PDA

View Full Version : The predictions of ID


Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
6th November 2003, 08:00 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, just as it was presented to me, the 54 predictions of Intelligent Design theory. After responding to the first few on the forum where this was presented, I gave up. I've been Zammited.

1)High information content machine-like irreducibly complex
structures will be found.
2)Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear
suddenly and without any precursors.
3)Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different
unrelated organisms.
4)The genetic code will not contain much discarded genetic
baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
5)Living things will appear to be designed
6)The universe will appear to be designed to support life.
7)The universe and man's mind will appear to be co-designed so
that man can understand the underlying mathematical laws of the
universe.
8)Adaption to changes in the environment will only happen on a
limited level. If changes exceed the limited scale, species will
become extinct. No new species will emerge to fill the gap, if
not 'engineered'.
9)We will observe in real time massive extinction of species
but not the advent of new ones.
10)We will observe in the real world of nature forces such as
global warming pollution and other changes (most of them man- made)
accelerating the extinction of species. In these ecosystems other
already existing species may take their place, but no new evolution
products will emerge.
11)Males will have lower genetic variability on their Y-
chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is
passed on exclusively through women.
12)Earth-like planets will be found to be rare or non-existent
13)Extraterrestrial life will be rare or non-existent and
advanced life will be found only on earth
14)It will be impossible to chemically produce the many basic
molecules required for any living system
15)We will observe a fossil record replete with complex
transitions and new designs but where simple transitions (true
intermediates) are rare.
16)There will be no restrictions on "recovery" period from
mass extinctions as new species are created
17)The fossil record will indicate rapid recovery with
completely different designs and species appearing within periods of
tens of thousands of years or less. (Neo-Darwinian evolution predicts
slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be
filled by the species surviving the extinction event.)
18)More examples of extreme fine tuning will be found,
indicating true design
19)Life emerged early under adverse conditions.
20)Life is, and has always been, complex
21)The universe is designed to support life
22)There will be no restriction on designs with the possibility
that complex new designs would appear "overnight"
23)A naturalistic scenario for the origin of all biochemical
pathways and replicative molecules will not be found
24)In the genome of normal individuals, whatever their species,
we should find no quiescent genes that are similar to active genes.
25)At least some structurally similar genes will have specific
functions that do not parallel or overlap those found among related
species
26)There are patterns of sequence homologies of macromolecules
that cannot be accommodated by the monophyletic assumption of the
common descent hypothesis, but can be accommodated by a polyphyletic
lineage with a common pattern (or "design"). Preliminary evidence has
already indicated that the three distinct "urkingdoms" of Archea,
Bacteria, and Eukarya have unique patterns within themselves such as
rRNA, RNA polymerase, Cell Walls, Lipid compositions, and
translational machineries.
27)It will not be shown that biological systems like the
bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and
integrated have actually formed by a gradual Darwinian process.
28)No one should ever be able to demonstrate abiogenesis in the
laboratory
29)There should be evidence of degeneration (accumulation of
many bad mutations) in higher plants and animals.
30)Because of the degeneration problem new genes for unrelated
proteins should never evolve in higher plants and animals, even with
unlimited time.
31)Even when degeneration is not inevitable (e.g. bacteria),
evolution should proceed so slowly that we can't observe the
development of a new gene for an unrelated protein within a lifetime
or even in thousands of years, making the theory of Evolution at most
an untestable hypothesis. Therefore none of the examples of evolution
that have occurred during recorded history should require a new gene
for an unrelated protein to explain them.
32)The fossil record should show sudden appearance of species
without being preceded by a close intermediate followed by very
little change.
33)We should see many examples of rapid speciation within the
original "kind" today (mostly insects - but also plants,
fish, birds
etc.) But it should be possible to explain them by new less-
functional alleles, loss of alleles or hybridization - kinds of
change that cannot turn single-celled organisms into higher plants
and animals.
34)Archaeologists consider arrowheads, pottery and other tools
as evidence of intelligent design, and infer they were made by humans
because it's impossible for wind, rain or earthquakes etc. to produce
them. In biology, intelligent design means that DNA based life forms
had to be designed by a non-DNA based life form because it's
impossible to explain new genes for unrelated proteins being produced
by random mutations, natural selection, gene flow and genetic drift
35)There will be a tendency to degenerate in higher plants and
animals, even with enough genes and a high enough mutation rate.
36)Even for bacteria with few genes and no degeneration, natural
selection can't favor the harmful or nonfunctional steps between two
unrelated proteins needed to bridge the gap.
37)4.5 billion years is not long enough to make the evolution of
even the simplest one-celled organism likely, even under
unrealistically favourable conditions.
38)The will be a lack of examples of evolution during recorded
history that require new genes for unrelated proteins to explain
them.
39)There will be a virtual absence in the fossil record of the
countless close intermediate varieties that must have existed if the
theory of evolution based upon RM& NS is true.
40)We will discover examples of complexity that can't be
explained by natural selection acting on a series of point mutations
etc.
41)Organisms placed under selection pressures will either adapt
or become extinct. Except in the simplest cases where there is, for
example, some point mutation that reliably confers antibiotic
resistance on a bacterium, Darwin's theory has no way of predicting
just what sorts of adaptive changes will occur.
42)"Adapt or go extinct" is not a prediction of Darwin's theory
but an axiom that can be reasoned out independently by anyone.
43)Darwinism does not in fact retrodict the fossil record.
Natural selection and random variation applied to single-celled
organisms offers no insight at all into whether we can expect multi-
celled organisms, much less whether evolution will produce the
various body-plans of which natural history has left us a record. At
best one can say that there is consilience, i.e., that the broad
sweep of evolutionary history as displayed in the fossil record is
consistent with Darwinian evolution.
44)Why would Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge need to
introduce punctuated equilibria if the fossil record were such an
overwhelming vindication of Darwinism?
45)An event like the Cambrian explosion is exactly what one
would predict in the Intelligent Design hypothesis
46)The "Privileged Planet" scenario: not only is earth in
the
ideal spot for life, it is in the ideal spot for being able to see
out and measure the universe. Habitability correlates with
measurability.
47)Unlike most liquids, water when it freezes will expand and become
lighter and float.If it did not, the ice that formed during any of
the earth's Ice Ages would have sunk to the bottom of the lakes
and
seas of the world. As a result, they would have eventually frozen
completely solid, leaving no opportunity for life to form or survive.
But ice floats, and, therefore the water beneath the surface of
frozen lakes and seas stayed warm enough to support the development
and sustenance of life. Thus water is fundamental to "the miracle of
life" on earth.
48)The Anthropic Principle
49) Naturalistic critics and opponents of ID, and their
supporters will continue to spend enormous amounts of time
manufacturing new forms of red tape aimed at marginalizing
intelligent design rather than admit that it raises problems of
genuine scientific merit.
50)Because Neo-Darwinism evolution is pictured as a tinkerer
working with odds and ends, assembling interactions until they are
good enough to work it is therefore quite miraculous that the
solutions found by evolution have much in common with good
engineering design. Engineers and tinkerers arrive at their solutions
by very different routes. Engineers and designers plan structures in
advance and drawing up blueprints which is just what is found in the
world of nature and its excellent engineering designs.
51)Based on our knowledge of the prebiological conditions of
the Earth we can reject the possibility that amino acids could
spontaneously form the first proteins
52)Based on our knowledge of chemistry and the actual complexity
of cells we can reject the notion that the first proteins could have
been formed on the surfaces of silicate clays
53) Based on our knowledge of the general deleterious effect of
mutations we can reject the continual recourse to mutation miracles
by Darwinists.
And
54)Enolase functions in the degradosome as a prong that plugs
the degradosome into the glycolytic pathway so that ATP generated by
pyruvate kinase is then quickly channeled to the helicase to fuel its
unwinding activity (!)

Martin
6th November 2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, just as it was presented to me, the 54 predictions of Intelligent Design theory. After responding to the first few on the forum where this was presented, I gave up. I've been ZammitedSheesh. Some of them aren't even predictions. They're just ignorant rants about evolution.

Edited to add: Point me to them. I feel like taking a swing at something anyway.

T'ai Chi
6th November 2003, 09:56 PM
Is it possible to have a design hypothesis, without intending any religious stuff at all??

QuarkChild
7th November 2003, 12:55 AM
Someone needs to explain the difference between a prediction and a postdiction.

Seriously--global warming?
********************

What's zammitted?

MRC_Hans
7th November 2003, 01:00 AM
Geesh! Started to read, but found a lot that are not exclusively ID predictions, that is, they are also predictions of evolution. As such, they have no value in an ID versus evolution debate (which, I assume, is the purpose of the drill?).

Perhaps we should start by finding the predictions unique for ID?

Hans

Marvel Frozen
7th November 2003, 03:27 AM
Let's see ... of those "predictions" about 1/3 are just statements of the way things are, 1/3 are statements of the way creationists think things are (but really aren't), and 1/3 are just anti-evolutionary rants with no point.

sorgoth
7th November 2003, 04:31 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Is it possible to have a design hypothesis, without intending any religious stuff at all?? [/QUOTE

I don't see how.

"Design" would mean that something intelligent created us. Now, if some aliens did, we would still be designed, but another rule is that there would be no (other?) intelligent life in the universe.

BillHoyt
7th November 2003, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by QuarkChild
What's zammitted?

Zammitted (http://www.victorzammit.com/)

I'll send you a case of Kleenix and a case of beer. You'll need both.

Cheers,

Interesting Ian
7th November 2003, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, just as it was presented to me, the 54 predictions of Intelligent Design theory. After responding to the first few on the forum where this was presented, I gave up. I've been Zammited.



Could you provide the link Paul please? Thanks

Correa Neto
7th November 2003, 07:07 AM
Most of the statements can be refuted, regardless of the side you take! Non-conclusive at best. Good beer talk in some cases.
And as someone else here stated, there are various levels of "intelligent design", ranging from YEC to those who admit evolution, but as starting from system(s) that somehow was (were) designed.

A few selected ones...


2)Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear
suddenly and without any precursors.

The fossil record is anything but complete; also valid for (15), (16) and (17)

3)Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different
unrelated organisms.

How this would fit with the adaptation of currently existing structures such as front paws to wings in pterosaurs and bats or fins in cetaceans and ichtiosaurs?
Or how would this statement deal with verstigial members in cetaceans and snakes?

4)The genetic code will not contain much discarded genetic
baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Define "much"

6)The universe will appear to be designed to support life.

Or we have this impression just because we live here? Also valid for (21)

7)The universe and man's mind will appear to be co-designed so
that man can understand the underlying mathematical laws of the
universe.

Can we?

8)Adaption to changes in the environment will only happen on a
limited level. If changes exceed the limited scale, species will
become extinct. No new species will emerge to fill the gap, if
not 'engineered'.

Why? Canīt something that designed living beings add more adaptability?

9)We will observe in real time massive extinction of species
but not the advent of new ones.

What about the flu?

10)We will observe in the real world of nature forces such as
global warming pollution and other changes (most of them man- made)
accelerating the extinction of species. In these ecosystems other
already existing species may take their place, but no new evolution
products will emerge.

Again, why? Couldnīt species from an inteligent-designed ecosystem perfect themselves, say, acquiring through evolution more hydrodinamic shapes for example?

12)Earth-like planets will be found to be rare or non-existent
13)Extraterrestrial life will be rare or non-existent and
advanced life will be found only on earth

Once again, why? And regarding (13) is time being taken in to account?

19)Life emerged early under adverse conditions.

So what this has to do with the point?

22)There will be no restriction on designs with the possibility
that complex new designs would appear "overnight"

Why? Arenīt there restrictictions say to, body size and energy production from food?

Aww... Got tired... Someone please continue.

Edited to add-
Zammited? Well I will LOVE to see quantum and mathematical evidence for afterlife.

Interesting Ian
7th November 2003, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Correa Neto
7)The universe and man's mind will appear to be co-designed so
that man can understand the underlying mathematical laws of the
universe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can we?


Obviously we can, this is why physics is possible.

arcticpenguin
7th November 2003, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, just as it was presented to me, the 54 predictions of Intelligent Design theory. After responding to the first few on the forum where this was presented, I gave up. I've been Zammited.


4)The genetic code will not contain much discarded genetic
baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

7)The universe and man's mind will appear to be co-designed so
that man can understand the underlying mathematical laws of the
universe.

14)It will be impossible to chemically produce the many basic
molecules required for any living system

17)The fossil record will indicate rapid recovery with
completely different designs and species appearing within periods of
tens of thousands of years or less. (Neo-Darwinian evolution predicts
slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be
filled by the species surviving the extinction event.)

21)The universe is designed to support life

24)In the genome of normal individuals, whatever their species,
we should find no quiescent genes that are similar to active genes.

26)There are patterns of sequence homologies of macromolecules
that cannot be accommodated by the monophyletic assumption of the
common descent hypothesis, but can be accommodated by a polyphyletic
lineage with a common pattern (or "design"). Preliminary evidence has
already indicated that the three distinct "urkingdoms" of Archea,
Bacteria, and Eukarya have unique patterns within themselves such as
rRNA, RNA polymerase, Cell Walls, Lipid compositions, and
translational machineries.

27)It will not be shown that biological systems like the
bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and
integrated have actually formed by a gradual Darwinian process.

32)The fossil record should show sudden appearance of species
without being preceded by a close intermediate followed by very
little change.

48)The Anthropic Principle

49) Naturalistic critics and opponents of ID, and their
supporters will continue to spend enormous amounts of time
manufacturing new forms of red tape aimed at marginalizing
intelligent design rather than admit that it raises problems of
genuine scientific merit.

50)Because Neo-Darwinism evolution is pictured as a tinkerer
working with odds and ends, assembling interactions until they are
good enough to work it is therefore quite miraculous that the
solutions found by evolution have much in common with good
engineering design. Engineers and tinkerers arrive at their solutions
by very different routes. Engineers and designers plan structures in
advance and drawing up blueprints which is just what is found in the
world of nature and its excellent engineering designs.

51)Based on our knowledge of the prebiological conditions of
the Earth we can reject the possibility that amino acids could
spontaneously form the first proteins

52)Based on our knowledge of chemistry and the actual complexity
of cells we can reject the notion that the first proteins could have
been formed on the surfaces of silicate clays

4 and 24) functionality is being found in what was formerly dismissed as "junk DNA". See a thread in this forum titled "RNA rules" and an article in a recent Scientific American.

7) Many people have trouble comprehending their immediate environment, let alone the world at large. We see frequent evidence of this in the Paranormal forum.

14) This is avidence against, not for, since pretty much anything can be synthesized in a modern chemistry lab.

17 & 32) Periods of 10,00 years or less? The precision of the fossil record is not adequeate to resolve such small periods.

21 & 48) There are 2 version of the anthropic principle, weak & strong. The strong AP says the we are here, so the universe was designed to support life. The weak AP says we are here, so the universe is compatible with the development of life. Since the weak AP is an obvious truism, it is impossible to hold up hte existence of life as proof of the strong AP.

26) This appears to be an acknowledgment that common lineage can be detected for all organisms to 3 main roots. Are they sure they want to acknowledge that? The three roots are also related, but more distantly.

27) (raspberry sound) The example of flagella was dealt with long ago. Read a book.

49) Proponents of ID are trying to push for a political victory because there simply is no scientific case for ID.

50) Bad design is rampant in biology. There's a recent thread on dental braces. The lower back of man, who evolved from ancestors who travelled on all fours. The fact that many people do not think clearly. And on and on.

51 & 52) SFW? This is irrelevant if the RNA world hypothesis is true.

arcticpenguin
7th November 2003, 07:59 AM
I'd like to point out something about this list. Many of these points have been thoroughly, completely refuted long ago. If the list-wielder were actually searching for something resembling truth instead of promoting their own cause, those points would have been dropped from the list.

Martin
7th November 2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
3)Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different
unrelated organismsHrmm...what unrelated organisms?

BillHoyt
7th November 2003, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Martin
Hrmm...what unrelated organisms?

Ah, but you have to stay within ID's pretzel logic here. They are all unrelated, except through the creator. Therefore, this postdiction stands. Goddidit. Quod erat dumbandstrandum

Cheers,

Martin
7th November 2003, 08:45 AM
Indeed. Apparently it's alright if it's God's question you're begging.

Michael Redman
7th November 2003, 09:23 AM
6)The universe will appear to be designed to support life.What? Really? The universe appears to me to be "designed" to be sterile. We are able to observe an unimaginably huge amount of the universe, and so far we have only identified one statictically insignificant spot that seems to be able to support life. Almost all of the rest of it would instantly kill any form of life of which we are aware.

phildonnia
7th November 2003, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
48)The Anthropic Principle


I may be thinking of something else... but is this the argument that things may appear to be designed for life because of a sample bias toward conditions that would permit us to even be here?

(i.e.: there may be one billion other universes that are completely @#$%!ed up, that are outside our knowledge)

If so, isn't this a good argument against the claims of ID?

pgwenthold
7th November 2003, 10:01 AM
My response to the first couple...

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
1)High information content machine-like irreducibly complex
structures will be found
2)Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear
suddenly and without any precursors.
3)Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different
unrelated organisms.
4)The genetic code will not contain much discarded genetic
baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
blah
blah
blah


Boy, someone doesn't have much of a clue about the concept of scientific prediction, do they?

One usual requirement of any scientific hypothesis is that it has the capability to be shown false. What these people need to do is to provide a list of things that would _disprove_ the ID hypothesis.

Unfortunately, there aren't any.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
7th November 2003, 10:13 AM
Friends, friends, friends, you don't want to go there.

But, in case you do, it's a Yahoo! forum:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/?yguid=59372778

It is run with an iron fist by a religious fellow who will gag or ban you for mild provocations. As usual with these things, most arguments are presented by quotation, as was clear with the list I posted above.

Here is the post with that list. You'll see my half-hearted attempt at answering a few of the predictions, but it's just too Zammiticious.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/7046

~~ Paul

Ziggurat
7th November 2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by phildonnia

I may be thinking of something else... but is this the argument that things may appear to be designed for life because of a sample bias toward conditions that would permit us to even be here?


I believe you're thinking of the right thing. The anthropic principle (#48) is pretty much exactly why we CANNOT conclude that the universe was "designed" to support life (#21), or the minor variations on that theme (#46 and #47). That's pretty damned funny, if you ask me.

arcticpenguin
7th November 2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by arcticpenguin

21 & 48) There are 2 version of the anthropic principle, weak & strong. The strong AP says the we are here, so the universe was designed to support life. The weak AP says we are here, so the universe is compatible with the development of life. Since the weak AP is an obvious truism, it is impossible to hold up the existence of life as proof of the strong AP.

I am repeating this for those who apparently missed it first go.

patnray
7th November 2003, 12:24 PM
50)Because Neo-Darwinism evolution is pictured as a tinkerer
working with odds and ends, assembling interactions until they are good enough to work it is therefore quite miraculous that the
solutions found by evolution have much in common with good
engineering design. Engineers and tinkerers arrive at their solutions by very different routes. Engineers and designers plan structures in advance and drawing up blueprints which is just what is found in the world of nature and its excellent engineering designs.

Just wondering where I can get a look at those blueprints for the world of nature...

QuarkChild
7th November 2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by BillHoyt


Zammitted (http://www.victorzammit.com/)

I'll send you a case of Kleenix and a case of beer. You'll need both.
So zammitted means "inundated with idiocy?"

pupdog
7th November 2003, 06:11 PM
AHA!! Several of these predictions ARE valid! I refer to those that begin "Based on our knowledge..." Indeedy, based on such a low level of knowledge, OF COURSE they can reject whatever they don't understand. Based on their knowledge, the Sun goes around the Earth, snakes and asses can talk (some asses even have Web pages), and some bloke squeezed millions of critters onto a boat (did he provide approved pfd's for all of them?).

I suppose the original site provided lots of references to the scientific literature in support of those predictions.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
7th November 2003, 06:31 PM
QuarkChild asked:So zammitted means "inundated with idiocy?"
In a broad sense, yes. But specifically, it means that you have been presented with an ever-increasing mass of just-so stories and then asked to refute the "theory" underlying them. In Zammit's case, he asks us to disprove life after death by refuting each and every anecdote about it.

I believe it was I who coined the term, and I did so in this very thread. However, I may be laying claim unfairly, because it is such a compelling term that others may have used it before me.

~~ Paul

Mercutio
7th November 2003, 06:46 PM
I believe it was I who coined the term, and I did so in this very thread. However, I may be laying claim unfairly, because it is such a compelling term that others may have used it before me.

~~ Paul If you did, I am extremely impressed. I did not even question it; it is a word that must have cried out for creation....even intelligent...nah...

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
8th November 2003, 06:48 AM
I don't think I ever heard the word zammited before, nor are there any occurences in Google. Therefore I lay claim to being the originator. I urge all my comrades to use the word and bring it into the contemporary vernacular, as is its due.

~~ Paul

Martin
8th November 2003, 08:41 AM
Hrmm...Hovind was Zammiting people before Zammit...

DangerousBeliefs
8th November 2003, 08:54 AM
Aren't a lot of these post hoc and denial of the antecedent?

I like:

46)The "Privileged Planet" scenario: not only is earth in
the
ideal spot for life, it is in the ideal spot for being able to see
out and measure the universe. Habitability correlates with
measurability.

Don't forget folks. We are God's chosen .

Most of their "predictions" cannot be falsified, a basic tenent of a theory.

BillHoyt
8th November 2003, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Martin
Hrmm...Hovind was Zammiting people before Zammit...

But can you use them both in a sentence?

Hovind I been zammitted before?

Martin
8th November 2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by BillHoyt


But can you use them both in a sentence?

Hovind I been zammitted before? Ah, Gish the Ham-fisted puns a break.

BillHoyt
8th November 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Martin
Ah, Gish the Ham-fisted puns a break.

Ach! Touche!

-Oor Wulllie

Remember, I'm oan wan o thae computir things

pgwenthold
8th November 2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Most of their "predictions" cannot be falsified, a basic tenent of a theory.

I'll admit that I didn't read real closely, but on which of the supposed predictions would the intelligent designer be falsified if the exact opposite were to be observed?

It's not that "most" of the predictions cannot be falsified, it is that _none_ of them can be.

There is nothing that is inconsistent with an intelligent designer.

hammegk
8th November 2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by patnray

Just wondering where I can get a look at those blueprints for the world of nature...
QM & GR are a start. I vaguely recall 19 variables need to be pre-defined to result in "our" universe.

RNA decoding would be a beginning for biochem I'd think. If in a few hundred years it's been demonstrated that "junk DNA" is indeed junk (remove it would do it don't you think?) the chance of design lessens.

Some masses & field characteristics will still be there even in that case.