now I’m really confused I thought evolution was silent on the issue of the first cell. Are you saying evolution offers an explanation of the first cell but it’s complicated?
That’s not correct. With out gravity Heliocentrism must explain why the earth rotates on its axes and around the sun despite the fact that it does not appear to move.
I’m not asking neutrality to support any thing just be neutral
.
What ???Are you saying that evolution is impossible with out organic molecules or phosphate compounds? What about theories of cosmic evolution? Or what about evolutionary computer programs?
Not at all
The earth revolves around the sun because “god did it” and gravity
is more complex than
The earth revolves around the sun because of gravity.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 23, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I thought what I said was perfectly clear. If you assume that a proto cell exists, then the simplest explanation for the first cell is that it evolved from a proto-cell. That is much simpler than the explanation that a magical all powerful being who can predict chemical reactions billions of years into the future used his magical noodly appendage to arrange some atoms to build the first cell. A proto-cell is a simpler initial condition than any designer capable of building a cell.
You are wrong, it doesn't have to explain why any more than the Ptolemaic model has to explain why things move through the sky as they do. They are both descriptions of how things move, not why they move. Geometry. Do you think the Ptolemaic model offers any explanation for why the deferent, epicycle, or eccentric spheres rotate? I'm guessing you don't truly understand the Ptolemaic model if you think there is anything simple about it.
How on earth do you get that interpretation from what I said? If I didn't know any better I'd think you're trying to change the topic. The evolution of the first cell certainly required organic molecules. That is, after all, what cells are made of.
What about them? Do you think space is devoid of organic molecules? Do you even know what "organic molecule" means? Here's a hint, its just about anything that contains carbon.
What about them? I don't think any of them created the first cell. I'm pretty sure they have their own required initial conditions too; for example a computer seems like an obvious initial condition for and evolutionary computer program.
So if you accept "god + gravity" as more complex than "gravity" why did you claim "god + evolution" was simpler than "evolution"? I guess its asking too much for a theistic viewpoint to be self consistent.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 23, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Todd
First of all, why so hostile? It might be better to relax a little bit. I don’t expect us to agree but can’t we all just get along
Maybe but this would not be a part of theory of evolution. Evolution is silent about the origin of life. Is it not?
Once again the first cell is not a issue addressed by frontloading or evolution this would be abiogenesis.
The information content of the first cell might be an issue to distinguish the theories but a UCA is a given with both theories
So what? a proto cell or a designer capable of building one is both outside the scope of the respective theories so irrelevant to the question which theory is simpler.
I did not say it was simple I said it was simpler than Heliocentrism in the respect that it did not have to explain the rotation or revolving of the earth. That is until you assume somthing like gravity.
Evolution in its simplest form only requires a medium that is subject to random mutation that can be filtered by natural selection. This in no way has to be organic molecules.
By cosmic evolution I mean the speculation that our universe itself is the result of evolution. Since carbon was not present at the birth of our universe it’s a good bet it’s not necessary for this kind of evolution. Don’t you agree.
So we agree evolution in no way requires a cell or even organic molecules since computers contain neither of these.
On the other hand frontloading requires a designer.
Because frontloading explains many of the epicicircles like ultraconserved genes that MET does not.
God plus gravity on the other hand does not explain anything that gravity does not.
I don’t see any inconsistency what am I missing?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 24, 2008 @ 1:06 am
July 24th, 2008 at 8:07 am
The Theory of Evolution is not powerful enough to explain the origin of life, but everybody would like to see a unified theory. It is thought that evolutionary processes are important in the origin of life. The border between life and non-life is probably not distinct, but chaotic.
Neither Heliocentrism or Geocentrism posit a mechanism such as gravity. For much of history, Geocentrism was considered simpler because it left the observer stationary. However, mere simplicity is not the proper scientific methodology for determining which of two empirically equivalent theories are preferred, and often both will be maintained until evidence accumulates to decide the case (e.g. Jovian moons).
Be careful not to equivocate on the word "evolution". You should carefully distinguish between biological processes, evolutionary algorithms based on biological processes, and other uses of the same word.
Front-loading explains no more than any Gap-Filler does.
Comment by Zachriel — July 24, 2008 @ 8:07 am
July 24th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Hey Zach,
I agree that's why I expect ID and evolution to be dueling it out on internet forums and in the public square until some one from your side or mine come up with a prediction we can agree is distinguishing. So far that's been tuff because evolition is so had to pin down.
Don’t forget besides simplicity for the billions of believers like me frontloading also corresponds to the truth about the world in ways that “evolution” does not.
I realize this does not close the case scientifically but it is another way to choose between theories that make identical predictions.
Evolution is probably the most equivocated word in the history of the English language. It can mean anything from “change over time” to “there is no God” depending on the context and who is speaking. That’s one of the reasons why distinguishing predictions are so difficult.
How about listing a few other gap fillers that explain things like ultraconserved genes and the presence of signaling systems for multicelled organisms in their singlecelled ancestors with no known function.
I for one can’t think of any.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 24, 2008 @ 8:58 am
July 24th, 2008 at 9:57 am
There is no scientific argument. We have
EvolutionorEvolution + ID. ID is completely extraneous.Handwaving. The Theory of Evolution makes very specific predictions, including Common Descent.
We expect that many genes will be ultra-conserved. I'm not sure why you consider this a problem for the Theory of Evolution. You're probably referring to ultra-conserved non-coding regions of the genome (evolving about as slowly as ribosomal sequences). Knock-out experiments of these non-coding regions, though not definitive, may call into question current understandings of molecular biology, but the relevance to evolutionary theory is still unclear. Other research indicates these ultraconserved regions are under ultraselection (Katzman et al. 2007).
On the signaling systems, this is all new science. Are you *predicting* that these signal genes will be determined to have no function?
It's not a scientific explanation unless it leads to entailed and distinguishing observations. What specific empirical predictions are you making? How are these predictions entailed in the ID Hypothesis?
—
We expect Gaps in new areas of science, or areas that are difficult to research, such as biological events that occurred eons ago. The latest incarnation of Intelligent Design has been around for a generation, yet you point to anomalies only in the latest research. It seems that ID continues to lurk in the shadows of human ignorance.
Comment by Zachriel — July 24, 2008 @ 9:57 am
July 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Zach
I know your side believes that. That’s why I said until a prediction is made by my side or yours we can expect this discussion to be carried out only in the public square.
If you don’t like ID this is a strong incentive to come up with a prediction. Because like it or not my side has already won the argument as far as public opinion goes and we are the ones who right the checks
I guess I should have said mindless evolution alone verses evolition supplemented by Intelligent frontloading I forgot I was talking to someone who always refuses to give other folks the benefit of the doubt and insists on taking what others say in the worst possible light.
But none are distinguishing regarding frontloading or else we would not be having this discussion
That’s correct and would have been obvious had you not been so apt to score rhetorical points.
I predict that no matter what the outcome of these experiments you will claim that evolution predicted it all along
That’s what I mean by evolution being so hard to pin down
I already “predicted” there will be no critical function for the specific three protein combination and you already rejected it out of hand just like you do with every prediction I’ve made.
At this point I'm only pointing out that they have no obious critical function.
Granted but this does not answer my question. I asked you to name another “Gap Filler” that would explain the epicircles I mentioned.
Ill take your silence to mean you know of none.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 24, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I assume you are talking about the recent monosiga brevicollis findings. You do know that monosiga brevicollis lives in colonies, right? You can't imagine any possible function for an intracellular signaling system in a single celled organism that lives in colonies? Hum.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 24, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
TB,
Did I say I was only talking about monosiga brevicollis?
Did I say I couldn’t imagine any possible function?
You are not much on paying attention to what others say are you?
Is that because if you listened you might be expected to have a discussion and not just an insult hurling party?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 24, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Fine, go higher then; are there any choanoflagellates that don't live in colonies? Are there any single celled organisms with seemly excessive signaling systems that do not live in colonies? Lets look closely at what you said, you imply Front Loading can explain "… the presence of signaling systems for multi-celled organisms in their single celled ancestors with no known function. [emphasis added]" You claim you aren't making a Gap Theory when your only evidence is that we don't know the function of something? Instead how about you try to make a positive prediction. For example, here's a prediction that evolution can make which Front Loading doesn't imply: any single celled organism with extra cellular communication abilities will have used that ability for some function important to its survival. So we find a case like monosiga brevicollis, we don't yet know why it has so many inter-cellular communication systems. Evolution makes a positive prediction that we can investigate that knowledge gap and find how those signals help the organism. Front Loading simply says, "Ah! Something we don't know! Ignorance supports Front Loading! Q.E.D!"
Evasive much?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 24, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
TP:
from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
quote:
A number of species such as those in the genus Proterospongia may form simple colonies
end quote:
Does this not imply that other speciecies don't live in colonies?
When did I claim that I was not making a gap theory?
Yet more evidence that you are not paying attention.
I only claimed that frontloading explains this epicircle and is therefore simpler than evolition.
Evolution makes a positive prediction that we can investigate that knowledge gap and find how those signals help the organism.
That prediction is not distinguishing or we would not be having this discussion.
frontloading explains an observation that evolition does not so in this case ignorance supports evolition.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 24, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Hi FMM,
You meant "TB" not "TP" correct?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 24, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
fmm:
What signals? All we know is that choanoflagellates have some genes that might be related (common ancestry) to genes that are involved in "signaling" in multi-cellular organisms. That doesn't imply that the genes in c-flags are also involved in signaling.
I bet c-flags also have genes that are related to genes playing a role in human brain development. Thus we may surmise that The Frontloader (PBUH) planted the seeds of human intelligence.
Comment by Raevmo — July 24, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Todd:
An intersignaling system for colonies would make more sense. Intrasignaling makes sense either way.
Comment by Bradford — July 24, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Raevmo,
That section you quoted was from me, not FMM, I think he just missed a blockquote tag. You are correct that the function might be unrelated to signalling, as I alluded when I said, "some function important to its survival" earlier in that paragraph. I said "signals" to avoid the need to look up the spelling of "tyrosine kinases." Of course since these guys live in colonies I wouldn't be surprised if they are used for intercellular signaling, but evolution really only predicts a positive benefit.
You are correct, that was a typo on my part. I meant "intercellular signaling".
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 24, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Virtually every scientific paper published in the journal Evolution makes predictions.
That's like asking for predictions that distinguish between the
Theory of GravityandIntelligent Falling. It's vacuous. If you make a scientific claim that there is design is biology, then it is up to you to provide reasonable support for that claim.I didn't reject it out of hand, but responded in some detail.
Comment by Zachriel — July 24, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Interesting how you ignore any hard questions and only respond to the most general questions. Sure, it might mean that. Is there a correlation between the number of tyrosine kinases and the propensity to form colonies? How about the more important question, are there any single celled organisms with seemly excessive intercellular signaling systems that do not live in colonies? Again, I don't know the answer. All I know is that evolution predicts an important role for tyrosine kinases in single celled choanoflagellates, front loading doesn't rule this out but also doesn't predict it. So following the loose standards of evidence advocated by DM supporters if an important role is found then it should be accepted by DM supporters as evidence for evolution.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 25, 2008 @ 12:05 am
July 25th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Zach:
Yet none are distinguishing in regards to frontloading
I know you believe this but the vast majority of the population does not. For them ID has already won the day for the reasons I’ve stated: it’s simpler more elegant and corresponds more closely to the truth that we know about the world. Since we live in a democracy eventually the opinion of the public will be heard.
If you don’t like that fact it would be a good idea to look for a distinguishing prediction. Either that or prepare for the day when it won’t be called “evolutionary biology” it will be called something like “frontloaded biology”. The science might be the same but the voters will be happier.
A rejection is a rejection. "it would not show what you think it would" sounds like a rejection out of hand to my hillbilly mind.
The fact is if we never find any function for the signaling proteins that still would not be evidence for frontloading in your mind it would only be a gap. The same goes for every other prediction I’ve offered here.
I realize I’m just an illiterate fundamentalist but it gets to be suspicious after a while.
Todd (not TP)
This is funny given the fact that the only reason I’m still here is to get the answer to a direct question I made earlier……… Please list some other gap fillers that explain the specific epicircles I mentioned.
For me it would. On the same token if no critical function is found would you accept it as evidence for frontloading? Or would you call it a gap?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 25, 2008 @ 8:16 am
July 25th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Nor do they make predictions about the empathic, life-giving powers of the invisible pink unicorn. That's because unicorns are extraneous to the results (as are an infinitude of other such claims). Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem!
Argumentum ad populum.
Petitio principii. Are you trying to hit every possible fallacy?
Yes, but I did not reject your claim out of hand. I proferred several long comments. You were apparently confused on many issues.
Universal negatives can be difficult to demonstrate, but the relevant universe in this instance is probably small enough to make an exhaustive search. But we are just now getting to the point where we can study the evolution of these proteins in detail. The Pincus et al. paper at issue in that thread was just published in PNAS this month.
Pincus et al: How did this system of three components evolve, given their interdependent function? … These two lineages show a dramatic coexpansion of all three domain families. Concurrent expansion of the three domain families is consistent with a stepwise evolutionary model in which preexisting SH2 and PTP domains were of limited utility until the appearance of the TyrK domain in the last common ancestor of metazoans and choanoflagellates.
(Here's William Lim and David Pincus, the lead researchers.)
It would be called an anomaly and would spur additional research. That means proposing hypotheses—and *testing* them. Front Loading will remain scientifically vacuous (extraneous) unless and until it leads to valid scientific hypotheses that are entailed in the claim.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 10:43 am
July 25th, 2008 at 11:11 am
So you admit that front loading adds nothing to evolution and therefore no distinguishing claims can be made? Or are you suggesting it is the responsibility of people who think front loading is as irrelevant as spaghetti monsters to prove front loading wrong? You are the one who claims front loading isn't vacuous, I'm afraid its up to you to provide a distinguishing prediction. Your inability to do so certainly indicates that front loading is vacuous.
Science is not the search for consensus, its the search for truth. No number of ID advocates passionately agreeing with one another will change the truth.
I could care less if your particular gap theory is the bestest gap theory ever and can beat up all the other gap theories with one axiom tied behind its back. Its still an unsupported gap theory.
If research indicated that those systems had no function then yes, that would support the idea of front loading. Currently no research has ever reached that conclusion for any biological system ever. Taking a system that has not yet been studied and claiming our lack of knowledge supports your theory is disingenuous. That is why your claims are nothing more than another gap theory.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 25, 2008 @ 11:11 am
July 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Todd:
No I’m saying that the relationship between frontloading and MET is the same as the relationship between Heliocentrism and the Ptolemaic system before Galileo came along.
I think there are lots of distinguishing claims to made. I just can’t think of any that would satisfy Zach.
It’s hard shake the establishment when every time an observation is made that conflicts with their theory they simply draw another epicycle. I have full confidence however that eventually an unexpected moon of Jupiter will show up that will eliminate your wiggle room
Scientifically ID is just as much the truth as MET until a distinguishing prediction is made.
Heliocentrism was a gap theory until Galileo
Notice how we have moved from critical function to no function. Nice goalpost shifting
Ultra conserved genes might meet that higher standard if they have no function would that be evidence for frontloading in your view.
And it never will you can’t prove a negative.
For years research pointed to no function when we were talking about vestal organs.
Did you think that research was correct when it supported MET or did you think it was just another gap.
I made no claim I made a prediction there is a big difference
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 25, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
here is another observation.
quote:
This theory has had trouble gaining traction because it implies that aging evolved, that natural selection pushed older organisms down a path of deterioration. However, natural selection works by favoring genes that help organisms produce lots of offspring. After reproduction ends, genes are beyond natural selection's reach, so scientists argued that aging couldn't be genetically programmed.
end quote:
I can't wait to see the latest epicycle and to hear it said that evolition predicted this observation all along.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 25, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I am gratified that you think enough as to try. But consider your example based on an apparent anomaly in research published this month. Don't you think that you might give it a bit of time before rushing off and claiming this gap as vindication?
Not since Darwin.
Origin of Species: Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung.
Darwin provides many examples of vestigial organs that have other functions. Notice the above example is also an example of cooption. Also, as Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs without function tend to have high variance in structure as there is no constraining selection.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Todd Berkebile Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Rock: So, you’re telling me, TB, to reject my own hypothesis because RNA is simpler than DNA.
"I said no such thing. I was talking about theories, you seem to be talking about specific artifacts."
Of course, I was thinking of specific theories about specific “artifacts.”
Rock: Shouldn’t I rather reject my hypothesis because its incorrect?
"Seems like a good reason to reject it to me."
I don’t reflexively reject theories because upon first blush they seem incorrect, i.e., upon the basis of initial tests.
Rock: I can’t imagine why I would reject a more complicated but correct hypothesis for a simpler but incorrect hypothesis.
"In your example you claim both theories make completely identical claims. How can you claim the simpler theory is incorrect when it perfectly matches the predictions of the complex theory?"
That’s not my example. But we agreed already. Correct theories are preferred. Not simpler or more complex theories.
Rock: And just how much simpler is RNA compared to DNA? And does it matter in the grand evolutionary design of things? Life itself doesn’t seem to discriminate on that basis. There’s DNA and RNA, and protein too.
"Irrelevant. I'm not talking about RNA verse DNA."
You were talking about “theory” in some “abstract” sense that is about nothing. I provided two concrete theories about something (RNA/DNA). You’re talking about theories so abstract they are about nothing. that they are "Irrelevant"?
Comment by Rock — July 25, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Rock,
To recap, you had asked the following very general question:
Its a general question about choosing between theories. The answer is you choose the theory that seems simplest based on its mechanism and initial conditions. Then you go on to say:
Hum, I guess I misunderstood "two different theories that make the same predictions" then. To me that implied that you think the two theories you mentioned make completely identical claims. I didn't realize you were actually asking for a detailed compare and contrast between your DNA theory which I don't even know and some RNA world theory which you didn't specify. Its not like there is any "standard" or detailed or well accepted theory of an RNA world.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 25, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Hey Zach,
I think that would be best use of dialogue at places like this. We both agree that distinguishing predictions are necessary to distinguish between ideas scientificly. It behooves both sides to find one we can agree on.
I did not claim it as a vindication I merely mentioned it as yet another epicycle. the first one I learned of was the observation by Stephen Jay Gould that the fossil record failed to show gradualism. I can think of many more and it seems that each new observation requires yet another epicycle. I linked to yet another one in this very thread.
Each epicycle makes naturalistic MET more complicated and more difficult to understand.
Frontloading toward a specific goal on the other hand for the most part explains each of these new observations simply. So that even a backcountry dim whit like me can understand.
While this simplicity does not necessarily equal scientific truth. It makes ID more attractive to the unwashed masses and makes MET look more and more like nothing more a Ptolemaic exercise in denying God.
This should be a strong incentive for those who don’t like the implications of Design to help come up with a distinguishing prediction that we can agree on before it’s too late and no one cares what you have to say.
I say this in the interest of science (and Truth).
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 26, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
So how exactly does Front Loading explain the idea of punctuated equilibrium? Are you suggesting that Front Loading predicts periods of rapid evolution and periods of slower evolution? This ought to be good, show us the wonders of your "simple" theory.
Ah once again you cannot support your own theory so you claim its the other guys job to support your theory. I think your theory is completely vacuous therefore there cannot be any distinguishing prediction. Your theory simply adds a designer who apparently does nothing on top of the well supported theory of evolution.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 26, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Moderation queue please. I note there is no way to know if my comment is stuck there, or whether it just disappeared into the ozone.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Except the example you chose is, according to the authors, "consistent with a stepwise evolutionary model".
A scientific explanation makes predictions. Even if the Theory of Evolution was fractured and teetering, there is no reason to think that Front Loading is a viable scientific alternative. Front Loading is without scientific merit and is just an indirect way of claiming God of the Gaps.
You are also confusing historical reconstruction with the basic mechanisms. While you might consider the Theory of Gravity to be quite simple, reconstructing the formation of the Solar System is very complex, full of ambiguity, and requires marshalling evidence from different fields of study.
Most backcountry wits have trouble solving differential equations in Newton's Theory of Gravity, while even fewer people can fully understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. According to your thinking, that means Einstein's Theory is the less attractive theory.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Todd:
From my prior knowledge of the designer I know that his ultimate goal in creating is to manifest his glory.
A good way to do this to rapidly fill a niche as it becomes available with every possible form of life using information frontloaded in advance. This would emphasize the amazing capabilities of his original frontload thus powerfully demonstrating his wisdom and foresight.
As far as the slower evolution part that would be just a built in safety measure frontloaded in to insure the viability of the design.
That is just the readers digest explanation. Note how it's simple and easy to understand. If you want more detail I suggest Denton’s book Nature