With friends like that…
by KrauzeI've been having an exchange of opinions with TQA, also known as The Questionable Authority. He wrote a post about Judge Jones' Dover ruling to which I replied, and just before Christmas, TQA posted his response to me.
In my post, I pointed out that TQA, in describing Judge Jones' reasons for declaring intelligent design unscientific, was omitting the judge's emphasis on the perception that intelligent design "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation". In his reply, TQA explains that he omitted this because he didn't think it was the strongest argument against intelligent design, and that it wasn't really all that relevant in the rejection of intelligent design:
I imagine that in the unlikely event that ID proponents manage to come up with a successful positive test for ID, there will be a hellacious philosophical debate over the implications. … It's possible that a stubborn few might argue, as Krauze fears, that ID is still supernatural and would have to still be excluded from science based on those grounds, but I rather suspect that the holdouts would be few and far between, and would be shouted down on pragmatic grounds.
TQA raises an interesting point. You see, the reaction he describes as stubborn and unpragmatic is actually the one that Judge Jones' ruling would have us choose. Remember that any one of the items on Jones' laundry list was by itself sufficient to declare intelligent design unscientific. So in the hypothetical situation that TQA describes, Judge Jones would still demand that we label intelligent design as an unscientific conjecture, "pragmatic grounds" be damned.
What is interesting is that the Dover ruling has been touted as a huge victory for reason and science, and less than a week after, we find TQA - a scientist by his own testimony - having to distance himself from the logic of the court's findings.
By the way, did everyone catch that little piece of psychologization in the middle? "Krauze fears". Readers are invited to inspect my post. What part of it was it that led TQA to the belief that I was afraid?
December 26th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
Krauze,
Is creationism unscientific?
Comment by dogscratcher — December 26, 2005 @ 10:07 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Hi Krauze,
I suspect he was not using the word 'fear ' in the sense of being afraid, but rather in the sense of "considering probable".
http://sb.thefreedictionary.co...
Comment by KC — December 26, 2005 @ 10:47 pm
December 27th, 2005 at 2:38 am
KC is correct; that is exactly what I meant when I used the term.
I've finished responding to this post. My response can be found here. I look forward to the next reply.
Comment by TQA — December 27, 2005 @ 2:38 am
December 27th, 2005 at 9:28 am
TQA sez:
I imagine that in the unlikely event that ID proponents manage to come up with a successful positive test for ID, there will be a hellacious philosophical debate over the implications.
We have positive tests for ID. As ID opponents are attempting to falsify ID that should have been TQA's first clue that ID is testable.
It's post like this that demonstrate the need for ID to be taught. I don't care what you call the class it is taught in because it is obvious to me what class it will end up in- science.
Comment by Joe G — December 27, 2005 @ 9:28 am
December 27th, 2005 at 10:24 am
Krauze,
How do you define "supernatural"
Suppose we are all programs living in a simulated universe. Should the owners of the simulation be considered supernatural? What if the system operators are subject to the physical laws that govern the universe outside the simulation? For example, if we create simulated life, should that life consider us supernatural?
Comment by doctor(logic) — December 27, 2005 @ 10:24 am
December 27th, 2005 at 10:43 am
From Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial? :
3. Judge Jones wrongly claims that intelligent design "requires supernatural creation." (p. 30, emphasis added)
Contrary to Judge Jones, there was extensive evidence in the trial record and documents submitted in briefs that intelligent design does NOT "require supernatural creation." Indeed, Judge Jones seems to willfully misrepresent the claims of intelligent design scientists, who consistently have made clear from the very start that empirical evidence cannot tell one whether the intelligent causes detected through modern science are inside or outside of nature. For extensive documentation of this fact, see Appendix A to the Discovery Institute amicus brief submitted in the case, available here.
As a scientific theory, all ID claims is that there is empirical evidence that key features of the universe and living things are the products of an intelligent cause. Whether the intelligent cause involved is inside or outside of nature cannot be decided by empirical evidence alone. That larger question involves philosophy and metaphysics.
To justify his false claim that ID requires a supernatural cause, Judge Jones also completely misrepresents the content of the textbook Of Pandas and People. He claims at one point that "Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature." (p. 30) In fact, Pandas explicitly and repeatedly makes the opposite claim: Intelligent causes may be either inside or outside of nature, and empirical evidence alone can't determine which option is correct. Pandas made this distinction even in its early drafts, one of which emphatically stated that "in science, the proper contrary to natural cause is not supernatural cause, but intelligent cause." (FTE Amicus Brief, Appendix B, Document B; emphasis added.) Also consider the following passages from the edition of Pandas actually used in Dover (both of these passages were highlighted for Judge Jones in Appendix A of the FTE amicus brief):
Again, the intelligent causes detected through empirical evidence may be either inside or outside of nature; and contrary to Judge Jones, this point is made in the very book he cites to justify his position. Incredibly, Judge Jones at another point in his opinion (p. 25) misinterprets the Pandas' quote on p. 7 as further proof that ID requires a belief in a supernatural cause, claiming:
Contrary to Judge Jones, the above statement clearly does NOT concede that "the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science." Instead, it merely reaffirms that empirical science cannot determine whether the intelligent cause detected resides inside or outside of nature. That further determination requires more than empirical science. Far from being merely "rhetorical," this claim is central to the definition of intelligent design as a scientific theory, and it is reaffirmed and further explained in other passages in Pandas that the Judge ignores (such as the passage on pp. 126-127 cited above).
Comment by Joe G — December 27, 2005 @ 10:43 am
December 27th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Joe G says We have positive tests for ID.
Joe, can you provide us with a cite to a peer-reviewed article describing a successful positive test for ID in a biological organism? Thanks!
Comment by Aagcobb — December 27, 2005 @ 1:27 pm
December 27th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Joe G says We have positive tests for ID.
Aacobb:
Joe, can you provide us with a cite to a peer-reviewed article describing a successful positive test for ID in a biological organism?
Sure Aacobb right after you provide a peer-reviewed article that demonstrates blind watchmaker-type processes are solely responsible for the diversity of life from some unknown LUCA. Thanks- (IOW don't ask for something you cannot provide- that just demonstrates a double-standard)
Positive tests for ID are confirmed by the fact there are scientists attempting to falsify ID via scientific investigation- like Harvard and its OoL program.
As Dr. Behe wrote:
IOW if it were shown that life, the ultimate in biological IC, could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes ID would be falsified. Anything that can be falsified can be tested. Duh.
Comment by Joe G — December 27, 2005 @ 3:38 pm
December 27th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Aacobb:
Joe, can you provide us with a cite to a peer-reviewed article describing a successful positive test for ID in a biological organism?
Of course he can't, because no such thing exists. But he will call you ignorant of ID, and attempt to shift the burden of proof, and post several non sequiturs to draw attention away from his total inability to support his claims.
Just watch.
Comment by tika — December 27, 2005 @ 4:45 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:35 am
tika sez:
Of course he can't, because no such thing exists.
No such thing for NDE exists tika- that is there isn't any peer-reviewed article that demonstrates the NDE can be tested.
As for ignorance of ID- that is evidenced by reading anti-IDists posts.
BTW I never claimed the evidence that ID can be tested will be found in peer-review. That was Aacobb's dishonest approach to the discussion. And now you have picked up the dishonesty and carry it like a badge of honor…
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:35 am
December 28th, 2005 at 8:18 am
Joe G says BTW I never claimed the evidence that ID can be tested will be found in peer-review.
Joe, I never said you did make this claim, since we both know you can't. You merely claim that positive tests exist for ID; there is no peer reviewed research which supports your claim.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 28, 2005 @ 8:18 am
December 28th, 2005 at 9:06 am
Aacobb:
You merely claim that positive tests exist for ID;
And I demonstrated exactly that. So what is your problem?
Aacobb:
there is no peer reviewed research which supports your claim.
There isn't any peer review that supports the majority of the claims made by anti-IDists. For example there isn't any peer-review that demonstrtaes a cetacean can evolve from a land animal solely via blind watchmaker-type processes.
IOW you (continue) to ask for something from ID/ IDists that you (nor any other evo)/ NDE can produce. That is called "double-standards". And is a tactic used heavily by the anti-ID side.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 9:06 am
December 28th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Joe G there is plenty of research that shows that mutations which are random with regard to fitness can result in novel biological functions. There is nothing which shows that gremlins have ever designed even one single biological structure. You know perfectly well that its impossible to demonstrate that gremlins have never engaged in genetic engineering, but then its also impossible to demonstrate that gremlins don't intervene in other natural processes. That doesn't make gremlins a scientific explanation for anything, nor does it reduce sound scientific theories to the same level as saying gremlins did it.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 28, 2005 @ 10:14 am
December 28th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Aacobb:
Joe, can you provide us with a cite to a peer-reviewed article describing a successful positive test for ID in a biological organism?
tika predicts:
Of course he can't, because no such thing exists. But he will call you ignorant of ID, and attempt to shift the burden of proof, and post several non sequiturs to draw attention away from his total inability to support his claims.
Just watch.
Joe G. replies exactly as predicted
First, the shifting burden of proof:
Joe G: No such thing for NDE exists tika- that is there isn't any peer-reviewed article that demonstrates the NDE can be tested.
Then, the claim that those who don't agree with him are ignorant:
Joe G: As for ignorance of ID- that is evidenced by reading anti-IDists posts.
Finally, the non-sequiturs as a diversion. Joe even throws in a bonus insult - how nice!
Joe G:.BTW I never claimed the evidence that ID can be tested will be found in peer-review. That was Aacobb's dishonest approach to the discussion. And now you have picked up the dishonesty and carry it like a badge of honor"¦
Q.E.D.
Comment by tika — December 28, 2005 @ 11:13 am
December 28th, 2005 at 11:28 am
tika, you must possess psychic powers; I certainly can't prove you don't!
Comment by Aagcobb — December 28, 2005 @ 11:28 am
December 28th, 2005 at 11:41 am
Aacobb:
You merely claim that positive tests exist for ID;
Joe G:
And I demonstrated exactly that. So what is your problem?
Of course you did no such thing Joe. You made a single passing reference to the Harvard OoL project, which has absolutely nothing to do with positive testing of any ID hypothesis. But then again, you've made so many untrue claims that one more could be lost in the crowd.
Aside for Aacobb: Joe G. is well known in C/E board circles. He's posted the same outlandish claims and vacuous BS on a half dozen boards in the last few years. I mean the exact verbatim words that he just C&Ps from his previous work. On every board, he is confronted by scientifically knowledgeable people who aren't swayed by his BS and who shoot holes in his claims. And on every board he responds by attempting to shift the burden of proof (just like he did here), followed by insults (just like he did here), followed by threats to meet you in person and "educate you" about ID (that's coming, wait for it). Eventually he gets tired of being embarrassed, flings a few parting insults, then slinks off in search of a new board to pollute.
Joe's a legend in his own mind. For the rest of us who've seen him in action, he's a scientifically illiterate coward wearing a big red nose.
Comment by tika — December 28, 2005 @ 11:41 am
December 28th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Aacobb:
Joe G there is plenty of research that shows that mutations which are random with regard to fitness can result in novel biological functions.
That's not the point and you know it. However I would love to hear about the "random" mutations culled by some selection process that resulted in novel structures with novel functions.
Joe G:
And I demonstrated exactly that. So what is your problem?
tika sez:
Of course you did no such thing Joe.
As I said if ID can be falsified it can be tested. That scientists are out there trying to falsify ID demonstrates to any reasonable person that it can be tested.
tika sez:
On every board, he is confronted by scientifically knowledgeable people who aren't swayed by his BS and who shoot holes in his claims.
Please provide the evidence that would support that assertion.
Ya see Aacobb and tika, evolutionitwits always try to apply double-standards. They can't help it for if NDE had to live up top the same standards demanded of ID then it would be clear that NDE isn't scientific.
So why do anti-IDists always demand of others what they cannot provide to support their pap?
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 1:06 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Once again for the reading impaired:
From Dr. Behe:
"Now, one can't have it both ways. One can't say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
Now tika, hiding behinds her computer and a "stage" name, can mock reality all she wants. However she shouldn't complain when reality bites her on the….
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
And as for threats, if tika can provide ANY evidence in which I threatened anyone please present it.
Or perhaps the mods of this thread should consider banning her as it is obvious she has nothing to contribute.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
Joe G says would love to hear about the "random" mutations culled by some selection process that resulted in novel structures with novel functions.
here is an experiment in which a random mutation enabled an immobile bacteria to achieve mobility in a novel way.
As I said if ID can be falsified it can be tested.
Perhaps you can be more specific about exactly how the researchers intend to falsify the notion that at some point over the last 4.5 billion years, some biological structures were designed by an unknown intelligent agent.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 28, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Oohwee! Look at Joe squirm and flounder! Looks like he's getting all confused again.
Joe claimed that positive tests for ID exist.
He was asked to back up his claim by describing such a test, which of course he cannot do.
Instead we get the usual collection of gesturing, and insults, and a evasive rant about how ID can be falsified.
The question (again) for Joe is:
Describe an experiment (i.e the hypothesis being tested, the actual experimental method, and potential results) that would provide positive evidence for ID
BTW, research on OoL is not being done as a falsification of ID, it has nothing to do with any ID hypotheses. I'll wager right now that no matter what the results of the OoL research, you'll claim it supports ID
- If Harvard manages to create self replicating entities, you'll claim that proves that existing life must be designed too.
- If Harvard fails to create self replicating entities, you'll claim that proves that life is too complicated so must be designed.
So how about that positive test for ID Joe "“ where is it?
If you can't do that, then describe an experiment whose results would conclusively falsify ID.
Hop to it you ID expert, we're waiting!
Joe G: And as for threats, if tika can provide ANY evidence in which I threatened anyone please present it.
Or perhaps the mods of this thread should consider banning her as it is obvious she has nothing to contribute.
Sorry Joe, seems Mike Gene is a much more open and honest about allowing dissenting opinions that your buddies Dembski and Fred Williams, who ban ANY posters who disagree with them.
And if people were banned for having nothing to contribute, you'd be the first out the door.
Comment by tika — December 28, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Aagcobb,
"Perhaps you can be more specific about exactly how the researchers intend to falsify the notion that at some point over the last 4.5 billion years, some biological structures were designed by an unknown intelligent agent."
Here's a thought: Is it even potentially possible to falsify the idea that all biological structures/organisms were created without intelligent design (i.e., by some variation on "Random Mutation plus Natural Selection")? If it is, then imagine (just imagine) that somehow, someway, that idea eventually IS falsified. What's left, then? It will (theoretically) have been proven that not all biological structures/organisms were created via some variation of "Random Mutation plus Natural Selection" - what other options remain for explaining the origin and development of living creatures? If "Intelligent Design" is not scientific, then what other options are there? Has science defined away any possible explanation OTHER THAN some variation of "Random Mutation plus Natural Selection" Sounds to me like it has, which means all supposed evidences that RM&NS (or any variation thereof) is true amounts to the ultimate in "Duh" explanations.
On the other hand, if RM&NS (and any variation thereof) is NOT falsifiable, then it's not science, according to scientists. Either way, scientists who proclaim that Intelligent Design is not scientific are faced with an irreconcilable (for them) dilemma: if RM&NS (and any variation thereof) IS falsifiable, it immediately follows (apparently [I await descriptions of any logical possibilities other than RM&NS {and any variation thereof} and Intelligent Design]) that Intelligent Design is potentially scientific; if RM&NS (and any variation thereof) is NOT falsifiable, then it's NOT scientific. So, either Intelligent Design is scientific, or RM&NS (including any variation thereof) is NOT scientific.
Comment by Douglas — December 28, 2005 @ 3:17 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
tika,
If you accused Joe G of making threats to you, of any nature, it is your responsibility to back up your accusation. He gave you an opportunity to do so, specifically asking you to provide evidence of your accusation, and you simply ignored his request. Consider this post a second request, and realize that in debating forums like these, it's TWO strikes, and you're out (meaning, if you don't come up with evidence for your accusation after having been asked to, twice, then you lose all credibility, and will have "Liar" branded on your e-persona).
Comment by Douglas — December 28, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Douglas, you have it a bit sideways. While I agree that incpacity to falsify an idea does not make it unscientific, an incapacity to generate useful hypotheses from that idea, and to simply return to it over and over again as an "explanation" does make it unscientific.
That's the point about testability: it isn't the ability to test an idea per se that makes something "scientific", its that the results of the investigations arising from the test are useful to explain/control/predict the natural world. If IDers aren't doing any testing, then the whole program is useless, and unscientific. Or at least, if it science, it is moribund.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 3:46 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Aacobb,
What part of the article you linked to demonstrated the mutations were random?
Also the experiment demonstrated that a lost function can be re-gained. IOW the experiment did not demonstrate a novel function of a novel structure.
As I said if ID can be falsified it can be tested.
Aacobb:
Perhaps you can be more specific about exactly how the researchers intend to falsify the notion that at some point over the last 4.5 billion years, some biological structures were designed by an unknown intelligent agent.
By demonstrating that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for that which has been inferred to be intentionally designed. Once that is accomplished the design inference goes away.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 3:49 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
poikilotherm sez:
If IDers aren't doing any testing, then the whole program is useless, and unscientific.
What testing are evolutioners doing? Are there any tests that would confirm or falsify the premise that humans could evolve from a non-human population?
What fruit has NDE brought the world? Or is it useless?
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Joe G says What part of the article you linked to demonstrated the mutations were random?
Maybe the part that said, "In a process similar to natural selection, UT graduate student Lluis Masip made random alterations in the DNA encoding thioredoxin"
Also the experiment demonstrated that a lost function can be re-gained. IOW the experiment did not demonstrate a novel function of a novel structure.
Wrong, Joe. The bacteria did not regain a lost function; it developed an entirely novel function, "With post-doctoral fellow Jean Francois Collet, Bardwell's team found that the two amino acid substitutions in thioredoxin cause a remarkable transformation: they result in the binding of two iron and two sulfur atoms that form a complex that bridges two thioredoxin protein molecules. This iron-sulfur cluster was shown to be necessary for the new enzyme to form disulfides. Iron-sulfur complexes occur in many enzymes, but never before had such a functional iron-sulfur complex been introduced into a protein as a result of laboratory evolution."
You are also incorrect that showing that any particular biological structure can evolve will falsify the design inference. First, there is no evidence which could possibly be generated within a human lifetime which creationists and IDist would accept as showing such a structure could evolve. Second, merely showing that it could have evolved does not mean it did.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 28, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Why, Joe G, evolutioners do all kinds of things. They look formodes of speciation. They examine why some mutations appear to be intentionally directed but really aren't…all kinds of things.
There are lots of tests of whether or not humans did evolve from non-human primates. How they evolved is pretty uncertain. We might never know, but the idea that we might have has certainly led to a wealth of primatological research. Do you want to discuss any?
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Joe G says What testing are evolutioners doing? Are there any tests that would confirm or falsify the premise that humans could evolve from a non-human population?
The list is nearly endless. The recent decipherment of chimp dna could have showed that humans and chimps are far too unlike to have recently shared a common ancestor. The recovery of Neandertal mitochondrial dna could have showed that they are well within the norms for homo sapiens, and therefore not a separate species. Scientists could have failed to find any evidence of premodern hominids over the last couple of centuries, or they could find fossils of homo sapien sapiens far older than could be explained by evolutionary theory.
What fruit has NDE brought the world? Or is it useless?
Evolutionary theory has many uses. What breakthroughs have been achieved using the ID inference?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 28, 2005 @ 4:19 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Joe G says What part of the article you linked to demonstrated the mutations were random?
Aacobb:
Maybe the part that said, "In a process similar to natural selection, UT graduate student Lluis Masip made random alterations in the DNA encoding thioredoxin"
A scientist making random alterations is not the same as the organism mutating randomly. Not even close- unless every organism also requires a genetic engineer in order to "evolve".
Also the experiment demonstrated that a lost function can be re-gained. IOW the experiment did not demonstrate a novel function of a novel structure.
Aacobb:
Wrong, Joe. The bacteria did not regain a lost function;
From the article you linked to:
used a strain of mutant bacteria developed by Bardwell that had lost their ability to make disulfide bonds.
BTW I read the original paper. It doesn't do what you claim.
Aacobb:
You are also incorrect that showing that any particular biological structure can evolve will falsify the design inference.
I didn't say that. I did say that if it were shown that (the structure in question) could arise via some blind watchmaker-type process, then the design inference is falsified for that structure. So if it is demonstrated that life can arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process bio ID falls. That is a fact.
Aacobb:
Second, merely showing that it could have evolved does not mean it did.
Evolution isn't the issue. However once it is shown that blind watchmaker-type processes can do what IDists insist they cannot then ID falls. Plain and simple. Remember this is science and science is not about proof- which it is clear that is what you want.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 4:19 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Aagcobb,
I'd really appreciate it if you provided a thoughtful reply to my post directed to you.
Comment by Douglas — December 28, 2005 @ 4:25 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
poikilotherm:
There are lots of tests of whether or not humans did evolve from non-human primates.
That is pretty funny considering we don't even know if such a thing is even possible. IOW the cart is leading the horse.
Aacobb:
Evolutionary theory has many uses.
Evolution might. But that is not a reflection on NDE, which is mechanism dependent.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 4:30 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Douglas says if RM&NS (and any variation thereof) IS falsifiable, it immediately follows (apparently [I await descriptions of any logical possibilities other than RM&NS {and any variation thereof} and Intelligent Design]) that Intelligent Design is potentially scientific; if RM&NS (and any variation thereof) is NOT falsifiable, then it's NOT scientific.
Douglas, your dichotomy is false. The falsification of modern evolutionary theory does nothing to make ID into a falsifiable theory; ID would be more plausible, but still not falsifiable or useful in making testable predictions. What we would instead have is a mystery, with new life breathed into neolamarckian evolutionary hypotheses, and other evolutionary ideas, such as those discussed in Gould's "Structure of Evolutonary Theory" which downplay the role of natural selection.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 28, 2005 @ 4:32 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Tika said:
There are at least two general ways of looking at ID. One could say that ID exists in the frontloading of the universe and its constants prior to the Big Bang. Another way of looking at ID is from the biological perspective. If one considers the two to be seperate then such is certainly testable — at least in the case of the latter (though I would argue both still are) — because such implies an additional (i.e. post-Big Bang) input of intelligence to acheive the biological states that have been so-called irreducibly and specifically complex. So depending on one's take on ID some experiments may have the potential of falsifying ID — if its the biological sense of ID. While it may not necessarily falsify another's notion of cosmological ID.
So when Tika says, "no matter what the results of the OoL research, you'll claim it supports ID", without speaking for Joe G, I think Tika's both right and wrong. He's right in the sense that falsifying biological ID does not falsify cosmological ID, but he's wrong if he thinks there is nothing to be falsified at all.
Likewise are the statements that:
This is a slight misrepresentation, at least from where I am coming from. It's true that either conclusion MAY end up in supporting ID. However, say Harvard does succeed in creating the first self-replicating entities. The question an ID-ist would ask is how much human intelligence was involved. If the researchers literally built the first life-form, in the sense of how one builds a house, then this is no more evidence that natural laws can construct the first form of life anymore than natural laws can build house.
Comment by Dane Parker — December 28, 2005 @ 4:34 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
poikilotherm,
"Douglas, you have it a bit sideways. While I agree that incapacity to falsify an idea does not make it unscientific, an incapacity to generate useful hypotheses from that idea, and to simply return to it over and over again as an 'explanation' does make it unscientific."
ID would provide just as "useful" hypotheses as Evolution, probably more so. Instead of assuming "Common Descent", the assumption would be "Common Designer, using common designs". There would also be cross-fertilization of ideas between software development and design and biology. Furthermore, it is quite unlikely that any such foolish and falsified ideas as "vestigial organs" would arise, if the starting point was an assumption of a "Common Designer" rather than the assumption of "Common Descent". Regardless, the logic of what I posted stands: if RM&NS* is falsifiable, then Intelligent Design MUST be scientific; if RM&NS* is NOT falsifiable, the RM&NS* is NOT scientific.
"That's the point about testability: it isn't the ability to test an idea per se that makes something 'scientific', it's that the results of the investigations arising from the test are useful to explain/control/predict the natural world."
That's not the standard manner in which "testability" and "science" are presented by scientists. And, as I said, ID DOES make useful "predictions" about the natural world, particularly about what we would expect to find regarding DNA (that is, that it would exhibit features similar to human-designed software).
"If IDers aren't doing any testing, then the whole program is useless, and unscientific. Or at least, if it science, it is moribund. "
Whether it's "moribund" or not is of no real consequence. But I would suggest that it is far more useful, and testable, than, say, "String Theory" or "Multiverse Theory". Wouldn't you?
Comment by Douglas — December 28, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Joe G says A scientist making random alterations is not the same as the organism mutating randomly. Not even close- unless every organism also requires a genetic engineer in order to "evolve".
So Joe, are you saying that every time a virus evolves drug resistence, the ID induced the mutation?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 28, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Aagcobb,
Keep in mind the mutually exclusive options of nature vs. intelligence. If natural laws fail to demonstrate such a creative process that any and all naturalistic theories, whether Neo-Darwinian or otherwise, suggest that they have, then an intelligence explanation is by definition, bolstered.
Comment by Dane Parker — December 28, 2005 @ 4:40 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Aagcobb,
"Douglas, your dichotomy is false. The falsification of modern evolutionary theory does nothing to make ID into a falsifiable theory; ID would be more plausible, but still not falsifiable or useful in making testable predictions. What we would instead have is a mystery, with new life breathed into neolamarckian evolutionary hypotheses, and other evolutionary ideas, such as those discussed in Gould's 'Structure of Evolutonary Theory' which downplay the role of natural selection."
Didn't you notice I included "variations of" RM&NS in my dichotomy? In what way would "neolamarckian evolutionary hypotheses", and "other evolutionary ideas, such as those discussed in Gould's 'Structure of Evolutionary Theory' which DOWNPLAY the role of natural selection" NOT be considered "VARIATIONS of RM&NS" If they ARE mere "variations" of RM&NS, then my dichotomy stands and is valid. If they are not, I would like to know in what WAY they are not "variations" of RM&NS. What other possibilities are there than some combination of Random Mutations and Natural Selection, if Design is not an option?'
Oh, and I already pointed out that ID is falsifiable, if Evolution is - namely, if scientists could PROVE that all living creatures arose from some variation of RM&NS (or add the options you mentioned), then ID would be falsified as it pertains to biology and the origin of life. But that's not the aspect I'm attempting to focus on with this line of reasoning and questioning.
Comment by Douglas — December 28, 2005 @ 4:43 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
I'm perplexed, Joe G.
Mostly we ipostulate whether or not historical phenomena occur or did occur and we ask how they occur. If we conclude that such an occurence was impossible by all known means, then we go back and examine the evidence and look for an alternate explanation for the data. If we don't find a good one, then we are stuck with the postulate that something happened and we don't know how.
You seem to be asking evolutionary biologists to first identify whether something can occur, and then figure out if it occurred? Surely an examination of the former is contingent in part on the evidence for the latter, nu?
Now, as to the utility of modern evolutionary biology, it suffices for the purposes of science that biologists find it useful. I am not sure what beef you have with professional biologists, or even if that beef is well informed, so I can't really comment on your assessment of utility.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 4:43 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Dane Parker says Keep in mind the mutually exclusive options of nature vs. intelligence. If natural laws fail to demonstrate such a creative process that any and all naturalistic theories, whether Neo-Darwinian or otherwise, suggest that they have, then an intelligence explanation is by definition, bolstered.
Thats why I said ID would be more plausible. Which wouldn't change the fact that there is no ID theory, or any testable ID hypotheses. Before the 19th century, YECism was plausible, which still didn't make it scientific.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 28, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Douglas, that is an interesting opinion, but not precisely germane to my point. It is nice that you think ID could do lots of stuff for biology. Really, it is. But ID isn't doing much. That's a sort ogf bottom line here.
As for how scientists use testability, I should clarify: I gave you a summary of how I use testability. I don't know of a scientist that sits down and says "Hey, I can distinguish science from non-science by testability!" Mostly, they just ask whether they can use the idea or no. Like falsifiability, testability isd a rough guideline for utility. String theory I can't comment on. Don't know a thing about it, besides popular science dribble, nor do I really care. If cosmologists find it helps them, good foer them. If they don't, chuck it. makes no difference to me.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Douglas, if a neolamarckian theory doesn't involve random mutations to dna, or natural selection, I'm hard pressed to see how its a "variation" on rm+ns. A lamarckian hypothesis could postulate that life evolves along developmental pathways predetermined by biochemistry with little regard for selective pressures imposed by the environment. Thats not a variation on rm+ns, and its also not ID. ID doesn't become a theory by default. IDists will have to actually provide explanations which are empirically testable.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 28, 2005 @ 4:57 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Aagcobb,
"Development pathways" Where'd the "pathways" come from? Oh well, I see I'll have to do some reading on "neo-Larmarckianism" and such.
Anyway, if I changed my "dichotomy" to "any purely Naturalistic explanation versus Intelligent Design", would that be better? Is the idea that life arose through "purely Naturalistic means" scientific? Is it falsifiable? Etc.. The point, Aagcobb, is that LOGICALLY Intelligent Design MUST be scientific, else "naturalistic explanations" are not. If Intelligent Design is NOT scientific, then it is true by default that "all life arose through purely naturalistic means" and this theory is NOT falsifiable.
Comment by Douglas — December 28, 2005 @ 5:12 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Douglas:
That's not the standard manner in which "testability" and "science" are presented by scientists. And, as I said, ID DOES make useful "predictions" about the natural world, particularly about what we would expect to find regarding DNA (that is, that it would exhibit features similar to human-designed software).
ID has not made a single prediction that is unique to ID, and flows directly from ID theory. ID apologist Casey Luskin tried to claims some, but they were all of the "ID predicts the sun will rise tomorrow", or "ID predicts the sky is blue". Totally worthless.
In the case of DNA and "human software" features like built-in redundancy, that was not a prediction but a postdiction the IDist did to try and steal a bit of unwarranted credibility.
Please supply a list of current ID predictions that are unique to ID and would point unambiguously to ID's validity if proven true.
Remember, if I have to ask you twice then that means you"ll be branded a liar!
Comment by tika — December 28, 2005 @ 5:19 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
tika,
"In the case of DNA and 'human software' features like built-in redundancy, that was not a prediction but a postdiction the IDist did to try and steal a bit of unwarranted credibility."
Eh. Kind of like almost all, if not all, the "predictions" of Evolutionary Theory, then.
"Please supply a list of current ID predictions that are unique to ID and would point unambiguously to ID's validity if proven true."
Since Creationism is a SUBSET of ID, I will supply you a "list" of some CREATIONIST predictions that are unique to CREATIONISM and would point unambiguously to CREATIONISM'S validity if proven true:
- A Global Flood.
- No transitional fossils found; all creatures found in the fossil record fully formed, and having remained "within" their own kind (i.e., only variations of size and shape, such as various dog breeds…no evidence of "new" information or forms arising).
- The Earth being only around 6000 years old.
"Remember, if I have to ask you twice then that means you"ll be branded a liar!"
You've only asked me once. Once without qualifications, and now WITH some qualifications. And I answered you directly and immediately BOTH times. However, it is clear that you read my post requesting that you verify the validity of your accusation that Joe G "threatened" you, but you HAVE NOT done so. So, at this point, you have earned the "brand" of "liar".
Comment by Douglas — December 28, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Joe G says A scientist making random alterations is not the same as the organism mutating randomly. Not even close- unless every organism also requires a genetic engineer in order to "evolve".
Aacobb:
So Joe, are you saying that every time a virus evolves drug resistence, the ID induced the mutation?
That doesn't follow from what I posted. YOU were asked to provide an example of random mutations doing providing novel structure(s) with novel function(s). The article you linked to had the scientsit doing the altering. Huge difference.
Also a virus doesn't evolve drug resistence, the population already had it and when the drug wiped out the individuals in that population which did not, the resistant individuals were allowed to take over.
————————————————————————————–
tika:
Please supply a list of current ID predictions that are unique to ID and would point unambiguously to ID's validity if proven true.
ID predicts IC and CSI as evidenced by the following:
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:06 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
poikilotherm:
You seem to be asking evolutionary biologists to first identify whether something can occur, and then figure out if it occurred?
I am asking that scientists be sure something is possible and then try to figure out how- the Tiki faces on Easter Island for example. Once people thought they were the work of ET but once scientists demonstrated it was possible for humans using technology known for the time period, the ET hypothesis went away. Then we were left with competing hypotheses on how the figures "traveled" from the quarry to their destination. Now only one stands out- because of scientific investigation and actual demonstration.
Using your approach we would (try to) send people into the Sun before we figured out if it was possible.
What I am saying is that after all these years biologists still don't know whether or not mutations culled by some selection process can allow a population of non-humans to "evolve" into a population of humans. However they are sure do proclaim such as if it were a given. And given the data that we do have any objective person (scientist or not) should dispute that claim.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
I WRT Easter island, first people determined that the staues had gotten there in the past (historicalevent established). Then they figured out how it might have occurred (humans vs little green men).
Similarly, it is pretty well established that humans came from great apes (historical event established). Then we figure out how (little green men, divine intervention, boring old evolution, some combination of any and all of those) it happened. Currently, ID hasn't contributed anything to that investigation: it remains pretty fringe science.
I think you need to take another look at the proces of historical investigation. It is a fair bit different than sending people into space.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 6:29 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
poikilotherm:
I WRT Easter island, first people determined that the staues had gotten there in the past (historicalevent established).
Seeing that the figures were there, obviously there had gotten there. Even if it were via nature acting alone. And actually the first people who saw the figures knew how they had gotten there.
poikilotherm:
Similarly, it is pretty well established that humans came from great apes (historical event established).
There isn't anything similar about it. We don't know whether or not it was a historical event unless we already assumed it was. Sorry but that is the way your "science" appears to work- the assumption is also the data. It is a good thing that real science doesn't operate that way.
poikilotherm:
I think you need to take another look at the proces of historical investigation.
If you think that humans evolving from non-humans was a historical event then it is obvious you need to look at the process of historical investigation.
Perhaps NDE belongs in a history class…
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:48 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
So you agree: first we establish a fact: (Easter Island heads got there, humandsdescended from apes) then we ask how. Good.
Oh wait: now you are saying that it ISN'T established that humans are descended from apes? Dear me, where else do you think we came from?
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 6:51 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
poikilotherm:
now you are saying that it ISN'T established that humans are descended from apes?
This is true.
poikilotherm:
Dear me, where else do you think we came from?
I came from the union of my parents. How about you?
Is there any biological or genetic (you know scientific) data that demonstrates such a transformation is possible?
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 6:58 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Hi Dogscratcher,
"Is creationism unscientific?"
Yes, as it, in Judge Jones' words, "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation".
Comment by Krauze — December 28, 2005 @ 7:23 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 7:31 pm
Hi KC,
"I suspect he was not using the word "˜fear "˜ in the sense of being afraid, but rather in the sense of "considering probable"."
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. A straight-forward reading of TQA's post leads to the conclusion that he was trying to describe my motivations. However, as TQA has now said that this was not his meaning (whether because he's changed his mind or just had an extraordinarily unlucky hand in choosing his phrases), I'll let it go.
Comment by Krauze — December 28, 2005 @ 7:31 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
tika: In the case of DNA and "˜human software' features like built-in redundancy, that was not a prediction but a postdiction the IDist did to try and steal a bit of unwarranted credibility.
Douglas: Eh. Kind of like almost all, if not all, the "predictions" of Evolutionary Theory, then.
OK, so you admit you made a false claim about an ID prediction. Glad we cleared that up.
tika: Please supply a list of current ID predictions that are unique to ID and would point unambiguously to ID's validity if proven true."
Douglas: Since Creationism is a SUBSET of ID, I will supply you a "list" of some CREATIONIST predictions that are unique to CREATIONISM and would point unambiguously to CREATIONISM'S validity if proven true:
Are you and Joe G. related? Or is it a coincidence that you both follow the same pattern of weasel wording and avoidance when caught making a false claim? If you want to admit you were wrong about that claim too, just do so and don't waste bandwidth by tap-dancing.
Or are you now saying the ID and Biblical creationism really are the same thing? Gee, that what the judge in Dover ruled too, after the ID side was caught lying and failed to present even one teeny bit of positive evidence for their claims. The Discovery Institute has been screaming that ID has nothing to do with Biblical creation, and now you say it does? Wow! Can I quote you on that?
Getting back to the original question, what about the other SUBSETS of ID? What unique and unambiguous predictions do they make? While you're at it, please list for me all the SUBSETS of ID. How many are there? They all can't be right, but they all sure can be wrong!
I've had to ask you again, so now you're at "strike two". That's all you get before being branded an internet liar!
Comment by tika — December 28, 2005 @ 7:57 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
What I am saying is that after all these years biologists still don't know whether or not mutations culled by some selection process can allow a population of non-humans to "evolve" into a population of humans.
Well, here's what we've got so far:
We know from observation that mutation-and-natural-selection can make small changes to the genome over a small period of time. And we know from observation that making repeated small changes to things can often add up to large changes. And we know from observation that humans and other primates have similar forms and similar DNA. And we know from observation that there are fossils of extinct primates with "non-human-but-human-like" forms, with the most human-like appearing most recently.
So based on the available evidence, it's a pretty good bet that all modern primates evolved from an ancestral species. We can't "know" this…when it comes down to it, we can't "know" that the Sun will rise tomorrow. But the evidence is just so good that it seems silly to ignore it.
The weakest spot is probably in the idea that repeated small evolutionary changes can add up to big changes given enough time. It might be that there's a "wall" that can't be passed without outside intervention. There's no evidence of such a wall, but maybe some smart ID person will find it someday. (Basically you'd need to take at least one human gene and show that there's absolutely no pathway by which it could have evolved from other genes.)
I came from the union of my parents. How about you?
I didn't come from the union of your parents, so they must not be the common ancestors of humanity.
Comment by chaosengineer — December 28, 2005 @ 8:05 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
tika:
Please supply a list of current ID predictions that are unique to ID and would point unambiguously to ID's validity if proven true.
Joe G: ID predicts IC and CSI as evidenced by the following:
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
Sorry Joe, those aren't predictions, that's just another word salad of vague, undefined terms and unsubstantiated claims. Let's see:
High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
There is no positive evidence to support this claim whatsoever.
Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
You have yet to provide a rigorous definition of information content (or specified complexity) as applied to a biological system. You have yet to provide a way to measure the same. What does "high content" mean? High in relation to what? If you can't measure it, how can you claim high, low, or in-between relative values?
Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
You have yet to provide a rigorous definition of information content (or specified complexity) as applied to a biological system. If you take information content to mean size or function, then there are numerous well documented genetic mechanisms (duplication, frame shift, etc.) for more complex DNA structures to occur naturally. Plausible mechanisms (i.e. scaffolding) for creating biological features that meet Behe's current definition of Irreducible Complexity have also been demonstrated.
Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
False inference based on faulty assumptions. It's still Garbage In Garbage Out, no matter how many empty claims you make.
Comment by tika — December 28, 2005 @ 8:28 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Joe G: ID predicts IC and CSI as evidenced by the following:
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
tika:
Sorry Joe, those aren't predictions, that's just another word salad of vague, undefined terms and unsubstantiated claims.
Whatever dude (I already knew you were sorry)
High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
tika:
There is no positive evidence to support this claim whatsoever.
That is all there is- positive evidence for that claim. If there is ANY data that demonstrated that information or IC could arise from unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes now would be a good time to present it.
Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
tika:
You have yet to provide a rigorous definition of information content (or specified complexity) as applied to a biological system.
That has been done. However you have failed to provide any data that demonstrates a barrier exists between biological entities and non-biological entities when it comes to design detection and information.
You said you read "No Free Lunch". However your posts indicate that you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. IOW don't blame me.
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 10:11 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
ce sez:
We know from observation that mutation-and-natural-selection can make small changes to the genome over a small period of time.
But small changes to the genome are often meaningless to morphology.
ce sez:
And we know from observation that making repeated small changes to things can often add up to large changes.
Large changes like non-function and death. Yeah that is a great premise to base a hypothesis.
ce sez:
And we know from observation that humans and other primates have similar forms and similar DNA.
So what? Similar DNA can also be evidence for common design.
ce sez:
And we know from observation that there are fossils of extinct primates with "non-human-but-human-like" forms, with the most human-like appearing most recently.
Again, so what?
ce sez:
So based on the available evidence, it's a pretty good bet that all modern primates evolved from an ancestral species.
Only if you already believed it.
Limits exist in every aspect of life. Why do evolutionists want us to believe that life itself is immune to limitations?
I came from the union of my parents. How about you?
ce sez:
I didn't come from the union of your parents,
That explains quite a bit.
Have a nice day
Comment by Joe G — December 28, 2005 @ 10:20 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Why Joe, I would assume you came from your parents, but that doesn't actually answer my question. Perhaps you forgot the context of my question: The descent from apes is of course a scientific fact: you seem to think it isn't. Where do you think humans came from, in an evolutionary sense?
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Joe G.: High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
tika: There is no positive evidence to support this claim whatsoever.
Joe G::That is all there is- positive evidence for that claim.
Then for once provide some of that positive evidence instead of just making empty claims. Define "high" in reference to "high information content". High compared to what? Give us a specific example of the measurement of CSI content in a living biological object, and a dead one.
Joe G: If there is ANY data that demonstrated that information or IC could arise from unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes now would be a good time to present it.
You mean like this?
Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799.
or this?
Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468
or these?
Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942.
Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments
Now how about providing some answers instead of all that hot air you keep spewing?
BTW, Douglas up above claims that Biblical Creation is a valid form of ID. You claim ID has nothing to do with any religion. Which is it?
Comment by tika — December 28, 2005 @ 11:04 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
Often, but not always. Look at dogs…we've got breeds as diverse as Pugs and Poodles and St. Bernards. (Selective breeding was involved, so things went unusually fast, but that only affected the "natural selection" side of things…we didn't have any control over what mutations we got.)
No, remember, only beneficial mutations get selected for. A lot of small beneficial mutations can add up to a large beneficial change. (Actually, there's one case where you're right…if a species gets too many beneficial mutations, then it can wind up "over-specialized", and become extinct if the environment changes suddenly. We've actually seen this happen.)
Right, the similar DNA and the transitional fossils don't prove anything by themselves. But we've actually observed mutation-and-natural-selection, and if we extrapolate backwards we can see how they could explain these other observations.
Before Darwin, nobody believed it. So the evidence was strong enough to persuade some people to change their minds.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Certainly there are limits to what evolution can do. There are incredible numbers of possible features that don't evolve or can't evolve.
Sometimes I wish that intelligent design were proven. Then I could get one of the designers to re-engineer my back. (It's a modified quadruped design and it doesn't work all that well for going around on two legs. I get terrible backaches if I have to stand in one place for too long.) I'd also like X-ray vision and retractable adamantium claws, which I would use solely for the purpose of fighting crime, I promise.
Comment by chaosengineer — December 28, 2005 @ 11:14 pm
December 28th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
I always wanted the adamantium claws myself.
(snikt!)
Comment by poikilotherm — December 28, 2005 @ 11:22 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 12:16 am
Douglas says If Intelligent Design is NOT scientific, then it is true by default that "all life arose through purely naturalistic means" and this theory is NOT falsifiable.
The problem Douglas, is that neither "life arose through intelligent design" or "life arose through purely naturalistic means" are scientific theories; they are just vague notions. A theory is a detailed explanation of numerous observed facts. This is why merely falsifying evolutionary theory or even falsifying every naturalistic theory of how the diversity of life on earth arose will not turn ID into a scientific theory, because it still wouldn't be more than a vague notion.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 12:16 am
December 29th, 2005 at 12:23 am
poikilotherm sez:
The descent from apes is of course a scientific fact:
Then a "scientific fact" isn't the same as reality and therefore is useless to the real world. I am interested in reality and reality says there isn't any biological or genetic data that shows such a transformation is possible. Therefore your proclamation of "scientific fact" is hubris.
To tika/ OA/ Occam's Aftershave:
Please point out which article you listed demonstrates information arising via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. I did not ask for whether or not new information could arise from existing information That is what the articles you listed possibly demonstrate. Just read the first article on your list.
Ask for one thing and get something unrelated in return. Typical.
Any chance of you providing that evidence that I made threats? Or are you going to apologize for making a false claim?
And IF you had read "No Free Lunch" your questions would have been answered. That you continue to ask demonstrates you didn't read it or you didn't understand it. Again don't blame me for your issues. If you didn't understand it from the source I won't waste my time splaining it to you. You are not worth the effort.
ce sez:
No, remember, only beneficial mutations get selected for.
But beneficial is relative. Also even the most robust individual can die before mating therefore ending any chance of that individual of passing on its genes.
If your back hurts most likely it is your fault. Don't blame the design.
And please provide the data that demonstrates upright, bipedal locomotion is "modified quadruped design". Something verifiable would be nice…
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 12:23 am
December 29th, 2005 at 12:32 am
Joe G says YOU were asked to provide an example of random mutations doing providing novel structure(s) with novel function(s). The article you linked to had the scientsit doing the altering. Huge difference.
No, Joe. Random mutations mean mutations which are random with regard to fitness. The mutations induced by the scientist were random with regard to fitness. The scientists had no idea which mutations would prove beneficial, and didn't find out until after the experiment exactly how the bacteria mutated to develop mobility.
Also a virus doesn't evolve drug resistence, the population already had it and when the drug wiped out the individuals in that population which did not, the resistant individuals were allowed to take over.
False creationist claim no. CB110. Populations of bacteria have been developed from just one individual, thus all variations which scientists observed, including beneficial mutations, arose afterwards, and did not preexist the experiment.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 12:32 am
December 29th, 2005 at 12:40 am
Ummmm….now you aren't even debating, you are just asserting.
Let's walk through this:
1. I don't know of a single evolutionary biologist or paleoanthropologist that doesn't think we are decended from apes. Do you want to review what paleoanthropologists, primatologists, paleontologists, genetecists and taxonomists tink of the question? We can do that with reference to the primary literature if you want. They all pretty much agree that we are descended from great apes, and whether you like that or not, such an overwhelming consensus of opinion constitutes a scientific fact.
2. There is currently no data to suggest that a transformation by evolution from ape to human is impossible either. If you are interested in reality, as we all are, you would do well to note that a lack of impossibility, plus strong evidence of actual occurrence, suggests something.
3. You seem to be having difficulty with one question: where do you think humans DID arise from? You must realise that the strength of a scientific idea is never completely absolute: it depends somewhat on the strength of competing ideas. If you are going toassert that human descent from great apes is not a scientific fact, then it is reasonable that you have an alternate explanation for 1) the morphological and fossil sequence 2) the karyotypic data and 3) the molecular genetic data linking humans to great apes. If you don't have such an explanation, your assertions about the value of modern evolutionary thought, while interesting as personal anecdote, aren't really generaliseable past yourself. Its fine if you are content with that.
Comment by poikilotherm — December 29, 2005 @ 12:40 am
December 29th, 2005 at 12:48 am
Joe G says YOU were asked to provide an example of random mutations doing providing novel structure(s) with novel function(s). The article you linked to had the scientsit doing the altering. Huge difference.
Aacobb:
No, Joe. Random mutations mean mutations which are random with regard to fitness. The mutations induced by the scientist were random with regard to fitness. The scientists had no idea which mutations would prove beneficial, and didn't find out until after the experiment exactly how the bacteria mutated to develop mobility.
OK then if evolution proceeds via genetic engineering then you have a point.
Read the original paper. The scientists disagree with your assesment. Go figure…
Also a virus doesn't evolve drug resistence, the population already had it and when the drug wiped out the individuals in that population which did not, the resistant individuals were allowed to take over.
(Too bad Aacobb didn't take part in the discussion I had with Nick in which what I said was confirmed.)
Aacobb:
Populations of bacteria have been developed from just one individual, thus all variations which scientists observed, including beneficial mutations, arose afterwards, and did not preexist the experiment.
Umm we were discussing a virus, not bacteria. Also what you just posted has no affect on what I said. The bacteria or virus or whatever population has the resistant variant in it at the time the anti-biotic was introduced. This was made clear in the PBS series Evolution.
Now if the scientists had one bacteria (or virus) and introduced an anti-biotic which killed it how big could the population get? Oh that's right, there wouldn't be any population.
This is the claim you linked to:
Microevolution (for example, the development of insecticide resistance) merely selects preexisting variation. It does not demonstrate that mutations create new variation.
THAT is a false claim. I don't know of anyone who says that mutations cannot create new variations.
Linking to talk origins isn't a good thing. Their misrepresentations are legendary. This is one…
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 12:48 am
December 29th, 2005 at 12:56 am
poikilotherm sez:
now you aren't even debating, you are just asserting.
You should know. Evos are the best at asserting, However I notice when it's time to ante up the table remains barren.
1. I don't know of a single evolutionary biologist or paleoanthropologist that doesn't think we are decended from apes.
I don't care what they think. I care what they can demonstrate and verify. That is when something becomes a scientific fact. Otherwise it is just a group of scientists who agree "just because".
2. There is currently no data to suggest that a transformation by evolution from ape to human is impossible either.
I don't care what is impossible. I do care what is possble.
3. You seem to be having difficulty with one question:
Then you win because you seem to have difficulty with many.
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 12:56 am
December 29th, 2005 at 1:33 am
Joe G, was there any question you had asked that I had difficulty answering? You seem to imply there was one.
Let's go through your opoints:
a. You don't care what biologists think about human evolution, unless it can be demonstrated and verified. Well, that's fine. In order to dismiss the notion that humans are descended from great apes, you need to explain the kayotypic similarity between humans and apes, as well as the extensive molecular similarities, as well as the fossil record. I have yet to see you address these facts with a coherent counterproposal.
b. You have said you don't care what is impossible, only what is possible. However, the two groups are clearly the inverse of each other, and one way to determine which of a set of alternatives is possible is to first rule out the impossible. If an alternative is not impossible, then to anyone with an open mind, it should be considered possible. I conclude that you concede on the basis of the evidence to date, that descent from great apes is possible.
c. You seem reluctant to answer a fairly simple question: Where DO you think humans came from, in an evolutionary sense? Unless you are going to postulate some special creation or manufacture of humans, the simple inference is that they evolved from something and the data seems to point pretty unequivocally towards great apes. Are you seriously postulating special creation, or manufacture of humans?
Comment by poikilotherm — December 29, 2005 @ 1:33 am
December 29th, 2005 at 1:46 am
Joe G.: High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
tika: There is no positive evidence to support this claim whatsoever.
Joe G::That is all there is- positive evidence for that claim.
Joe A. Gallien / John Paul /Joe G.
Why do continually fail to present any of this evidence then? Why do you keep refusing to answer the questions about CSI?
Then for once provide some of that positive evidence instead of just making empty claims. Define "high" in reference to "high information content". High compared to what? Give us a specific example of the measurement of CSI content in a living biological object, and a dead one.
You seem to be most ignorant of the very ID claims you keep making.
You keep referencing pop pseudoscience books by Dembski, but you never reference any actual scientific peer-reviewed studies. Why is that Joe? Dembski's pseudoscientific trash has been absolutely gutted by profession science reviewers, and he has ZERO credibility among science and mathematics professionals. Citing NFL is a coward's cop-out, but if that's all ya got, it's all ya got. Told you it would make you look like a fool though, which it has.
Wanna see something funny? I was poking around over at EvCForum, and I discovered that you were called on the carpet by the Board Director for exactly the same weaseling behavior you're showing here
You might be a cowardly drone, but no one can say you're not consistent!
If you want to debate, then debate. Either back up the BS claims you keep making about ID, or quit making them.
Mike Gene has been kind enough to provide this space for discussion, not for you to make the same ridiculous unsupported claims over and over and over. Be a man for once in your life - put up your evidence or shut up, and quit wasting board space
Comment by tika — December 29, 2005 @ 1:46 am
December 29th, 2005 at 7:33 am
Aagcobb,
"The problem Douglas, is that neither 'life arose through intelligent design' or 'life arose through purely naturalistic means' are scientific theories; they are just vague notions. A theory is a detailed explanation of numerous observed facts."
How about this, then: "All of life, AFTER the first cell, developed through purely naturalistic means" (or, "All of life, AFTER the first cell, can be explained as having developed through purely naturalistic means"), versus "At least AFTER the first cell, some design was required for at least some of the features we have observed in at least some living creatures". If you say these are "just vague notions" and not "scientific theories", then what does that make the Theory of Common Descent? It appears to me that the Theory of Common Descent is effectively (though not exactly) equivalent to "All of life, AFTER the first cell, can be explained as having developed through purely naturalistic means". Or, to put it another way: If the former is true (Common Descent), it directly implies the latter. (Note that this is assuming scientists do not dabble in metaphysical areas in presenting their theories - it would be completely unnecessary and extraneous to assert Common Descent, then to say, "But God could have been behind it, using these naturalistic processes".)
This is why merely falsifying evolutionary theory or even falsifying every naturalistic theory of how the diversity of life on earth arose will not turn ID into a scientific theory, because it still wouldn't be more than a vague notion."
Comment by Douglas — December 29, 2005 @ 7:33 am
December 29th, 2005 at 7:47 am
tika: In the case of DNA and "˜human software' features like built-in redundancy, that was not a prediction but a postdiction the IDist did to try and steal a bit of unwarranted credibility.
Douglas: Eh. Kind of like almost all, if not all, the "predictions" of Evolutionary Theory, then.
tika: OK, so you admit you made a false claim about an ID prediction. Glad we cleared that up.
No, you aren't following. YOU made a claim about ID. I did not agree to that claim about ID, but pointed out that the CHARACTERIZATION you made of ID could be made of Evolutionary Theory. Is that clearer?
tika: Please supply a list of current ID predictions that are unique to ID and would point unambiguously to ID's validity if proven true."
Douglas: Since Creationism is a SUBSET of ID, I will supply you a "list" of some CREATIONIST predictions that are unique to CREATIONISM and would point unambiguously to CREATIONISM'S validity if proven true:
tika: Are you and Joe G. related? Or is it a coincidence that you both follow the same pattern of weasel wording and avoidance when caught making a false claim?
"Weasel wording" Do you not understand the concept of sets and subsets, and the logic involved in dealing with them, tika? Let me use an example that might help you understand: Darwinism is a "subset" of the set of Evolutionary Theories currently bandied about. An Evolutionary Theory IN GENERAL must have certain ideas for it to qualify as an "evolutionary theory". If DARWINISM was proved true, then it would directly follow that EVOLUTIONARY THEORY, as a GENERAL idea, is true.
tika: If you want to admit you were wrong about that claim too, just do so and don't waste bandwidth by tap-dancing.
No, I was merely using a clear example, using Creationism as a SUBSET of ID - it was easier and simpler than trying to directly prove a more general case. And I couldn't dance if my life depended on it.
tika: Or are you now saying [that] ID and Biblical creationism really are the same thing?
Are you intentionally obtuse, or is it unintentional?
tika: Gee, that['s] what the judge in Dover ruled too, after the ID side was caught lying and failed to present even one teeny bit of positive evidence for their claims. The Discovery Institute has been screaming that ID has nothing to do with Biblical creation, and now you say it does? Wow! Can I quote you on that?
You really have no understanding about the relationship of sets and subsets, and of Creationism and ID, do you? I am not going to be held responsible for any lack you might have in understanding basic junior high (or is it elementary school?) concepts, tika. Let me try one last time: Creationism => ID, but it is NOT true that ID => Creationism. Logically, if X => Y, it is NOT NECESSARILY the case that Y => X, tika.
tika: Getting back to the original question, what about the other SUBSETS of ID? What unique and unambiguous predictions do they make? While you're at it, please list for me all the SUBSETS of ID. How many are there? They all can't be right, but they all sure can be wrong!
Again, you apparently don't understand the concepts of sets, subsets, and their union