Can ID be disproven?

[drkitten]

And so, if anyone were to assert that Dembski had proved his case, they would be wrong.

But, if they asserted that it was a possibility, what then?

Well, then we would discuss what the expected consequences of Dembski's "hypothesis" are.

If Dembski's model were truly compatible with theistic evolution and with natural selection, then
there would be no philosophical reason to give Dembski's hypothesis more than a passing glance,
because it predicts nothing that can't be predicted under a more parsimonious ontological framework. Occam's razor, in this case, would cut his throat.

On the other hand, Demski does make "predictions," although I hesitate to call them predictions, because, when phrased as simple declarative statements, they're not only untrue, but
have been known to be untrue for years and in some cases, decades.



Meanwhile, what would be the harm in presenting Dembski's paper to a group of 14 year old biology students?

Absolutely none, aside from lying to them, damaging their undersanding of science, epistemology, the nature of truth, and the moral responsibilities of teachers.

Why put them in school at all if you're not going to teach them?


As it is, what happens is evolution as presented. Someone asks a question related to ID, and the answer is either, "That's pseudoscience."

Good. They asked a factual question, and they get a factual answer. Or would you prefer, if they asked a question about why the sun appears to go around the Earth, that I tell them about Helios' chariot?

[drkitten]

And since theistic evolution is compatible with ID...

Do you think that if you repeat this statement often enough, it will suddenly become true?

ID is NOT compatible with theistic evolution. ID relies upon hopeful monsters, which theistic evolution denies. Dembski himself states that ID relies upon hopeful monsters. Behe himself states that ID relies upon hopeful monsters. Any "partial" (and by definition non-functional) precursor system to an irreducibly complex system is, by definition, a hopeful monster.

Natural selection and theistic evolution both deny the existence of hopeful monsters.

Do hopeful monsters exist or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[drkitten]

Do you mean like the laws of physics?

Q. What's the difference between the laws of physics and Iacchus' posts?
A. It's possible to understand the laws of physics.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week....

[drkitten]

That's what I would expect to see in non-theistic evolution as well. More accurately, I would expect those components to serve a different function until they were assembled.

Which means you don't believe in ID, since "irreducible complexity" specifically denies this possiblity. (Read the Behe testimony in Dover.)

[Iacchus]

Of course, this all gets swept away with the comment, "there is a 'director' but we don't know his plan." This is a cop-out pure and simple. How can you tell the difference between a plan that no-one can understand versus no plan?How can you tell the difference between a language that no one can understand versus no language?Do you mean like the laws of physics?

[Iacchus]

Do you think that if you repeat this statement often enough, it will suddenly become true?

ID is NOT compatible with theistic evolution. Except to say, that both facilitate the need for an Intelligent Designer ... in which case both are really variations of the same thing.

[Mojo]

That's what I would expect to see in non-theistic evolution as well. More accurately, I would expect those components to serve a different function until they were assembled. In that case (i.e. if the components of the structure can have a function without the rest of the structure) the structure is not irreducibly complex.

[Tricky]

And also by theistic evolution. And since theistic evolution is compatible with ID...

Nothing to see here.
The idea of irreducible complexity is incompatable with evolution. So if your concept of theistic evolution includes IC, then it is most certainly not compatable with evolution.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know, it's interesting. The conversations on ID here are just like the ones in the real world. They go round and round, definitions a-flyin', goalposts a-movin'. IDers hear criticisms and either ignore them or finagle the definitions of terms to accommodate them. There is no coherent theory to keep the definitions and claims reigned in.

It's as if all the big players in the ID movement are a bunch of trolls.

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

I personally subscribe to the Cosmic Egg theory myself. ;)

[Iacchus]

I personally subscribe to the Cosmic Egg theory myself. ;)How does this work you say? Well, everything that came out of the egg is directly related to everything that was put into the egg by that which laid it. That sounds like a pretty fair and reasonable assessment now doesn't it?

[Mercutio]

How does this work you say?
Well, no, actually. Nobody asked.
Well, everything that came out of the egg is directly related to everything that was put into the egg by that which laid it. That sounds like a pretty fair and reasonable assessment now doesn't it?
Well, no, actually. Although the "what egg did 'that which laid it' hatch from?" question does nicely dovetail with the "turtles all the way down" philosophy.

Is it, by any chance...a turtle egg? :turtle:

[Iacchus]

Well, no, actually. Nobody asked.

Well, no, actually. Although the "what egg did 'that which laid it' hatch from?" question does nicely dovetail with the "turtles all the way down" philosophy.

Is it, by any chance...a turtle egg? :turtle:Well, at least my idea has substance to it, albeit "we" may not understand how that substance got here. ;)

[Tricky]

Well, at least my idea has substance to it, albeit "we" may not understand how that substance got here. ;)
Oh, you are such a hoot, Iacchus. I am quite sure that you believe your ideas have substance, although you could not produce any no matter how carefully it was asked.

Let me beat your strawman to his punch. "It's better that something from nothing like you atheists are saying."

Of all the one-trick ponies, you are the lamest. And you know what they do with lame horses, don't you?

[Mercutio]

Well, at least my idea has substance to it, albeit "we" may not understand how that substance got here. ;)
LOL...Rather than simply saying "no", I will ask...what exactly is the Iacchian definition of "substance"?


If it is the same thing my daughter wipes off her boots after a day at the stables, then perhaps your idea does have substance after all...

[Meadmaker]

Do hopeful monsters exist or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Define hopeful monsters, and I will try to accommodate your request.

And do you mean according to theistic evolution? ID? My own belief? Evolutionary theory as understood today?

[Meadmaker]

The idea of irreducible complexity is incompatable with evolution. So if your concept of theistic evolution includes IC, then it is most certainly not compatable with evolution.


It most certainly is not. If you remove my liver, I will cease to function. I am an irreducibly complex entity. That isn't my opinion; that's a definition.

[Meadmaker]

Which means you don't believe in ID, since "irreducible complexity" specifically denies this possiblity. (Read the Behe testimony in Dover.)

I only skimmed it, but I will look it up, and see if you are correct. It's odd, though, that I read some of it, and I read some people commenting on it, and it's as if we were reading two different sets of words. He didn't seem to be saying at all what people insisted he was saying.

That's what I find fascinating about all this, really. The ideas put forth by ID seem to me not very difficult, and not very profound either, but the opponents get worked into a tizzy about them.

Dembski's paper to me seems to be saying, "Evolution isn't proven, and we don't think it can happen, and we won't believe it until somebody shows us." I cannot figure out what the problem is.

[Meadmaker]

Absolutely none, aside from lying to them, damaging their undersanding of science, epistemology, the nature of truth, and the moral responsibilities of teachers.

Why put them in school at all if you're not going to teach them?



So teaching consists of presenting only the true answers to students, and not letting them compare competing possibilities? I don't get it. Are they too stupid to make the comparisons?

If you want a teenager to believe something, tell him that an authority figure doesn't believe it. When you say "that's pseudoscience" in response to an ID question, the authority figure is the teacher. If you say, "the government won't let me talk about it", the authority figure is the government. Either way, you just "educated" a person in a way that makes them more likely to believe ID. It's unlikely that most of those 14 year olds will study biology after their freshman year in high school, and they will be left with the idea that ID is a theory that "they" don't want you to know about. Meanwhile, lots of trusted people will be telling them it's true.

If you want them to learn what's wrong with it, you have to teach them what it is. Don't you?

[Tricky]

It most certainly is not. If you remove my liver, I will cease to function. I am an irreducibly complex entity. That isn't my opinion; that's a definition.
If you are suggesting irreducible complexity, then you are suggesting that evolution supports the concept of a creature without a liver suddenly having a liver. This is not at all what evolution states, but it is the strawman that IC assigns it.

Under IC, your liver must appear, fully formed without intermediate stages or "proto-livers". Or certain protiens, or eye parts or whatever it is calling irreducibly complex must arise without precursors. It fails at every level. There is nothing in evolution that suggests that any of these things arose fully formed, but this is what IC demands. It says that there are certain forms that are so basic they can have no precursors.

Now you can argue that theistic evolution does not incorporate IC, but you cannot simultaneously argue that theistic evolution both incorporates IC and is compatable with non-theistic evolution. They are, by definition, mutually exclusive. Why else would ID proponants be suggesting that evolution is not correct?

No evolutionist is suggesting that you can survive without a liver. If ID people misrepresent evolution that way, they are simply lying through their teeth. And I suspect you know this. You don't strike me as stupid.

[Meadmaker]

This is not at all what evolution states, but it is the strawman that IC assigns it.

It is quite possible that if I were to read lots of papers by Behe, Dembski, or other ID proponents, I would find many of the contradictions that you assert. Maybe these guys are complete morons who can't utter more than a few sentences without contradicting themselves. I don't know.

However, I have read one and only one paper all the way through, and in it, they gave a definition of irreducible complexity. That definition was posted previously. I have read a bunch of other snippets, media reports, blog postings and such, and they all agree.

Irreducible complexity is a simple definition. It doesn't say anything at all about evoloution. It doesn't say anything at all about intelligent design. It doesn't say anything at all about biology. (The first example of an IC system I ever read was a mousetrap.) "Irreducibly complex" is an adjectival phrase that describes a multi-part system that won't function if you take out one of the parts. That's it. Period. End of sentence. No ID. No theistic evolution. No evolution. No biology. Done.

My body is an irreducibly complex system because my liver, or lungs, or stomach, or whatever, is necessary for its continued function. That isn't a statement about evolution or intelligent design. My computer is irreducibly complex because it needs a CPU to operate. That's a definition. And I would be very surprised if you could find a contradiction to that statement in the writings of ID proponents.

[Tricky]

It is quite possible that if I were to read lots of papers by Behe, Dembski, or other ID proponents, I would find many of the contradictions that you assert. Maybe these guys are complete morons who can't utter more than a few sentences without contradicting themselves. I don't know.

However, I have read one and only one paper all the way through, and in it, they gave a definition of irreducible complexity. That definition was posted previously. I have read a bunch of other snippets, media reports, blog postings and such, and they all agree.

Irreducible complexity is a simple definition. It doesn't say anything at all about evoloution. It doesn't say anything at all about intelligent design. It doesn't say anything at all about biology. (The first example of an IC system I ever read was a mousetrap.) "Irreducibly complex" is an adjectival phrase that describes a multi-part system that won't function if you take out one of the parts. That's it. Period. End of sentence. No ID. No theistic evolution. No evolution. No biology. Done.

My body is an irreducibly complex system because my liver, or lungs, or stomach, or whatever, is necessary for its continued function. That isn't a statement about evolution or intelligent design. My computer is irreducibly complex because it needs a CPU to operate. That's a definition. And I would be very surprised if you could find a contradiction to that statement in the writings of ID proponents.
Well, your body is not irreducibly complex. There are many many things you could do without. In fact, you can do without a good portion of your liver. So then, IC must redefine a human to be a certain number of parts (like a mousetrap) that it cannot do without. As such, it is such a loose and sloppy definition, subject to revision by medical science, that it fails completely.

But the point is that IC is used as a hammer to disprove evolution. You cannot deny (if you have read much of their works) that this is the purpose that Behe and others have crafted that definition for.

"Evolution cannot be true because what good is half an eye." That is a strawman that suggests evolution proposes "half-eyes".

They suggest a mousetrap must have all of it's parts. But a moustrap with a weaker spring is still a mousetrap. A mousetrap with a stickier trigger is still a mousetrap. If mousetraps evolved, they would go through stages where the parts improved (by natural selection). There would not be a mousetrap without a spring.

If you don't think ID proponants are using irreducible complexity to deny the mechanics of evolution, why do you suppose they are bringing up the concept?
-------
Edited to add parable:

I'm reminded of the old story that illustrates bad conclusions:

A scientist had a dog that loved to fetch sticks. He would throw the stick and say "fetch" and the dog would run after the stick and retrieve it. But he decided one day to experiment on the dog (being the cruel man that all scientists are). He surgically removed one of the dog's legs. After the scar had healed, he took a stick and threw it and said "fetch". Though limping, the dog gamely went out and brought back the stick. So the scientist removed another leg and repeated the experiment after the scars had healed. Severely hobbled though he was, the dog managed to hop around on two legs until he could retrieve the stick. Once again, the dog went under the knife and when he had healed, the scientist threw the stick and said "fetch". Even with only a single leg the dog so loved the game that he dragged himself out into the yard, got the stick in his mouth and dragged himself back. So the scientist removed the final leg. He took the limbless dog into the yard, threw the stick and yelled "fetch", but the poor dog just looked at him helplessly. The scientist concluded, "When you remove all of a dog's legs, it becomes deaf."

This is the sort of conclusion that ID-ers are making about evolution. If you remove a part and the organism no longer works, then that part was what was making the organism work.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Irreducible complexity is a simple definition. It doesn't say anything at all about evoloution. It doesn't say anything at all about intelligent design. It doesn't say anything at all about biology. (The first example of an IC system I ever read was a mousetrap.) "Irreducibly complex" is an adjectival phrase that describes a multi-part system that won't function if you take out one of the parts. That's it. Period. End of sentence. No ID. No theistic evolution. No evolution. No biology. Done.
That's not it, as we have patiently pointed out numerous times.

There are some parts you can remove, introducing the idea of the irreducible core.

Dembski altered the definition over time to say that the system won't perform it's original function if you remove a core part.

Behe then revised the definition to talk of unselected steps.

Recently Dembski has admitted that one has to show that no simpler system can perform the function.

Here: http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Irreducible_Complexity

If you insist on using your simplistic definition of irreducible complexity, than you are erecting a straw man. Do some more reading.

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

Define hopeful monsters, and I will try to accommodate your request.

A "hopeful monster" is a mutant creature that differs in substantial and evolutionary costly ways from its parent population, but that nevertheless survives and breeds true despite being less fit for its original niche than its parent population. In briefer terms, it's a non-functional evolutionary intermediate.

In broad terms, this is the "what use is half a wing" question. As biologist Richard Carroll put it, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?" (Of course, modern evolutionary biologist have an answer to this question -- basically pointing out that there is a function to a partially evolved wing, as anyone familiar with flying squirrels can attest.) But it also incorporates the sudden saltationist appearance of fully-formed characteristics that qualify it for a radically different ecological niche (while still being unfit for its original one).

Behe makes a similar argument/definition in "Response to My Critics": "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations)." Of course, in light of his other statements, most particularly "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional," we see that any partial travel down the an "irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway" (as so defined) is "by definition nonfunctional" but that nevertheless must survive to breed and reproduce.



And do you mean according to theistic evolution? ID? My own belief? Evolutionary theory as understood today?

I mean in the real world, and also according to your own belief. I know the answers to the others; modern evolutionary theory outright rejects the notion of hopeful monsters, while ID demands them.

[drkitten]

Dembski's paper to me seems to be saying, "Evolution isn't proven, and we don't think it can happen, and we won't believe it until somebody shows us." I cannot figure out what the problem is.

The fundamental problem is that it's been shown to them, and they still don't believe it.

Case in point : Behe's statement that the blood clotting cascade is irreducibly complex, despite the fact that dolphins have a reduced blood clotting cascade and it still works.

It's a simple argument-by-contradiction.
Behe's definition : "Any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional."
Behe's observation : The human blood clotting complex is irreducibly complex.
Biologists' observation : The dolphin blood clotting complex is missing a part (from the human one), but is still functional.

Therefore, either Behe's definition is wrong, or else his observation is wrong (or both). Any high school biology student could figure this out -- but somehow this has manged to escape Behe himself. And the dolphin blood complex has been known since the 1960s, so it's not like this is a recent finding that Behe hasn't seen yet because he doesn't get that journal.

So is Behe dishonest, or incompetent? And either way, why should we teach his theories when they're known to be wrong (see above) and he's known to be untrustworthy as a proponent of them.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Meadmaker, think of guys like Behe and Dembski as liars. That helps make it clear what the problem is.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Here: http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Irreducible_Complexity

If you insist on using your simplistic definition of irreducible complexity, than you are erecting a straw man. Do some more reading.

~~ Paul


Speaking of strawmen...what part of the stuff in that link is different than what I was saying.

There are two possibilities that I can think of. First, there is Dembski's insertion of the words "and therefore original". Bad Dembski, Bad. Screws with the definition really badly, because there is nothing about the way a system functions today that you can use to somehow infer an "original" function. It's an editorial comment stuck into the middle of the definition.

There might be some confusion because of Behe's use of the term "irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway", which is a different thing than an irreducibly complex system. If you say that no one has ever demonstrated the existence of such an "irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway", I would agree with you.

But address what these guys are really saying, not what you think they probably mean. If you do otherwise, that is the very definition of a straw man.

Speaking of which, I've been skimming Behe's Dover testimony. I've seen some links, including on this board, that talk about how he made a fool of himself, but I just can't find the idiotic statements in his testimony.

What I have found is some guilt by association. Creationists are all ID supporters, and some of the authors of "On Pandas and People" are obviously creationists. However, if you call ID creationism on that account you are (drum roll please) erecting a straw man.

From what I can tell from Behe's testimony and Dembski's paper, there is nothing incompatible with what they say and the notion of theistic evolution.

But I thank you for your patience in explaining my errors to me. If I were more clever I would probably get it.

[Meadmaker]

If you don't think ID proponants are using irreducible complexity to deny the mechanics of evolution, why do you suppose they are bringing up the concept?

This is certainly correct. They define irreducible complexity, and then discuss its implications for evolution. But there's no need to attack the definition. It's simple enough. Attack the implications that they try to insist upon. They insist that an irreducibly complex system can't evolve by an direct Darwinian pathway, and they are right. Then, they say it also can't evolve from an indirect pathway, and they are wrong, but they are not provably wrong using today's knowledge.

To disprove them, here we go again, you would have to demonstrate an actual sequence of mutations that changes (for example) a type III secretory system into a flagellum.

[Tricky]

This is certainly correct. They define irreducible complexity, and then discuss its implications for evolution. But there's no need to attack the definition. It's simple enough. Attack the implications that they try to insist upon. They insist that an irreducibly complex system can't evolve by an direct Darwinian pathway, and they are right. Then, they say it also can't evolve from an indirect pathway, and they are wrong, but they are not provably wrong using today's knowledge.

To disprove them, here we go again, you would have to demonstrate an actual sequence of mutations that changes (for example) a type III secretory system into a flagellum.
The concept of "proof" in the natural sciences really has no meaning. What substitutes for proof is evidence. The more evidence, the better the case, but no case is ever 100% proved.

So if you could observe specific physical changes and map them to specific mutations, that would be considered strong evidence that the mechanism of evolution is, at the very least, similir to how it is described in scientific literature.

That's been done, by the way.

[Meadmaker]

I mean in the real world, and also according to your own belief. I know the answers to the others; modern evolutionary theory outright rejects the notion of hopeful monsters, while ID demands them.

In the real world, according to my belief, no.

But I can't prove that. A marginally functional organism separated out of its original niche during the process of gradual transformation into another organism would meet your definition of "hopeful monster".

I'm also not absolutely certain that modern evolutionary theory rejects them. I once read, "The river that flows uphill" by Calvin Trillin. (sp?) He says that evolution is observed to frequently follow a process of juvenalization. I'm afraid it has been many years since I've read the book, so I can't give accurate references. But, if I recall correctly, some individuals are born that never quite develop to normal maturity, and that opens the way for rapid change. Those juvenilized versions are probably less fit than their parents, but breed more fit offspring. If I recall, it was a "one step back and two steps forward" view of evolution, as opposed to a constant forward motion. I don't know if I've got the memory right, but wouldn't that be an example of a hopeful monster?

[Meadmaker]

Therefore, either Behe's definition is wrong, or else his observation is wrong (or both). Any high school biology student could figure this out .

So give them the chance.

[drkitten]

Speaking of which, I've been skimming Behe's Dover testimony. I've seen some links, including on this board, that talk about how he made a fool of himself, but I just can't find the idiotic statements in his testimony.

How about his testimony that astrology is a scientific theory? (Day 11 afternoon testimony (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1019_day11_pm.pdf), page 38, line 25 et seq.)

How about his proposal about the difficulty of evolving the disulfide bond discussed in his article co-authored with Snoke. He suggested that the disulfide bond will take "a large population a large time" to evolve (Day 12 morning testimony (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf), p. 45, line 4-7), not realizing that his "large population" is in fact only a billion bacteria, fewer bacteria than are found in a gram of soil, and his "long time" is less than 20 thousand years, a mere eyeblink of geological time. (Ibid., p 49.)

How about the point where he dismisses offhand fifty peer-reviewed articles without even having read them? (Day 12 afternoon testimony (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1019_day12_pm.pdf), p. 18, line 8 et seq. See in particular, p. 23, lines 8-14, where he specifically denies having read them, and continues to pontificate about what they don't have.)

I guess my question is "what's your standard for 'idiotic'?" I mean, I'd fail any of my undergraduates for errors of this magnitude -- but then I teach at a mediocre school. This might be acceptable at a community college or something.

[drkitten]

But I can't prove that. A marginally functional organism separated out of its original niche during the process of gradual transformation into another organism would meet your definition of "hopeful monster".

No, it wouldn't. See below for a detailed discussion.

But, if I recall correctly, some individuals are born that never quite develop to normal maturity, and that opens the way for rapid change.


This is correct.

Those juvenilized versions are probably less fit than their parents

I don't know anyone who has suggested that these juvenilized versions are less fit. The whole point of juvenilized forms is that they have a faster and longer reproductive cycle, which in turn allows them to reproduce more -- and thus they are more fit, all else being equal.

So what's going on is a a balance of two contradictory selective pressures; the pressure to reproduce as much as possible (which pushes towards the juvenlized form) and the pressure to survive long/well enough to continue to reduce (which presumably pushed towards the adult form or it wouldn't have originated in the first place). In some species, the mere existence of neoteny is even environmentally controlled, depending upon the environment, individuales will mature or not. (See this researcher's web page (http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/Howard.Whiteman/research.shtml) for some examples.)

The point, though, is that the environment is not static -- and a population evolves to meet the environment it has right now. An organism "separated out of its original niche" is, by definitinon, no longer in that niche, which means that the idea of a "hopeful monster" has to be evaluated against the niche it finds itself in right now, not some hypothetical niche from a dozen generations back. What drives this selection pressure (and a major cause of speciation) is that an organism bred for one environment suddently finds itself in another environment to which it is not especially well-fit. But that's not because the genes changes, but because the environment did. Conventional evolutionary theory thus predicts that the organism will evolve in steps that will incrementally improve it to match its current environment.

So you're partially right -- you need to keep careful track of which niche an organism is adapted to. But this doesn't really impact the "hopeful monster" question, because a "hopeful monster" would be less fit to the new niche than the parents.... not better fit, as conventional evolutionary theory demands of the children.

I don't know if I've got the memory right, but wouldn't that be an example of a hopeful monster?

Only if the juvenilized forms were in fact less fit, a point I've never seen seriously raised.

[drkitten]

So give them the chance.

Why? There's more than enough truth out there to fill the classroom hours. Why waste the time on falsehoods?

There's more than enough genuine debate in science to fill the classroom hours. Why waste time on a politically motivated false one?

I see a number of benefits from excluding falsity from the science classroom. I see no benefits whatsoever from embracing it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There are two possibilities that I can think of. First, there is Dembski's insertion of the words "and therefore original". Bad Dembski, Bad. Screws with the definition really badly, because there is nothing about the way a system functions today that you can use to somehow infer an "original" function. It's an editorial comment stuck into the middle of the definition.
He has no choice, does he? There are plenty of examples of biological mechanisms that still do things when components are removed.

But address what these guys are really saying, not what you think they probably mean. If you do otherwise, that is the very definition of a straw man.
Are you on the same planet as I am? The point is that these guys are saying lots of different things. Which definition should I use so you won't accuse me of fabricating a straw man?

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

How about his testimony that astrology is a scientific theory? (Day 11 afternoon testimony (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1019_day11_pm.pdf), page 38, line 25 et seq.)

There are lots of disproven scientific theories. Astrology is one of them. He also pointed out the ether theory of propogation of light as a disproven theory.


How about his proposal about the difficulty of evolving the disulfide bond discussed in his article co-authored with Snoke. He suggested that the disulfide bond will take "a large population a large time" to evolve (Day 12 morning testimony (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf), p. 45, line 4-7), not realizing that his "large population" is in fact only a billion bacteria, fewer bacteria than are found in a gram of soil, and his "long time" is less than 20 thousand years, a mere eyeblink of geological time. (Ibid., p 49.)

"not realizing"? He discussed the number, both in his paper and his testimony. Be careful about this one. 20 thousand years is an eyeblink, but a disulfide bond is a pebble on the beach when compared to biological complexity.

I don't agree with his conclusion, but he doesn't look like an idiot to me.


How about the point where he dismisses offhand fifty peer-reviewed articles without even having read them?

He said he assumed they were excellent papers, but they didn't address the topic he was concerned about. And he was right. They don't have it.

[Meadmaker]

Are you on the same planet as I am? The point is that these guys are saying lots of different things. Which definition should I use so you won't accuse me of fabricating a straw man?

~~ Paul

The one you linked to?

[Meadmaker]

Why? There's more than enough truth out there to fill the classroom hours. Why waste the time on falsehoods?

In order to disprove them, at least to the extent they can be disproved.

You have to ask yourself why the scientific establishment is not winning this battle in a slam dunk. If you want, you can say it is because too many people are too stupid to understand you.

But I think a better explanation is that we, collectively, are doing a lousy job of teaching. Part of that lousy job is forbidding people from letting students make comparisons. If indeed any high school biology student could spot the flaws that Dr. Behe has missed, show them the theory, and point out the flaws while you do it. I predict that if you handle it that way, a smaller percentage of students will come away believing ID than do today.

Furthermore, most of the ones who do believe it will believe a form that is basically theistic evolution, in which case they will believe a theory that is totally compatible with all known scientific data, except they will insist it couldn't have happened without God. Where is the problem?



A note on "hopeful monsters". Your Murray State link didn't work, so I couldn't read it. There are lots of people who believe ID. Some are creationists. They believe God just made creatures pretty much as they are today. For that branch of ID, there are no hopeful monsters. For some ID believers, God fashioned the creatures gradually, growing "half a wing" or something. Those are hopeful monsters, by your definition. However, the use of the word "hopeful" to describe them seems a little inappropriate. However, Dembski raises the possibility that indirect paths toward irreducibly complex creatures exist, but that they are incredibly improbable. His conclusion, a dubious one at best, is that something must have shepherded these creatures along. One way to do that would be to force organisms into new environments, and mutate them to be fit in their new environments. A second way is to separate out the creatures and put them in a less demanding place while tinkering with their DNA. Ridiculous? Tell God that. He doesn't have to obey the rules. (Lest anyone forget, I don't actually believe in Him. I'm just making a point.) In the first case, there are no hopeful monsters. It's just God forcing them to move around. In the second case I suppose you could call them hopeful monsters, but again, is it "hopeful"?

But in either case, does it matter. The reason we reject the concept of hopeful monsters is because it doesn't fit with evolution. Saying that ID depends on hopeful monsters, and therefore is incorrect, is circular reasoning.

[Mojo]

There are lots of disproven scientific theories. Astrology is one of them. No it isn't. A "theory," as far as the use of the word in science is concerned, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Astrology is not substantiated by decent evidence, and never was. Behe claims that ID is as much a scientific theory as astrology!

[hammegk]

No it isn't. A "theory," as far as the use of the word in science is concerned, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Astrology is not substantiated by decent evidence, and never was. Behe claims that ID is as much a scientific theory as astrology!
And one might say that astronomy, and perhaps parts of cosmology, are by use of the scientific method taken from what was, centuries-ago, the Theory of Astrology.

[Tricky]

And one might say that astronomy, and perhaps parts of cosmology, are by use of the scientific method taken from what was, centuries-ago, the Theory of Astrology.
Have to agree with Hammy here. I suspect that the history of astrology is much like the present of chiropractics. There were those who studied evidence and used the best scientific methods they had at their disposal, and there were those who were quacks and hopeless woo-woos. Astrology did indeed predate and lead to astronomy. Somebody must have had a theory there somewhere.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The one you linked to?
I can link to at least four different definitions.

~~ Paul

[PatKelley]

In order to disprove them, at least to the extent they can be disproved.

Science and even claims of anything don't work that way. Science "works" by having people provide evidence of their own claims. Turns out there are more than a fair shake of ideas out there, and science would spend no money other than on proving again and again that the sun was a giant ball of gas. Still people argue that it is not (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html?). Now, if science had to spend all of its time again and again disabusing every single notion, it really would not do any good at all. Better that we teach the method that led to many of these current scientific ideas: critical thinking.

You have to ask yourself why the scientific establishment is not winning this battle in a slam dunk. If you want, you can say it is because too many people are too stupid to understand you.

But I think a better explanation is that we, collectively, are doing a lousy job of teaching. Part of that lousy job is forbidding people from letting students make comparisons. If indeed any high school biology student could spot the flaws that Dr. Behe has missed, show them the theory, and point out the flaws while you do it. I predict that if you handle it that way, a smaller percentage of students will come away believing ID than do today.

There are more than enough examples of bad science, why should ID be special in that regard? It would be an effort in philosophy, as ID does not provide any positive falsifiable arguments.

Furthermore, most of the ones who do believe it will believe a form that is basically theistic evolution, in which case they will believe a theory that is totally compatible with all known scientific data, except they will insist it couldn't have happened without God. Where is the problem?

The problem is that evolution does not jibe with the bible.

A note on "hopeful monsters". Your Murray State link didn't work, so I couldn't read it. There are lots of people who believe ID. Some are creationists. They believe God just made creatures pretty much as they are today. For that branch of ID, there are no hopeful monsters. For some ID believers, God fashioned the creatures gradually, growing "half a wing" or something. Those are hopeful monsters, by your definition. However, the use of the word "hopeful" to describe them seems a little inappropriate. However, Dembski raises the possibility that indirect paths toward irreducibly complex creatures exist, but that they are incredibly improbable. His conclusion, a dubious one at best, is that something must have shepherded these creatures along. One way to do that would be to force organisms into new environments, and mutate them to be fit in their new environments. A second way is to separate out the creatures and put them in a less demanding place while tinkering with their DNA. Ridiculous? Tell God that. He doesn't have to obey the rules. (Lest anyone forget, I don't actually believe in Him. I'm just making a point.) In the first case, there are no hopeful monsters. It's just God forcing them to move around. In the second case I suppose you could call them hopeful monsters, but again, is it "hopeful"?

Then it becomes an exercise in sophistry, as God, who can do anything, could also have created everything as it is five seconds ago, including all of our memories. This is why ID and its ilk are not in a science class.

But in either case, does it matter. The reason we reject the concept of hopeful monsters is because it doesn't fit with evolution. Saying that ID depends on hopeful monsters, and therefore is incorrect, is circular reasoning.

No, the reason we reject hopeful monsters is because a) we do not observe forms which appear to be "trying" to get to another state and b) Lamarckian evolution was abandoned a while back.

"Hopeful Monsters" is a derogatory term coined to present mutation as an all-or-nothing proposition, with an evolutionary path derided as a single deformed intermediary. But that's not how it works. Just because parts work in a single way now doesn't mean they are useless in other faculties. Take the ear bones: these came from the rear joint of the jaw; originally, they formed part of a flexible joint for the double-hinged jaw. It changed over time, with the bones being next to the ear canal and external tympanum, until first one of the bones then all three became integrated with the auditory system. And considering the whole mess originally grew out of gill arches, this is one counter-example among many against "irreducable complexity."

Hardly a hopeful monster in the lineage, yet it went from jawless bony fishes to us very visibly demonstrated through anatomy alone.

[Mojo]

Have to agree with Hammy here. I suspect that the history of astrology is much like the present of chiropractics. There were those who studied evidence and used the best scientific methods they had at their disposal, and there were those who were quacks and hopeless woo-woos. Astrology did indeed predate and lead to astronomy. Somebody must have had a theory there somewhere.We're back to the IDers' "evolution is just a theory" malarkey then. A scientific theory has to be supported by decent evidence, which astrology isn't. In his testimony in the Dover trial, Behe, in order to present ID as a scientific theory, was forced to redefine the term "scientific theory" to the extent that it fitted astrology. Astronomy, to some extent, developed from the observations used by astrologers, but this doesn't mean that astrology is a science.

[Tricky]

We're back to the IDers' "evolution is just a theory" malarkey then. A scientific theory has to be supported by decent evidence, which astrology isn't. In his testimony in the Dover trial, Behe, in order to present ID as a scientific theory, was forced to redefine the term "scientific theory" to the extent that it fitted astrology. Astronomy, to some extent, developed from the observations used by astrologers, but this doesn't mean that astrology is a science.
That is true, but we must remember that the definition of a thing changes through time. At one time, "star study" probably had many aspects. Perhaps some star studiers focussed more on mechanics and others on "effects", but probably most did some of each. As experience and equipment became better, the more rational-minded began to realize that predictions based on mechanics worked (and they were able to predict eclipses, etc.) while the branch that dealt with effects on human lives was, at best, inconsistant. Eventualy, they parted ways (sort of like alchemy and chemistry) but the good solid work done by astrologers laid the groundwork for the "new" science of astronomy. It is sad that the stupid stuff remained around too, but woos will be woos.

[Meadmaker]

No it isn't. A "theory," as far as the use of the word in science is concerned, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Astrology is not substantiated by decent evidence, and never was. Behe claims that ID is as much a scientific theory as astrology!

When I was in physics back in college, my physics prof discussed the michelson-morley experiment, and how Einstein formulated his theory of relativity starting from that experiment. The prof said that prior to the M-M experiment, the prevailing theory, and he used that word, was that there was something called ether through which light propogated.

Presumably my physics prof is an ignorant doofus who should be ignored. He doesn't even understand how to use the word "theory".

[Meadmaker]

I can link to at least four different definitions.

~~ Paul

I would be curious if any of them are truly contradictory. It wouldn't totally surprise me, but having read a little bit of Behe and Dembski, I would be a bit surprised if there were any significant differences. If you are interested in that little experiment, lead on.

[Meadmaker]

There are more than enough examples of bad science, why should ID be special in that regard?

Because people get elected to school boards by promoting it. At least in Kansas. And even in Dover, it was close.


The problem is that evolution does not jibe with the bible.


Tell that to the Pope. He thinks it does.


No, the reason we reject hopeful monsters is because a) we do not observe forms which appear to be "trying" to get to another state and b) Lamarckian evolution was abandoned a while back.

In other words, because it doesn't fit with evolution.



And considering the whole mess originally grew out of gill arches, this is one counter-example among many against "irreducable complexity."


It doesn't counter anything at all in Dembski's paper. I can't speak for the rest of the ID "community", but Dembski said nothing that had any problem with your description. What Dembski said was that an irreducibly complex system, which would include the ear bones, could not form via a direct Darwinian path. (He didn't use the term, but if it did so, the partially formed system would be a hopeful monster.)

He did, however, say that such systems could form via an indirect Darwinian path, which is what you described. So far, you and Dembski agree.

Now comes the controversial part. Dembski says that the indirect Darwinian path is so improbable that it could only have occurred with help from God, who Dembski calls "a designer", but we know what he means. He specifically allowed the possibility that evolution such as you described could occur if there was an intelligent force directing the evolution.

So what's the probability? Is Dembski wrong?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I would be curious if any of them are truly contradictory. It wouldn't totally surprise me, but having read a little bit of Behe and Dembski, I would be a bit surprised if there were any significant differences. If you are interested in that little experiment, lead on.
Sorry, but this is too much repeat theatre. We've been through all the definitions already. They are contradictory. Saying that removing a part means the system can't perform any function is different from saying that it can't perform its original function.

Anyway, what difference does it make? Until IDers can point to an irreducibly complex system, we could have 40 different definitions.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So what's the probability? Is Dembski wrong?
I swear this is one of the most surreal conversations I have ever had.

Dembski has(a) never provided empirical evidence of an IC system; and (b) never proved a system to be IC. So why do we need to give a damn about IC at all?

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Sorry, but this is too much repeat theatre. We've been through all the definitions already. They are contradictory. Saying that removing a part means the system can't perform any function is different from saying that it can't perform its original function.

Anyway, what difference does it make? Until IDers can point to an irreducibly complex system, we could have 40 different definitions.

~~ Paul

You have pointed to one and only one link. On it were two different defintions, which were in agreement. However, your post did make me realize I misunderstood Dembski's definition, and thought that the "and therefore original" was important. Now I realize that the "original" purpose is simply the one it performed with all of its parts.

Last week, I discovered that there was a hole in the pants that went with my best suit. The suit is ruined. As a suit, it was an irreducibly complex system. And that suit is no longer made. It was last year's model. I can still wear the jacket as a sportcoat, and I can still use the pants as a dust rag. The components still serve a function, but they cannot perform their original function, which was as a suit. The irreducibly complex system of a suit does not function without the missing pants. However, the component parts could perform functions before they were a suit, and after they ceased being a suit.

You might have better luck attacking the "function" aspect of the defintion as it applies to biological systems. Is the "function" of my liver really to remove toxins from my blood, or does the liver just sit there minding its own business, obeying the laws of physics? It doesn't have any real function. After I die, its "function" will be to decompose into some foul-smelling components. This whole idea of structure, function, and purpose, or even boundaries of biological systems is an illusion anyway. There is no "function" to a liver, or any coherent notion of a single organism anyway.

But if you say that sort of thing, everyone would be up in arms. "You can't teach Buddhism in schools!"

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You have pointed to one and only one link. On it were two different defintions, which were in agreement. However, your post did make me realize I misunderstood Dembski's definition, and thought that the "and therefore original" was important. Now I realize that the "original" purpose is simply the one it performed with all of its parts.
So you're okay with the definition that says that an IC system with a component removed doesn't perform its original function (as opposed to any function)? If you're okay with that, so am I. But it's a huge duh, no? Of course it doesn't perform its original function. Why is that interesting with respect to evolution?

Last week, I discovered that there was a hole in the pants that went with my best suit. The suit is ruined. As a suit, it was an irreducibly complex system. And that suit is no longer made. It was last year's model. I can still wear the jacket as a sportcoat, and I can still use the pants as a dust rag. The components still serve a function, but they cannot perform their original function, which was as a suit. The irreducibly complex system of a suit does not function without the missing pants. However, the component parts could perform functions before they were a suit, and after they ceased being a suit.
This is a pathetic example of an IC system. Is that the best you can do? You can use the pants as pants, my friend, as long as you don't worry about the hole. It serves its original function pretty well. Most animals don't care if their pants look perfect, except possibly for Spongebob.


~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

Hi,
There seems to be some confusion about the use of the phrase "hopeful monsters".

To clarify
a) Large genetic changes aren't necessarily required to produce large phenotypic changes.
b) "hopeful" is a metaphorical term implying that there may be a fortuitous matching of the mutant with changing enviromental conditions, there is nothing 'anticipatory' about it either from the mutant's (or its parents') viewpoint or from an external directing 'force'.

This site might explain it better:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/people/richard_goldschmidt.html

-----

Can someone go through Bronzedog's five potential falsifications of TOE and explain/ provide examples of why they would falsify TOE?

Cheers

[drkitten]

When I was in physics back in college, my physics prof discussed the michelson-morley experiment, and how Einstein formulated his theory of relativity starting from that experiment. The prof said that prior to the M-M experiment, the prevailing theory, and he used that word, was that there was something called ether through which light propogated.

Presumably my physics prof is an ignorant doofus who should be ignored. He doesn't even understand how to use the word "theory".

Actually, I'd suggest someone else is the ignorant doofus here. Someone who doesn't recognize the significance of the word "well-substantiated" in Mojo's definition:


A "theory," as far as the use of the word in science is concerned, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Astrology is not substantiated by decent evidence, and never was.

The ether theory of light was well-substantiated during the late 1800s; there was a fairly large body of experimental evidence supporting it and a fairly large number of successful predictions made using it. New evidence was amassed (including the M-M experiment) that appeared to contradict the ether theory of light, and so it was no longer well-substantiated when the new information was taken into account.

At no point since the word "astrology" took on its present maning, has astrology been "well-substantiated."

Behe acknowledged this very fact in his testimony, but insisted that a theory need not be well-substantiated. This is, bluntly, the statement of an idiot, but absolutely necessary for the acceptance of his claims, because his claims have also never been well-substantiated since they were proposed.

Teaching ID in biology class, by Behe's own admission, is exactly as superficial, ill-thought-out, and contrary to good educational policy as teaching astrology in a cosmology class.

[Meadmaker]

So you're okay with the definition that says that an IC system with a component removed doesn't perform its original function (as opposed to any function)?

Yes.


But it's a huge duh, no? Of course it doesn't perform its original function. Why is that interesting with respect to evolution?

There are an awful lot of huge duhs in this conversation, and in the general discussion of evolution and ID. An awful lot of what the ID crowd is saying is quite simple, but it gets caught up in a lot of gobbledygook. Some of that gobbledygook comes from their own use of non-standard terms. Some of it comes from their allies, who cite their work to support stuff, like creationism, that isn't in their work. Some more of that gobbledygook comes about when their critics accuse them of saying things that they never said.

So, as free of gobbledygook as we can get, why is an IC system interesting to evolution?

An IC system can't be developed by natural selection, unless cooption occurs. Evolutionary biologists agree with that. Behe and Dembski say that as well, although they talk about "direct Darwinian pathways" and "indirect Darwinian pathways". A direct Darwinian pathway is one with no cooption. An indirect pathway has cooption.

As best I can tell, the whole of the ID argument is then about the probability that a system will arise by cooption. Dembski and Behe argue that this probability is incredibly small, unless divine intervention guides the process. Evolutionary biologists say the probability is very large, as evidenced by the fact that it has happened a whole lot, and they don't believe divine intervention is needed.

Can either side prove its case? No.


I've talked a lot about the compatibility of ID and theistic evolution, and how ID is not just creationism. Many of you just think that's ridiculous. My favorite quote was from someone, I can't remember who, who said something like, "No matter how often you say it, it won't be true." Well, how about if Dembski says it? If Dembski says they are compatible, would anyone acknowledge that they are compatible?

Here's a quote from Dembski I found interesting.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.11.Matzke_Response.htm


Notwithstanding, I'm happy to grant Matzke all the homologues he wants as well as the ancestral type III secretion system to start his model rolling. That's not where the problem lies for the Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. Indeed, there are forms of intelligent design that require the same concession. Matzke at one point in his article refers to the "antievolutionary 'Intelligent Design' movement." Conjoining the term "antievolution" with the term "Intelligent Design" has become a useful rhetorical ploy by Darwinists for discrediting intelligent design but in fact is quite misleading. Michael Behe, the best known proponent of intelligent design, holds to universal common descent. He is as much an evolutionist as Matzke. Where they differ is on how evolution brought about biological complexity. For Matzke and the majority of biologists, the Darwinian mechanism is all that's required. For Behe, some form of intelligent guidance is additionally required. But clearly, if the bacterial flagellum is evolving under intelligent guidance, then existing designed structures are fair game for co-option into newly designed structures. Insofar as intelligent design is a theory of evolution, it is a theory of technological evolution, and technologies evolve by taking advantage of existing technologies. Thus co-option will play as important a role in any intelligent design models for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum as in Matzke's Darwinian model.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

An IC system can't be developed by natural selection, unless cooption occurs. Evolutionary biologists agree with that. Behe and Dembski say that as well, although they talk about "direct Darwinian pathways" and "indirect Darwinian pathways". A direct Darwinian pathway is one with no cooption. An indirect pathway has cooption. Okay, we agree to this definition:

"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system."

So we also agree that the human blood clotting system in not IC, right?

Do we also agree that the eye is not IC? Or is the addition of a pinhole over a light-sensitive patch a cooption event?

In other words, what is the definition of "original function"?

And I still don't understand why this requires intelligent intervention.

~~ Paul

[Mojo]

So you're okay with the definition that says that an IC system with a component removed doesn't perform its original function (as opposed to any function)? I've been thinking about this apparent redefining of IC.

I thought that the IDers' original reason for invoking IC was that they claimed that IC structures cannot have evolved because if you remove bits, what you are left with doesn't have a function, and therefore could not have evolved by natural selection. If they've changed their definition of IC so that it now means structures that merely can't fulfil their current function if bits are removed, but the individual components of which can have other functions, this means that the components for the IC structure could have evolved, and the whole idea of IC becomes useless to the IDers' argument.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Seems that way to me, Mojo.

Even using the old definition, what's the problem? You have system X that performs some function. Then you add component y so the system performs its function better. Then you change the context in which the system operates so that the original X won't do anything at all. Then X+y is IC according to the original definition, but it evolved just fine.

I swear these guys have no imagination.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

It seems to me that the Behe etal argue more along the lines that IC systems are so complex that the chance of random mutations providing the genotype required is basically nil, while The Theory defenders state the probability must be significant, as a multitude of such genotypes and resulting phenotypes clearly exist now and in the past.

[Meadmaker]

Hammegk is exactly right.



So we also agree that the human blood clotting system in not IC, right?

Do we also agree that the eye is not IC? Or is the addition of a pinhole over a light-sensitive patch a cooption event?

In other words, what is the definition of "original function"?


We agree on the definition.

"Original function" means the function it performed as a system, before you took out its parts.

It really is a great big duh, as you said it. It's not some intensely profound discovery. An IC system is a system that won't work if you take out some of it.

"I used to surf the internet on the PC in the corner, but then the 80286 CPU failed. Now I stack books on it." That PC was irreducibly complex, despite a few things. If the floppy drive had failed, it would still be able to surf the net. It was originally manufactured to do something other than surf the net. After it could no longer surf the net, it could still do something else. It was possible to do other things with it than surf the net. However, for the user of the PC, its function was to surf the net, but when the CPU failed, it couldn't surf the net anymore.

There's nothing tricky about this. Don't read too much into the definition of IC. There's nothing there.

And the blood clotting system is IC. Take out some of its parts, and it won't clot blood. The only "revision" in the definition between Behe and Dembski that you linked to was because some moron tried to make it complicated. The process went something like this:

Behe: "A system is irreducibly complex if it needs all of its parts to work. A mousetrap is irreducibly complex because it consists of a spring, a platform, a base, and some cheese. If you remove any one component, it can't catch mice."

Moron: "Aha. However, my mousetrap is painted! But it can still catch mice without the paint! It can't be IC."

Behe: "Well, I suppose so, I just meant that there are pieces that are important. Take away one of the important parts and it can't function"

Moron: "But if the spring is removed, it makes an excellent cheese tray! In fact, it makes an even better cheese tray, because you don't have to worry about getting your fingers chopped off! It still functions fine. It can't be IC."

Dembski: "OK. Great. A system is IC if it contains some really important parts, and if you remove those really important parts, it stops working the way it did back when it had the important parts. We'll call the important parts the 'irreducible core'."

That's it, and I would be very surprised if you could find fourty different defintions, or if you find two that had any significant differences.

[Meadmaker]

If they've changed their definition of IC so that it now means structures that merely can't fulfil their current function if bits are removed, but the individual components of which can have other functions, this means that the components for the IC structure could have evolved, and the whole idea of IC becomes useless to the IDers' argument.

And Messrs Behe and Dembski agree with you, except for the useless part.

Then, their argument is that although they could have evolved, they probably didn't, without help.

Now, to decide who's right, compute the probability. Any takers?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Original function" means the function it performed as a system, before you took out its parts.
The generic function, the specific function, or the specific implementation of the function? Is the dolphin's blood clotting system performing the "original function" of the human blood clotting system?

You're convincing yourself that the definition of IC is crisp by ignoring the details.

"I used to surf the internet on the PC in the corner, but then the 80286 CPU failed. Now I stack books on it." That PC was irreducibly complex, despite a few things. If the floppy drive had failed, it would still be able to surf the net. It was originally manufactured to do something other than surf the net. After it could no longer surf the net, it could still do something else. It was possible to do other things with it than surf the net. However, for the user of the PC, its function was to surf the net, but when the CPU failed, it couldn't surf the net anymore.
Your examples have nothing to do with IC as Behe defined it. He was talking about molecular systems, not computers. It is patently obvious that if you remove a large enough component of anything, it won't work anymore.

And the blood clotting system is IC. Take out some of its parts, and it won't clot blood.
Sure it will. The dolphin manages to clot its blood.

We appear to agree that, whatever the definition of IC, it has nothing to do with evolution. I guess we can leave it at that.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now, to decide who's right, compute the probability. Any takers?
Apparently not even Dembski, since he's never done it.

Me: Have you ever computed the probability of the formation of the flagellum?

Dembski: No.

Me: Why?

Dembski: Hard.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Apparently not even Dembski, since he's never done it.

Me: Have you ever computed the probability of the formation of the flagellum?

Dembski: No.

Me: Why?

Dembski: Hard.

~~ Paul

Exactly! That's it. The rest is highfallutin gobbledygook. Dembski and Behe basically say, "Hard, but we're certain it must be really, really, small."

[drkitten]

Behe: "Well, I suppose so, I just meant that there are pieces that are important. Take away one of the important parts and it can't function"

Moron: "But if the spring is removed, it makes an excellent cheese tray! In fact, it makes an even better cheese tray, because you don't have to worry about getting your fingers chopped off! It still functions fine. It can't be IC."

Dembski: "OK. Great. A system is IC if it contains some really important parts, and if you remove those really important parts, it stops working the way it did back when it had the important parts. We'll call the important parts the 'irreducible core'."

That's it.

And unfortunately, this simple example completely disproves ID as an alternative to evolution. Because if you accept that a mousetrap without a spring is a useful cheese tray, it follows immediately that I can build a moustrap out of an appropriate cheese tray and a spring, which provides an evolutionary path to construct a mousetrap via evolutionary natural selection.

Nothing in evolutionary theory prevents a structure evolved for one purpose from being coopted for another -- I've already given you the example of the swim bladder becoming a lung, which is no more radical than a cheese tray becoming a mousetrap. If you allow that subsets or modifications of the "irreducible core" are still useful, just in a different context, then ID has absolutely nothing to offer even as an argument against evolution.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Exactly! That's it. The rest is highfallutin gobbledygook. Dembski and Behe basically say, "Hard, but we're certain it must be really, really, small."
Notice how I didn't even have to mention irreducible complexity in my ingenious summary of the entire ID debate.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

And unfortunately, this simple example completely disproves ID as an alternative to evolution.

Did you read the Dembski quote talking about Behe? ID is not an alternative to evolution. At least according to Behe and Dembski.

[drkitten]

Did you read the Dembski quote talking about Behe? ID is not an alternative to evolution. At least according to Behe and Dembski.

To what, then, was Behe proposing ID as an "alternative" to in his paper entitled "Intelligent Design as an Alternative Explanation for the Existence of Biomolecular Machines"?

What was Behe testifying about when he said (Day 10, pm session, pp 102-3)


For the past number of, past hour or so we've been talking about the argument against Darwinian processes, but I want to re-emphasize to say that it is important to keep in mind that the positive inductive argument for design is in the purposeful arrangement of parts.

Irreducible complexity, on the other hand, is an argument to show that Darwinism, the presumptive alternative to design, is an unlikely explanation."


On the one hand, "Darwinism" (which is of course creationist-speak for "evolution"), and on the other hand, the "presumptive alternative" is design.

Similarly, Behe testifies (Day 11, pm, p. 82) that:


The idea of common descent does not go, in my view, so directly to the question of the purposeful arrangement of parts. But nonetheless, as a part of Darwinian theory, it is required much more for Darwinian theory.... Pandas is making a negative argument against common descent to show the plausbility to greater -- more greatly enhance the plausibility of the alternative of intelligent design.

Shall I keep digging out quotes? There's three days of Behe's testimony alone, plus all the other writings.

[sphenisc]

I think the confusion here is between ID as an alternative to evolution when explaining an individual observation, and ID as an alternative to evolution as a general explanation of the diversity of life.

[Analogy warning] I'm went home last night, one explanation of how I did it is "The theory of bus", an alternative theory is "The theory of car". This isn't meant to imply that everybody in the world went home last night according to only one of these theories (though in the ID/evolution case its probably true - guess which?).

[PatKelley]

I think the confusion here is between ID as an alternative to evolution when explaining an individual observation, and ID as an alternative to evolution as a general explanation of the diversity of life.

[Analogy warning] I'm went home last night, one explanation of how I did it is "The theory of bus", an alternative theory is "The theory of car". This isn't meant to imply that everybody in the world went home last night according to only one of these theories (though in the ID/evolution case its probably true - guess which?).
Ah, so you state that it --- wait, you didn't say anything.

How is it under that bridge, hmmm?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

[Analogy warning] I'm went home last night, one explanation of how I did it is "The theory of bus", an alternative theory is "The theory of car". This isn't meant to imply that everybody in the world went home last night according to only one of these theories (though in the ID/evolution case its probably true - guess which?).
But no one bothered to make up those stinking theories until they had at least one verified sighting of a bus and a car!

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Shall I keep digging out quotes? There's three days of Behe's testimony alone, plus all the other writings.

That doesn't seem necessary, since you don't seem to understand them anyway.

Behe is using "Darwinism" to refer to undirected evolution. Behe believes in theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is compatible with ID.

The reference to "Pandas" describes the argument made in "Of Pandas and People", a book which he contributed to, but which, elsewhere in his testimony, he indicated he did not agree with in its entirety.

[Meadmaker]

Notice how I didn't even have to mention irreducible complexity in my ingenious summary of the entire ID debate.

~~ Paul

I think Behe's continued use of the term and emphasis of it clouds the debate. In his earlier writings (yes, I have read more of them in the course of this thread) he seemed to indicate that IC structures could not evolve via natural selection at all. In his later writings, as in Dembski's, he clarifies that such a structure couldn't evolve through a "direct Darwinian pathway", which is very close to saying without cooption. (It may actually be the same thing, which is what I thought when I first read it, but I'm not absolutely certain.)

At any rate, it is entirely possible to summarize ID without the use of the term "irreducible complexity". The whole summary really is, "We don't think it's very likely for all this stuff to be made without intelligent assistance." The rest is explanation.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The whole summary really is, "We don't think it's very likely for all this stuff to be made without intelligent assistance." The rest is explanation.
If only that explanation included a proof, they'd have something.

~~ Paul

[Tricky]

Behe is using "Darwinism" to refer to undirected evolution. Behe believes in theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is compatible with ID.
No evolution is compatible with ID if ID requires the concept of irreducible complexity.

So tell me, what are the differences between theistic evolution and undirected evolution (other than the assumption that it is guided)? How could anyone test whether evolution is theistic or undirected? If you can't tell the difference, what is the point of adding a level of complexity, i.e. a guider? If the science is exactly the same with or without the God, why add in the God?

[Tricky]

At any rate, it is entirely possible to summarize ID without the use of the term "irreducible complexity". The whole summary really is, "We don't think it's very likely for all this stuff to be made without intelligent assistance." The rest is explanation.
It sounds then that ID is based entirely on statistical analysis. Such analysis implies that they know all the variables and that all of their assumptions are correct (and many of them are more than a little questionable). As such, it is nothing but critique of evolution. Critiques are good. That is exactly what science should do. But a critique is not enough to qualify as a theory. For that, it must provide an alternate explanation that fits the evidence. ID does not even pretend to do that.

Still, I don't object to having evolution challenged. That is how we learn. What I object to is having a challenge called an "alternate theory".

[Meadmaker]

No evolution is compatible with ID if ID requires the concept of irreducible complexity.

So tell me, what are the differences between theistic evolution and undirected evolution (other than the assumption that it is guided)? How could anyone test whether evolution is theistic or undirected? If you can't tell the difference, what is the point of adding a level of complexity, i.e. a guider? If the science is exactly the same with or without the God, why add in the God?

The fruit fly experiment. Or something similar.

Put some organisms in a place where "Darwinism" predicts rapid evolution. See if they evolve. If they do, either God was unnecessary, or God is very predictable, in which case we can just call it natural law, and leave God out of it. Of course, the problem with that approach is that "rapid" is generally measured with respect to geologic time. Back several pages ago, when I suggested the fruit fly experiment, I posed it as an eccentric billionaire who could establish a foundation that would last at least several hundred years.

One of my reasons for starting this thread was to see if I had missed any evidence of this sort. I had googled on "speciation", and related word searches, but hadn't found anything remotely like real proof of significant evolutionary change that had been observed in a laboratory. The best I had seen were drosophila flies that didn't like to mate with each other. That isn't exactly firm evidence. I figured if such a thing had happened, I would hear about it. Well, I didn't. Until you can provide that, people will continue to believe ID.

Short of that, you could deal ID a severe blow if you gave an extremely detailed path by which one species evolved into another, documenting a series of genome modifications at the level of DNA molecules that could have caused the transformation. That is way beyond the limits of our knowledge right now, but I don't think it will always be so. Until then, Behe, Dembski, and others that come after them, will continue to pepper their papers with observations that none exist.

[Meadmaker]

It sounds then that ID is based entirely on statistical analysis.


Still, I don't object to having evolution challenged. That is how we learn. What I object to is having a challenge called an "alternate theory".

As best I can tell, that's all there is. And calling it "analysis" is generous. There are no actual numbers. It's more like conjecture. I would love, though, for a high school biology teacher to be able to discuss it, so that he could point out that it was actually an unverified hypothesis that did not actually contradict the findings of modern biology, genetics, biochemistry, or related fields.

[Tricky]

As best I can tell, that's all there is. And calling it "analysis" is generous. There are no actual numbers. It's more like conjecture. I would love, though, for a high school biology teacher to be able to discuss it, so that he could point out that it was actually an unverified hypothesis that did not actually contradict the findings of modern biology, genetics, biochemistry, or related fields.
LOL. Yeah, that would cover it. If we can limit ID to the obligatory 5-minute disclaimer as you have outlined, then I'm willing to compromise.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We could teach ID on the same day as Lamarckism, Lysenkoism, and morphic fields.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

LOL. Yeah, that would cover it. If we can limit ID to the obligatory 5-minute disclaimer as you have outlined, then I'm willing to compromise.

5 minutes is not enough. If you do that, they'll think you are brushing them off. If I were a biology teacher, I would spend at least two days on the subject, examining the claims, looking for the evidence (which of course you won't find) and making a fair assessment of the claims. Of course, those two days would be mixed in with the two or three weeks of evolutionary theory, and in the end, the message would be, "So, we are absolutely certain that there is a mechanism that provides for evolution present in nature. Some people say that there is no way it could have happened without God's assistance, but that was based on statistical arguments, and they didn't supply the statistics. As such, their claims remain an unverified hypothesis, with no experimental support."

The way I see it, these kids are going to be voters in four years. It's worth the time to make sure they make a truly informed decision.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That might work if the science teacher was particularly good. And then, of course, there would be the science teachers who think ID is swell.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

That's true. And others worry about the school preaching the axiom of your faith 'the monism is material' to their children, that also being an assertion impossible to disprove.

[Tricky]

5 minutes is not enough. If you do that, they'll think you are brushing them off. If I were a biology teacher, I would spend at least two days on the subject, examining the claims, looking for the evidence (which of course you won't find) and making a fair assessment of the claims. Of course, those two days would be mixed in with the two or three weeks of evolutionary theory, and in the end, the message would be, "So, we are absolutely certain that there is a mechanism that provides for evolution present in nature. Some people say that there is no way it could have happened without God's assistance, but that was based on statistical arguments, and they didn't supply the statistics. As such, their claims remain an unverified hypothesis, with no experimental support."

The way I see it, these kids are going to be voters in four years. It's worth the time to make sure they make a truly informed decision.
That would be great, but something tells me that those school boards and parents who want ID to be taught in science class are not going to take kindly to having it demolished there. Their aim is to have ID refute evolution, not the reverse. I suspect that if it were taught as you suggest, the outcry would be immediate and furious.

They really don't want a comparison between the two, of if they do, they should be careful what they wish for.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That's true. And others worry about the school preaching the axiom of your faith 'the monism is material' to their children, that also being an assertion impossible to disprove.
Hmm. My kids have never come home talking about monism or materialism. Perhaps they are not good listeners. Or perhaps the teacher couldn't come up with a testable hypothesis to distinguish the various monisms, and so just gave up on the subject. You know teachers these days.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

That would be great, but something tells me that those school boards and parents who want ID to be taught in science class are not going to take kindly to having it demolished there. Their aim is to have ID refute evolution, not the reverse. I suspect that if it were taught as you suggest, the outcry would be immediate and furious.

They really don't want a comparison between the two, of if they do, they should be careful what they wish for.

Ahh, but would it be demolished? And if so, how?

First, it wouldn't be "demolished" logically, because it cannot be disproven. You can show that it is an untested hypothesis, but you can't disprove it, at least not with our current level of knowledge.

Second, it's true they want it taught as an alternative to evolution, but how can that be? Its most prominent supporter, Michael Behe, is an evolutionist. It's time to educate ID supporters about what their "theory" really says.

I think it would be undermined by pointing out that 1) it isn't an alternative to evolution and 2) while it is a valid hypothesis, it is only an hypothesis.

Of course, there are teachers who will teach it uncritically. They will say that the statistical arguments of Behe et. al. are ironclad and that their is strong evidence of design in the universe. However, in order to do that, they will have to show the kids the arguments. The bright, unbiased, ones will see the flaws. Those with a with a will to believe will believe, regardless of what you tell them. At least the argument will be presented.

It all goes back to the question, "What do we fear?" Do we fear that our children, presented with the data, will follow a teacher, zombie-like, unable to make up their own minds. Maybe I should fear that, but I don't. But that's probably because my child is extraordinary in every way.<g> I just think there is more to fear from not presenting the data than from presenting the data, even if the presentation is biased. Maybe I'm naive.

[hammegk]

Hmm. My kids have never come home talking about monism or materialism.
Indeed, many never understand what they were taught, even unto death.


Perhaps they are not good listeners. Or perhaps the teacher couldn't come up with a testable hypothesis to distinguish the various monisms, and so just gave up on the subject. You know teachers these days.

Perhaps most teachers don't understand the implications of their teachings either, or if they do are proscribed from mentioning them.



It all goes back to the question, "What do we fear?" Do we fear that our children, presented with the data, will follow a teacher, zombie-like, unable to make up their own minds? .... I just think there is more to fear from not presenting the data than from presenting the data, even if the presentation is biased.
I just wanted to see that comment in bold type ... :)

[chipmunk stew]

Indeed, many never understand what they were taught, even unto death.

Perhaps most teachers don't understand the implications of their teachings either, or if they do are proscribed from mentioning them.Look, most science teachers could do a better job at communicating three things about science:
--its nature as a mode of inquiry, rather than just a set of facts
--the boundaries of this mode of inquiry
--and the way its terminology differs in use (strict and formal) from the way the same words are used colloquially

But, hammegk, be honest. "The monism is material" is pure inference, not implication (much less assertion).

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Indeed, many never understand what they were taught, even unto death.
Ah yes, the curriculum of the sooper sekrit Materialist Monist Hegemonic Society.

I'll make you a deal. If you can offer me one experiment that we could run to distinguish the various forms of monism, or even monism and dualism, I will personally compose a letter to the science ombudsman at my kid's school.

~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

Ah, so you state that it --- wait, you didn't say anything.

How is it under that bridge, hmmm?

Meadmaker had stated

Did you read the Dembski quote talking about Behe? ID is not an alternative to evolution. At least according to Behe and Dembski.


Dr Kitten had stated

The idea of common descent does not go, in my view, so directly to the question of the purposeful arrangement of parts. But nonetheless, as a part of Darwinian theory, it is required much more for Darwinian theory.... Pandas is making a negative argument against common descent to show the plausbility to greater -- more greatly enhance the plausibility of the alternative of intelligent design



My suggestion was that there is a way of reconciling the these two statements, and in doing so it was intended to enhance the communication between these participants. I may be wrong; I may have failed in my intent. But it was not a delibrate act of trolling, indeed quite the contrary - and I reject your accusation entirely. Have a nice day.

[hammegk]

Look, most science teachers could do a better job at communicating three things about science:
--its nature as a mode of inquiry, rather than just a set of facts
--the boundaries of this mode of inquiry
--and the way its terminology differs in use (strict and formal) from the way the same words are used colloquially
Indeed, with special attention to 'boundaries of this mode of inquiry'.

But, hammegk, be honest. "The monism is material" is pure inference, not implication (much less assertion).
The assumption is tacit rather than explicit, and it should be made explicitly. It is an axiom -- not an inference, nor an implication -- but it certainly is an assertion.


If you can offer me one experiment that we could run to distinguish the various forms of monism, or even monism and dualism, I will personally compose a letter to the science ombudsman at my kid's school.
Why not just admit your axiom, like all axioms, is not subject to the scientific mode of inquiry?

[Tricky]

My suggestion was that there is a way of reconciling the these two statements, and in doing so it was intended to enhance the communication between these participants. I may be wrong; I may have failed in my intent. But it was not a delibrate act of trolling, indeed quite the contrary - and I reject your accusation entirely. Have a nice day.
Indeed if ID is compatible with evolution, then it merely adds the addendum "but God (or a director) did it", to all the evidence collected by science. As such, it may satisfy the needs of people who strongly desire to have a god involved, but unfortunately, it adds nothing but an extra layer which contributes nothing to the understanding of evolution. That is to say, Occam's razor should discard it as an unnecessary, if benign, complication.

[drkitten]

Theistic evolution is compatible with ID.

As has been pointed to you repeatedly, it is not.

ID requires hopeful monsters, theistic evolution excludes them.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why not just admit your axiom, like all axioms, is not subject to the scientific mode of inquiry?
Then what difference does it make which metaphysic my kids are (purportedly) brainwashed into? What mode of inquiry should we use to distinguish the various metaphysics, in the name of relaxing scientific hegemony? For that matter, what difference does it make to you which metaphysic you adopt?

How is this all not just idle chitchat?

~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

Indeed if ID is compatible with evolution, then it merely adds the addendum "but God (or a director) did it", to all the evidence collected by science. As such, it may satisfy the needs of people who strongly desire to have a god involved, but unfortunately, it adds nothing but an extra layer which contributes nothing to the understanding of evolution. That is to say, Occam's razor should discard it as an unnecessary, if benign, complication.

But not if the combination explains more of the observations than either does alone, Occam's razor only applies in cases of ... oh you know this already..

[Tricky]

But not if the combination explains more of the observations than either does alone, Occam's razor only applies in cases of ... oh you know this already..
I am unaware of any explanations that ID adds when combined with evolution. Could you give us a few examples?

[sphenisc]

I am unaware of any explanations that ID adds when combined with evolution. Could you give us a few examples?

The extra observations that ID would account for include organisms which are less well adapted to their natural environment than the ancestors from which the IDer(s) 'developed' them. This could alternatively be viewed as 'better adapted' to the artificial environment which exists as a result of the presence of an IDer(s).

[By IDer, I mean, of course, an intelligent designer, not a supporter of ID theory]

Does that answer your question? I may have picked it up wrongly.

[Meadmaker]

As has been pointed to you repeatedly, it is not.

ID requires hopeful monsters, theistic evolution excludes them.

Michael Behe and William Dembski think it is. I think they are better authorities on ID than you are. But if you would like to point out your "knowledge" again, who am I to stop you?

[Tricky]

The extra observations that ID would account for include organisms which are less well adapted to their natural environment than the ancestors from which the IDer(s) 'developed' them. This could alternatively be viewed as 'better adapted' to the artificial environment which exists as a result of the presence of an IDer(s).
Not sure I understand that. But ID would have to show the mechanism by which this occured, not just state that it did. They have to actually identify the hand of the creator. If it can be explained without direct evidence of the hand of the creator, then ID is not adding anything.


Does that answer your question? I may have picked it up wrongly.
No, not really. Could you give me some specific examples?

Of course there are lots of examples of organism being less suited to their environment than their predecessors (many of them are extinct now), but evolutionary theory suggests that it is because the environment is constantly in flux. An example is marsupials in Australia. Many of them are being wiped out by the much more efficient placentals which compete better. The environment changed when placentals were introduced. Evidence suggests that similar things have happened time and time again in biologic history. No IDer is required.

[Tricky]

Michael Behe and William Dembski think it is. I think they are better authorities on ID than you are. But if you would like to point out your "knowledge" again, who am I to stop you?
They may be better authorities on ID than the good doctor, but they are absolutely abominable at evolution. So it is understandable that they cannot see that ID is incompatible with evolution. They may not even understand the concept of "hopeful monsters". It is a little difficult for the layman, but Dr. Kitten explained it well enough that I can now understand it.

[Meadmaker]

Indeed if ID is compatible with evolution, then it merely adds the addendum "but God (or a director) did it", to all the evidence collected by science.

Not quite. Let's think about four sets of beliefs related to life's origin and evolution. Those four are evolution (Darwin's version), theistic evolution, ID by means of theistic evolution, and ID by means of creationism. Here's basically what each of them say about evolution.

Evolution: Evolution happened.
Theistic evolution: Evolution happened the way God wanted it to happen.
ID via Theistic evolution: Evolution happened, and we can demonstrate that it wouldn't have happened without God.
ID via creationism: Evolution didn't happen. We can prove it wouldn't have happened without God, and we think God just made the critters just like they are today.

So ID "adds" to theistic evolution the statistical arguments that say evolution couldn't have happened without the aid of God.

(As you all know, technically, they don't talk about God, but I think we all know what they mean. Whether that God happens to be Christian, Jewish, or Hindu, they are still talking about the character played by George Burns in the 1970s. Unless someone objects, I'll keep saying "God".)

Evolution is pretty well confirmed, although it lacks specific, step by step explanations of how one life form transformed into a different one. Theistic evolution is not scientific, and doesn't pretend to be otherwise. ID via TE is unconfirmed, and rejected by most of the people who have looked at it. Creationism is....well...at the very least it isn't scientific. If someone wants to defend it here, he can.

[Meadmaker]

They may be better authorities on ID than the good doctor, but they are absolutely abominable at evolution. So it is understandable that they cannot see that ID is incompatible with evolution. They may not even understand the concept of "hopeful monsters". It is a little difficult for the layman, but Dr. Kitten explained it well enough that I can now understand it.

From what I have read of Behe's writings, he believes life developed exactly and identically to the way the rest of us believe it developed. He just thinks it needed God's assistance, and he thinks he can prove it. I thnk he's wrong, but I'm certain I can't prove it.

I think ID is compatible with everything I ever learned in biology class in high school, and everything I've read subsequently, with one exception. Mainstream evolutionary theory teaches that it all came about as a logical consequence of natural laws, while ID says that isn't enough. As far as the actual, day to day events of what happened, such as what carbon chains formed in what creatures, I can't see the difference. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

[Roboramma]

Evolution is pretty well confirmed, although it lacks specific, step by step explanations of how one life form transformed into a different one.
Which is exactly what we would expect given what is predicted by the theory of evolution and our current knowledge.
Reconstructing ancestry exactly in many cases just isn't possible. It might be possible to concider possible lines of decent that could have led from a possible ancestor to a modern form, but that's about all we can do.

That's to be expected based upon what the theory says. So the fact that we can't do so perfectly can't be evidence against the theory. It's expected by the theory.
To suggest that because our knowledge of that ancestry is imperfect that maybe God played a role in there somewhere, without any specific evidence that God did play a role, is positing a God of the Gaps.

Philosophically I can admit maybe God did and maybe God did not play some role in those shadowed moments of prehistory. But a scientific theory of that requires evidence. More evidence than "We don't know if it's possible to go from A to B, or how it happened."
No, we don't. But the fact that we can think of plausible routes is something that adds to the already monumental support for the theory of evolution. Until a pathway can be shown to have been impossible, or so improbable as not to matter, there's no reason to call ID science.
Until then it's just a vague hypothesis.

If it's supporters want it to be taken seriously I suggest that they need to provide the evidence for it, rather than simply saying, "Well, you evolutionists haven't even looked for the evidence, it might be there!". Preferably published in peer reviewed journals.

Just felt like clarifying that. :)

[sphenisc]

Not sure I understand that. But ID would have to show the mechanism by which this occured, not just state that it did. They have to actually identify the hand of the creator. If it can be explained without direct evidence of the hand of the creator, then ID is not adding anything.

I think you've got it, since you manage to identify the weakness in my argument. I'm not sure that there is any onus on ID to show a specific mechanism given that there is no alternative explanation to account for the observation.[It's accepted in archaeology, for example, that some artifacts are 'intelligently designed', without specifying exactly who made them, when and how.] My suspicion is that there wouldn't be a single mechanism to account for such observations, an intelligent designer would presumably have a range of mechanisms available for developing organisms, otherwise it wouldn't be that intelligent?


No, not really. Could you give me some specific examples?

Of course there are lots of examples of organism being less suited to their environment than their predecessors (many of them are extinct now), but evolutionary theory suggests that it is because the environment is constantly in flux. An example is marsupials in Australia. Many of them are being wiped out by the much more efficient placentals which compete better. The environment changed when placentals were introduced. Evidence suggests that similar things have happened time and time again in biologic history. No IDer is required.

Specific examples.hummmm..............
If, for example, an organism could be shown to lack features which its ancestor possessed and which were beneficial in their otherwise similar environments. For example, some fossils of a rhinoceros are discovered which, while being discovered with all the associated fossils of a subtropical grassland etc, similar to its immediately ancestral fossils. Nevertheless they show evidence of the loss of sensory organs and regression of legs to small stumps. Its shown to be eating the same food as its ancestors, the same predators are present etc. I would suspect that these features are maladaptive in its environment and this might be an example of ID.

[hammegk]

How is this all not just idle chitchat?

~~ Paul
Perhaps it is. If so, what's your interest in these threads? You continue to participate. ;)

[Meadmaker]

But a scientific theory of that requires evidence. More evidence than "We don't know if it's possible to go from A to B, or how it happened."
No, we don't. But the fact that we can think of plausible routes is something that adds to the already monumental support for the theory of evolution. Until a pathway can be shown to have been impossible, or so improbable as not to matter, there's no reason to call ID science.
Until then it's just a vague hypothesis.


Careful, there. Evolutionary theory, in its current state says even less. It says, "We don't know how to go from A to B, but we are sure it happened. " As for plausible routes, what Behe et al point out, repeatedly, is that there are no plausible routes given. The routes are vague and unspecific. I think that makes sense, based on the relative infancy of the field, but let's be honest. Not only can one not show how a bacterial flagellum did develop, no one can give more than a vague armwaving account of how one might develop. If I asked for directions to get me from the Statue of Liberty to the Santa Monica Pier, and someone said, "I'm pretty sure you ought to go through Pittsburgh." I would be disappointed.


More from Behe concerning the compatibility of theistic evolution and intelligent design:


But how could biochemical systems have been designed? Did they have to be created from scratch in a puff of smoke? No. The design process may have been much more subtle. It may have involved no contravening of natural laws. Let’s consider just one possibility. Suppose the designer is God, as most people would suspect. Well, then, as Ken Miller points out in his book, Finding Darwin’s God, a subtle God could cause mutations by influencing quantum events such as radioactive decay, something that I would call guided evolution. That seems perfectly possible to me. I would only add, however, that that process would amount to intelligent design, not Darwinian evolution.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps it is. If so, what's your interest in these threads? You continue to participate.
I was referring to our subtopic, not the entire thread. How is metaphysics not just idle chitchat?

~~ Paul

[Tricky]

I think you've got it, since you manage to identify the weakness in my argument. I'm not sure that there is any onus on ID to show a specific mechanism given that there is no alternative explanation to account for the observation.[It's accepted in archaeology, for example, that some artifacts are 'intelligently designed', without specifying exactly who made them, when and how.]
But as we know, you can't prove a negative. How is it possible to show that there is no alternative explanation and there can be none? That is an impossible burden of proof. There are many things which we don't yet know, but few if any of them are unknowable. So it seems to plug the gap in knowlege by postulating a designer is simply giving up on finding alternatives.

As for the archaelology, I would bet that any class of artifacts would have been shown to be man made at some time. You may not have to prove the origin of every pottery shard (though lots of archaeologists do exactly that thing) but you'd have to show at some point that pottery was man-made. I would have to see at least one clear cut example of IDer intervention before I could accept others.

My suspicion is that there wouldn't be a single mechanism to account for such observations, an intelligent designer would presumably have a range of mechanisms available for developing organisms, otherwise it wouldn't be that intelligent?
All I need is one, and you've got me convinced. But it can't be "we can't think of anything else it could be," because that just shows the limitations of what has been (so far) thought of. You have to show me evidence of the intercession.


Specific examples.hummmm..............
If, for example, an organism could be shown to lack features which its ancestor possessed and which were beneficial in their otherwise similar environments. For example, some fossils of a rhinoceros are discovered which, while being discovered with all the associated fossils of a subtropical grassland etc, similar to its immediately ancestral fossils. Nevertheless they show evidence of the loss of sensory organs and regression of legs to small stumps. Its shown to be eating the same food as its ancestors, the same predators are present etc. I would suspect that these features are maladaptive in its environment and this might be an example of ID.
Not sure I understand this. Being maladapted for its present environment is evidence for ID? Evolutionists consider that maladaptive features are strong evidence against ID. I suspect that I am misinterpreting you.

But what I would like is one real example, not a "what if" sort of example. Not trying to corner you here, but in order for me to understand what you are talking about, it would help to correlate the example to something that could be documented.

[PatKelley]

Careful, there. Evolutionary theory, in its current state says even less. It says, "We don't know how to go from A to B, but we are sure it happened. " As for plausible routes, what Behe et al point out, repeatedly, is that there are no plausible routes given. The routes are vague and unspecific. I think that makes sense, based on the relative infancy of the field, but let's be honest. Not only can one not show how a bacterial flagellum did develop, no one can give more than a vague armwaving account of how one might develop. If I asked for directions to get me from the Statue of Liberty to the Santa Monica Pier, and someone said, "I'm pretty sure you ought to go through Pittsburgh." I would be disappointed.

This is a specious analogy (no pun intended) as it could be used to demand intermediates at any stage. "You take the road through Pittsburgh" "Which one?" "This - the I95 corridor" "For how long? What exit do I get off at?" "I think it's the 38A" "AHA! You fail! I am lost but you are the loser!"

It is an old tired argument of demanding that all other alternatives be eliminated before making any assumptions, and it doesn't wash because we get back to the "Could have made the universe five minutes ago" argument and we're back where we started.


More from Behe concerning the compatibility of theistic evolution and intelligent design:
...It may have involved no contravening of natural laws...

In that wise it is the "Could have made the universe five minutes ago" argument. We can never say it didn't happen so it must be so? That's not science at all. We don't know currently, is science's answer, but we have a good idea. However, by placing the intelligent designer in the place of the unknowable, it is tantamount to saying my invisible friend is smart and pretty. How would you know otherwise, you can't see her, and only I know if you did. So I win.

[arias]

This is a little easy, especially if ID makes essentially hard to disprove claims.

An example: I challenge each and every single one of you to disprove this:

There is an invisible cat on that chair.
I cannot see anything on that chair (neither can anyone).
Therefore, there must be an invisible cat.


There are some things which are naturally impossible to disprove.

[hammegk]

I was referring to our subtopic, not the entire thread. How is metaphysics not just idle chitchat?

~~ Paul
I invoke my rights under the 5th Amendment. :p

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Fair enough.

~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

But as we know, you can't prove a negative. How is it possible to show that there is no alternative explanation and there can be none? That is an impossible burden of proof. There are many things which we don't yet know, but few if any of them are unknowable. So it seems to plug the gap in knowlege by postulating a designer is simply giving up on finding alternatives.

By 'no alternative explanation' what I meant was 'of the currently available explanations, which manage to explain the observations, satisfy Occam's Razor etc, etc.' The set of such explanations is a relatively small set and can be exhaustively searched. This is the same procedure that applies to any successful theory, it becomes accepted as the 'current model' because it's the best of the currently available explanations. This doesn't imply that no alternative explanations will ever be presented.


As for the archaelology, I would bet that any class of artifacts would have been shown to be man made at some time. You may not have to prove the origin of every pottery shard (though lots of archaeologists do exactly that thing) but you'd have to show at some point that pottery was man-made.

I agree and I may have interpreted your statement "They have to actually identify the hand of the creator." too literally then. The point is that it is possible to conclude something is man-made without being able to identify exactly who it was.


I would have to see at least one clear cut example of IDer intervention before I could accept others. All I need is one, and you've got me convinced. But it can't be "we can't think of anything else it could be," because that just shows the limitations of what has been (so far) thought of. You have to show me evidence of the intercession.

Of course you would, but we've just had our little vertebrate coup de tat, so forgive if I'm a bit suspicious about what 'one clear cut example of IDer intervention ' means. There just doesn't seem to be a class of observations which everyone can accept as satisfying this condition, there is a tendency to move the goalposts.
[ Digression : It seems incredibly easy for me to look around this room and identify designed objects, yet it's very hard for me to say how I know an object is designed. IR has nothing to do with it, I've no idea how most of them are put together anyway...]


Not sure I understand this. Being maladapted for its present environment is evidence for ID? Evolutionists consider that maladaptive features are strong evidence against ID. I suspect that I am misinterpreting you.

But what I would like is one real example, not a "what if" sort of example. Not trying to corner you here, but in order for me to understand what you are talking about, it would help to correlate the example to something that could be documented.

I think evolutionists regard maladaptive features as strong evidence against Creationism. To use a "Climbing Mount Improbable" analogy, according to Creationism organisms should have been created living at the peak of its local mountain. According to Evolution by Natural Selection things may not be at the peak, but the general trend should be to climb upward, (in this sense they are maladaptive; their 'location' is maladaptive, their 'velocity' is 'to adapt'.) ID would account for observations of organisms not only in the location sense but in the velocity sense, organisms that are heading 'downhill'.

[If you're not familiar with Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable", I apologise for using the analogy, my guess is you'll get the gist anyway.]

I'm not going to offer any real examples (if indeed I have any) without some concessions to the argument so far. [You've whipped away your goalposts once already, I'm not falling for the same trick twice. :)] Is this a class of observations which a) EVo by NS can't account for b) ID can?

[Meadmaker]

In that wise it is the "Could have made the universe five minutes ago" argument. We can never say it didn't happen so it must be so?

That would be foolish. However, since we can never say it didn't happen, then we have to say it might be so. And indeed, the "five minutes ago" theory is a perfectly good, but not very interesting, theory. ("theory" is being used in the colloquial sense here.) Even if it happens to be true, the world was made to look like it was somewhere around 5 billion years old, so even if it only happens to be 5 minutes old, we can still study it as if it were older.

Is that the same as what ID states? No. Behe et. al. say the world looks like it was designed. They further say that the probability of it arising in that way by chance is virtually 0. Can you prove them wrong? No.

But is ID disprovable? It sure is. Conceptually, it's easy. Evolve something.

Going back to the "going from A to B" analogy, it seems to me that neither ID nor evolution can say how we got from A to B, where A and B are two different sorts of organisms. At this point they make two different statements.

Darwin: I don't know how we got from A to B, but I'm sure it could have happened without God.
ID: I don't know how we got from A to B, but I don't think it could have happened without God.

I agree with the first one, but it's hard to feel intellectually superior about it.

[Roboramma]

Meadmaker, my view on it is this:

For everything that we can test, evolution stands up to the tests. Every prediction that it has made that we've been able to look at based on current knowledge has stood up.

There are some things that we simply can't look at yet. That doesn't supply evidence that the theory is false. It suggests that maybe we should look at those things. But I think that will take some time.

Here's an example of something that we could not have known, but that the evidence suggested was true, and that it turns out to have been a good idea to have relied upon:

Before we went there, the theory that the moon lets out destructive thought waves could have been true. It's possible that these thought waves are contagious and when the astronauts came back to earth they would have infected the entire planet and caused the human species to wipe itself out in a mad bloodbath.
But we went there, and that theory turned out to be false.

Before we went, was there any good reason to believe that it was false? I would say yes, and for exactly the same reasons that I'd suggest there is good reason to believe that ID is false.
One can posit any number of things. Even meaningful and falsifiable things.

But those things also require positive evidence before they should be taken seriously.

[Tricky]

By 'no alternative explanation' what I meant was 'of the currently available explanations, which manage to explain the observations, satisfy Occam's Razor etc, etc.' The set of such explanations is a relatively small set and can be exhaustively searched. This is the same procedure that applies to any successful theory, it becomes accepted as the 'current model' because it's the best of the currently available explanations. This doesn't imply that no alternative explanations will ever be presented.
That is true, however, I have yet to see a single instance where ID provides a better answer than plain old evolution, sans ID. To postulate ID is to open up all sorts of unanswerable questions about the nature of the designer. So anyone pushing ID as the best available answer had better be ready to answer (with evidence) questions about the designer.

I agree and I may have interpreted your statement "They have to actually identify the hand of the creator." too literally then. The point is that it is possible to conclude something is man-made without being able to identify exactly who it was.
Yes, because we know men exist. Lots of them. The same cannot be said of a creator.

Of course you would, but we've just had our little vertebrate coup de tat, so forgive if I'm a bit suspicious about what 'one clear cut example of IDer intervention ' means. There just doesn't seem to be a class of observations which everyone can accept as satisfying this condition, there is a tendency to move the goalposts.
Hey, I admitted I could be mistaken about verterbrates, but of course you were nitpicking on the meaning of "vertebrate". I suspect you knew I meant that evolution would be falsified if fossils were found in sequences that were vastly inconsistant with what is known about evolution. But I gamely gave you the point anyway. I was wrong because I didn't think of primative vertebrates which are not the same thing as members of the Phylum Vertebrata. I admit my ignorance about many aspects of paleontology. Lucky that there are some who are not to keep idjits like me in line.

But if you dont' know what an example of IDer intervention means, you should try to think about the exact mechanism by which he intervenes. Frankly, I can't think of any that do not involve big hands coming down from the sky and molding creatures like modeling clay. But I'm open to suggestions.

[ Digression : It seems incredibly easy for me to look around this room and identify designed objects, yet it's very hard for me to say how I know an object is designed. IR has nothing to do with it, I've no idea how most of them are put together anyway...]?
I suspect that you know a number of them are designed because you have seen similar things that you know were designed. However, you might see something that looked designed which it turns out was not. As a geologist, I collect many beautiful crystals which look as if they had been carefully crafted and polished. They aren't.

I think evolutionists regard maladaptive features as strong evidence against Creationism. To use a "Climbing Mount Improbable" analogy, according to Creationism organisms should have been created living at the peak of its local mountain. According to Evolution by Natural Selection things may not be at the peak, but the general trend should be to climb upward, (in this sense they are maladaptive; their 'location' is maladaptive, their 'velocity' is 'to adapt'.) ID would account for observations of organisms not only in the location sense but in the velocity sense, organisms that are heading 'downhill'.
Sorry. That makes not sense to me. What is intelligent about designing something to go "downhill". And while it is true, as Dawkins suggests, that the general trend is to climb upwards, that does not mean that there are no exceptions. I think evolution explains those exceptions far better than ID.

[If you're not familiar with Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable", I apologise for using the analogy, my guess is you'll get the gist anyway.]
I have not yet read it, but I probably will soon. I am a big fan of Dawkins.

I'm not going to offer any real examples (if indeed I have any) without some concessions to the argument so far. [You've whipped away your goalposts once already, I'm not falling for the same trick twice. :)] Is this a class of observations which a) EVo by NS can't account for b) ID can?
There are certainly some things that EVO by NS can't account for. There used to be a lot more, but many of them have been solved (Thanks, Brother Mendel). While it would be easy (or lazy) to account for these gaps by postulating a designer, you open up that whole can of worms about the nature of the designer. If such an incredibly powerful thing exists, there had better be plenty of solid evidence for it. Don't give up on science until you've exhausted all the possibilities (and you will never exhaust all the possibilities. ;) )

[sphenisc]

That is true, however, I have yet to see a single instance where ID provides a better answer than plain old evolution, sans ID. To postulate ID is to open up all sorts of unanswerable questions about the nature of the designer. So anyone pushing ID as the best available answer had better be ready to answer (with evidence) questions about the designer.


Yes, because we know men exist. Lots of them. The same cannot be said of a creator.


Hey, I admitted I could be mistaken about verterbrates, but of course you were nitpicking on the meaning of "vertebrate". I suspect you knew I meant that evolution would be falsified if fossils were found in sequences that were vastly inconsistant with what is known about evolution. But I gamely gave you the point anyway. I was wrong because I didn't think of primative vertebrates which are not the same thing as members of the Phylum Vertebrata. I admit my ignorance about many aspects of paleontology. Lucky that there are some who are not to keep idjits like me in line.

But if you dont' know what an example of IDer intervention means, you should try to think about the exact mechanism by which he intervenes. Frankly, I can't think of any that do not involve big hands coming down from the sky and molding creatures like modeling clay. But I'm open to suggestions.


I suspect that you know a number of them are designed because you have seen similar things that you know were designed. However, you might see something that looked designed which it turns out was not. As a geologist, I collect many beautiful crystals which look as if they had been carefully crafted and polished. They aren't.


Sorry. That makes not sense to me. What is intelligent about designing something to go "downhill". And while it is true, as Dawkins suggests, that the general trend is to climb upwards, that does not mean that there are no exceptions. I think evolution explains those exceptions far better than ID.


I have not yet read it, but I probably will soon. I am a big fan of Dawkins.


There are certainly some things that EVO by NS can't account for. There used to be a lot more, but many of them have been solved (Thanks, Brother Mendel). While it would be easy (or lazy) to account for these gaps by postulating a designer, you open up that whole can of worms about the nature of the designer. If such an incredibly powerful thing exists, there had better be plenty of solid evidence for it. Don't give up on science until you've exhausted all the possibilities (and you will never exhaust all the possibilities. ;) )

Okay, I did know what you meant, but that's my point, how 'vastly inconsistent' is vastly inconsistent enough to get an evolutionist to turn round and say "Sorry, I can't explain that one."

You say "There are certainly some things that EVO by NS can't account for."
I try and present a potential class of organisms which I think EVO by NS can't account for, but you say " the general trend is to climb upwards, that does not mean that there are no exceptions. " So I get back to asking, what potential class of organisms could there be that EVO by NS can't account for? If it can account for any potential organism then it's unfalsifiable, and needs to be reconsidered as a scientific theory.

[I'm a big Dawkins fan too - 'The Extended Phenotype''s a particular favourite.]

[Tricky]

Okay, I did know what you meant, but that's my point, how 'vastly inconsistent' is vastly inconsistent enough to get an evolutionist to turn round and say "Sorry, I can't explain that one."
LOL. If you get one who knows his stuff, he could probably give you a few examples more precise than what I remember from my misspent college education. In my line of work, we use micropaleontology a great deal because it is extremely accurate about dating sediments. So let me say if you find any Bigenerina humbeli in the Cretaceous, that part of evolution will be falsified.

I try and present a potential class of organisms which I think EVO by NS can't account for, but you say " the general trend is to climb upwards, that does not mean that there are no exceptions. " So I get back to asking, what potential class of organisms could there be that EVO by NS can't account for?
No, because it cannot account for any class fo organisms that appear in the stratigraphic column before their predecessors. If you find one that does, then that particular part of evolution has been falsified (but not the whole thing). However, when this happens, you don't throw up your hands and say, "it must be God". You get back and try to find if your knowledge about first appearances of certain classes was wrong or incomplete. This has happened many times in evolution, such as with the discovery of the Ediacara fauna. (http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/Ediacara.html)

But this did not disprove evolution (much as the creationists would like), but only one tiny aspect of evolution. But how can you ever falsify even one tiny aspect of ID? Consider the following hypothetical exchange.

IDman: The designer caused the dinosaurs to die out.
EVOman: No, the most evidence is for the fact that it was caused by a meterorite or comet impact.
IDMan: The designer sent the comet.
EVOman: We see comets and meteorites all around our solar system. They hit things with some degree of regularity
IDMan: But the designer set them in motion to hit at this precise time.

Obviously, that's an extreme example, but it does illustrate how ID proponants tend to shift the goalposts (a lot more than me!:p ) when the "gaps" get closed up until they are proposing the most outlandish scenarios. They can claim that the designer sent specific cosmic rays to cause specific mutations (I've seen this one before). How could that ever be falsified?


[I'm a big Dawkins fan too - 'The Extended Phenotype''s a particular favourite.]
The Selfish Gene is my favorite, but perhaps because it was my first.

[PatKelley]

That would be foolish. However, since we can never say it didn't happen, then we have to say it might be so. And indeed, the "five minutes ago" theory is a perfectly good, but not very interesting, theory. ("theory" is being used in the colloquial sense here.) Even if it happens to be true, the world was made to look like it was somewhere around 5 billion years old, so even if it only happens to be 5 minutes old, we can still study it as if it were older.

Is that the same as what ID states? No. Behe et. al. say the world looks like it was designed. They further say that the probability of it arising in that way by chance is virtually 0. Can you prove them wrong? No.

If it were completely random, it might be so; however, the changes in evolution are not random in the sense of all probabilities being equal; there are some that are more likely than others, and evolution does not argue that an organism arises ex nihilo in an instant. This is what is commonly known as a "straw man" - stating that another viewpoint maintains a position which it does not.


But is ID disprovable? It sure is. Conceptually, it's easy. Evolve something.

Shifting the burden. Evolution was shown to have mechanism, opportunity, and it was really geological discoveries that predated the discoveries of evolutionary theory; the age of the earth was appropriate to the rate of postulated and observed change. Essentially, things are evolving all around you. This is why ID often goes for the artificial "micro/macro" question of "kinds."

Going back to the "going from A to B" analogy, it seems to me that neither ID nor evolution can say how we got from A to B, where A and B are two different sorts of organisms. At this point they make two different statements.

Darwin: I don't know how we got from A to B, but I'm sure it could have happened without God.
ID: I don't know how we got from A to B, but I don't think it could have happened without God.

This also is an incorrect statement. Darwin at least can say "we probably used this car with the warm engine" versus ID "it just happened."


I agree with the first one, but it's hard to feel intellectually superior about it.

It is not a question of intellectual superiority; ID has no argument. One does not win by default in science.

[hammegk]

When did intellect win in politics? If only your opponents agreed that science answers all, you'd be home free.

[sphenisc]

LOL. If you get one who knows his stuff, he could probably give you a few examples more precise than what I remember from my misspent college education. In my line of work, we use micropaleontology a great deal because it is extremely accurate about dating sediments. So let me say if you find any Bigenerina humbeli in the Cretaceous, that part of evolution will be falsified.


No, because it cannot account for any class fo organisms that appear in the stratigraphic column before their predecessors. If you find one that does, then that particular part of evolution has been falsified (but not the whole thing). However, when this happens, you don't throw up your hands and say, "it must be God". You get back and try to find if your knowledge about first appearances of certain classes was wrong or incomplete. This has happened many times in evolution, such as with the discovery of the Ediacara fauna. (http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/Ediacara.html)

But this did not disprove evolution (much as the creationists would like), but only one tiny aspect of evolution. But how can you ever falsify even one tiny aspect of ID? Consider the following hypothetical exchange.

IDman: The designer caused the dinosaurs to die out.
EVOman: No, the most evidence is for the fact that it was caused by a meterorite or comet impact.
IDMan: The designer sent the comet.
EVOman: We see comets and meteorites all around our solar system. They hit things with some degree of regularity
IDMan: But the designer set them in motion to hit at this precise time.

Obviously, that's an extreme example, but it does illustrate how ID proponants tend to shift the goalposts (a lot more than me!:p ) when the "gaps" get closed up until they are proposing the most outlandish scenarios. They can claim that the designer sent specific cosmic rays to cause specific mutations (I've seen this one before). How could that ever be falsified?



"No, because it cannot account for any class fo organisms that appear in the stratigraphic column before their predecessors."
Great, all we need now is an independent method of deciding on who's the predecessor. Personally, I feel this more a way of falsifying the geology than evoultion, but what-the-hey I'll run with it for a while.

But then you go on to argue that "This has happened many times in evolution...But this did not disprove evolution"

I don't understand how you reconcile these statements. I asked what "potential class of organisms could there be that EVO by NS can't account for."
You start to give me a class, then say examples of this class have already been discovered, but this 'did not disprove evolution'???

Are you saying it is an example, or it isn't?

I had to laugh at your hypothetical example, here's mine:

IDman: The designer caused the dinosaurs to die out.
EVOman: What really, gosh I never realised!
IDMan: The designer sent the comet.
EVOman: Yes I can certainly see that would be the case, thanks for explaining it to me.
IDMan: The designer set them in motion to hit at this precise time.
EVOMan: How could I ever have doubted the truth of ID, it's all so clear now.

Obviously, that's an extreme example, but it does illustrate how if evolution proponents paid more attention they might learn something! :P

[You were joking, right?!Using a hypothetical example to make claims about the real world does suggest a certain weakness of argument...]

[sphenisc]

Tricky,

"They can claim that the designer sent specific cosmic rays to cause specific mutations (I've seen this one before). How could that ever be falsified?"

It can't, but it doesn't need to be, since it's not central to ID. How do you falsify the claim that the cosmic rays were essentially random and caused a random set of mutations?

Anyway this is waaaay down the line. It is nonsensical to argue about the mechanism by which events occurred, until there is evidence of those events (by which I mean intervention of an IDer). The only way we can have evidence of those events is to agree on what kind of observations would constitute evidence of those events. Until we can agree on which observations are (I'll say it again), a potential class of organisms which EVO by NS can't account for, then I don't see how we can progress?

BTW that's "Bigenerina humblei" not "Bigenerina humbeli" , but you were just trying to make my life difficult, right? :)

[Meadmaker]

If it were completely random, it might be so; however, the changes in evolution are not random in the sense of all probabilities being equal; there are some that are more likely than others, and evolution does not argue that an organism arises ex nihilo in an instant. This is what is commonly known as a "straw man" - stating that another viewpoint maintains a position which it does not.


The idea that "by chance" must mean "completely random" is not what ID claims. Evolution is a random process. On this point, I will claim some professional expertise. I know what a random process is, and evolution is one of them. ID claims that the probability of a random process giving rise to life as we know it is virtually 0. They do not claim that all probabilities are equal. This is what is commonly known as a "straw man" - stating that another viewpoint maintains a position which it does not.

This is why ID often goes for the artificial "micro/macro" question of "kinds." Now that I've read a few of the works of Behe and Dembski, I can say that I have seen no reference to "kinds", nor have I seen a reference to a "micro/macro" question, artificial or otherwise. This is what is commonly known as a "straw man" - stating that another viewpoint maintains a position which it does not.

This also is an incorrect statement. Darwin at least can say "we probably used this car with the warm engine" versus ID "it just happened." ID doesn't say, "it just happened." ID says, "It didn't happen like that." This is what is commonly known as a "straw man" - stating that another viewpoint maintains a position which it does not.

[Meadmaker]

Sorry. That makes not sense to me. What is intelligent about designing something to go "downhill".

Hmm.. The theory of "Stupid Design". Coming soon to a High School near you.

Proof that God created the universe and all life: No natural process could create something as ridiculously complicated as a DNA molecule. Based on the concept of Undecipherable Idiocy, which applies to biological systems with no apparent purpose at all, we can conclude that not only were biological systems the result of design, but that the designers employed significant computer resourses, and a legal department.

[Meadmaker]

Tricky,

"They can claim that the designer sent specific cosmic rays to cause specific mutations (I've seen this one before). How could that ever be falsified?"


I don't understand what's so complicated about this.

I'll give a shot at addressing this in a different way. After all, not only have I seen this one, I've posted it, although I was quoting Behe. I once believed it, though.

ID is not a theory about how life originated. It doesn't say it happened by cosmic rays. It doesn't say it happened by creation. However, either one of those is compatible with ID. That isn't what ID is about.

ID is, in reality, a hypothesis about how life did not originate. ID says that the complexity of life is of such magnitude that it cannot have come about by chance. (Chance = any random process, not motivated by an intelligence).

To falsify ID, all you have to do is show how a random process can produce, for example, a bacterial flagellum. But you can't do that. At least not yet.

Now, it is important to understand what I am not saying here. I am saying that ID is falsifiable. The lack of falsification at the present moment doesn't mean that ID is true, or even reasonable. It is, however, falsifiable.

(Roborama's last post was related to this, and it made quite a bit of sense. I think it is fair to say that ID is a God of the Gaps theory, although I think there is a slight difference.)

[Tricky]

"No, because it cannot account for any class fo organisms that appear in the stratigraphic column before their predecessors."
Great, all we need now is an independent method of deciding on who's the predecessor. Personally, I feel this more a way of falsifying the geology than evoultion, but what-the-hey I'll run with it for a while.

But then you go on to argue that "This has happened many times in evolution...But this did not disprove evolution"

I don't understand how you reconcile these statements. I asked what "potential class of organisms could there be that EVO by NS can't account for."
You start to give me a class, then say examples of this class have already been discovered, but this 'did not disprove evolution'???
They disproved parts of evolution. The theory of evolution is so all-encompassing that various facets of it are almost compartmentalized. For example, finding a fossil out of sequence would not disprove that pathogens can evolve resistance to drugs. The questions are almost unrelated. But it is true, I didn't mention that all of evolution would not be falsified. My mistake (again!:blush: ).

But in my failure to explain myself, you really see a point. Evolution makes predictions. It predict that you would not find fossils out of sequence, which is right most of the time. What predictions does ID make?

I had to laugh at your hypothetical example, here's mine:

IDman: The designer caused the dinosaurs to die out.
EVOman: What really, gosh I never realised!
IDMan: The designer sent the comet.
EVOman: Yes I can certainly see that would be the case, thanks for explaining it to me.
IDMan: The designer set them in motion to hit at this precise time.
EVOMan: How could I ever have doubted the truth of ID, it's all so clear now.

Obviously, that's an extreme example, but it does illustrate how if evolution proponents paid more attention they might learn something! :P

[You were joking, right?!Using a hypothetical example to make claims about the real world does suggest a certain weakness of argument...]
Pretty funny. Not sure what you mean except perhaps you thought my example was ridiculous, but I've heard ID proponants say things very similar to my "hypothetical example", and you probably have too. I suppose "hypothetical" was the wrong word. I really meant that it wasn't "word-for word" what I had heard.
They can claim that the designer sent specific cosmic rays to cause specific mutations (I've seen this one before). How could that ever be falsified?

It can't, but it doesn't need to be, since it's not central to ID. How do you falsify the claim that the cosmic rays were essentially random and caused a random set of mutations?
Well, I have to find an example where ID makes a definite claim. They are as rare as hen's teeth. This was one I had actually heard, though it still isn't really a claim, because it doesn't address the mechanism for directing the cosmic rays. Do you have any examples of specific mechanisms that ID proponants have put forth?

Anyway this is waaaay down the line. It is nonsensical to argue about the mechanism by which events occurred, until there is evidence of those events (by which I mean intervention of an IDer). The only way we can have evidence of those events is to agree on what kind of observations would constitute evidence of those events.
Perhaps the mechanism cart is a bit ahead of the event horse. But the only "event" I can see ID proposing is that "the designer directed it". No specific event is ever described in a way such that a mechanism could be proposed. So about the only question you can ask is "how did the designer direct it"?

Until we can agree on which observations are (I'll say it again), a potential class of organisms which EVO by NS can't account for, then I don't see how we can progress?
LOL. Then ID won't progress, because there is no natural process which cannot potentially be explained by natural means. Lots of them are difficult, for sure. So it seems as if you are asking to define, "where does science give up?" I'm guessing they won't ever give up.

BTW that's "Bigenerina humblei" not "Bigenerina humbeli" , but you were just trying to make my life difficult, right? :)
Oops. I pulled it off a paleo chart on my wall. We geologists are notoriously bad spelars. Once again, I apologize.:o

[Tricky]

I don't understand what's so complicated about this.

I'll give a shot at addressing this in a different way. After all, not only have I seen this one, I've posted it, although I was quoting Behe. I once believed it, though.

ID is not a theory about how life originated. It doesn't say it happened by cosmic rays. It doesn't say it happened by creation. However, either one of those is compatible with ID. That isn't what ID is about.

ID is, in reality, a hypothesis about how life did not originate. ID says that the complexity of life is of such magnitude that it cannot have come about by chance. (Chance = any random process, not motivated by an intelligence).

To falsify ID, all you have to do is show how a random process can produce, for example, a bacterial flagellum. But you can't do that. At least not yet.
I understand this. But it is not, in any sense of the word, science. It is a position of faith. In this case, it is "faith that humans will always be too ignorant to reconstruct some aspects of life".

But just take this theory back a few years and have it say, "Humans will never be able to (insert medical or other evolution-based breakthrough of your choice)". So, ID of 1900 has been falsified. But what has replaced it? Not a better ID, but a much narrower ID.

As I said to Sphensic, it looks like ID is not something that helps us understand problems, but rather something that tells humanity it is time to give up trying to understand problems. Of what possible use could that be?

Now, it is important to understand what I am not saying here. I am saying that ID is falsifiable. The lack of falsification at the present moment doesn't mean that ID is true, or even reasonable. It is, however, falsifiable.
I disagree. Even if you could show precice evolutionary steps that led to the development of a flagellum, that would still not prove that those steps weren't guided.

Oh, and by the way, evolution is not and has never claimed to be random. Like all things on earth, it contains certain random elements inside a whole lot of cause-and-effect.

(Roborama's last post was related to this, and it made quite a bit of sense. I think it is fair to say that ID is a God of the Gaps theory, although I think there is a slight difference.)
It is indeed a God of the gaps. Well conceded.:D
What would you say the slight difference is?

[sphenisc]

They disproved parts of evolution. The theory of evolution is so all-encompassing that various facets of it are almost compartmentalized. For example, finding a fossil out of sequence would not disprove that pathogens can evolve resistance to drugs. The questions are almost unrelated. But it is true, I didn't mention that all of evolution would not be falsified. My mistake (again!:blush: ).

Yes, point made. I should perhaps be clearer in stating what aspect of evolution I would like to see tested. As a starting point, it's the claim that 'All organisms can be accounted for purely in terms of Evo by NS', (I'll include sexual selection in that - though to my mind it requires a certain level of intelligence - but what the heck, I'm feeling generous.)


But in my failure to explain myself, you really see a point. Evolution makes predictions. It predict that you would not find fossils out of sequence, which is right most of the time. What predictions does ID make?

The chain of reasoning involved in science generally runs.

Observations are made.
A conjecture is produced to explain the observations.
The conjecture is used to generate hypotheses (predictions).
The hypotheses are tested using new observations.
The conjecture is adjusted to account for the results of the hypotheses testing.
The cycle repeats.
After a sufficient number of cycles, the conjecture is regarded as 'well-attested' and merits the status of theory.

With ID
An organism is observed, which it is felt, is not explicable by Evo by NS.
(I'll take the bacterial flagellum as an example, with this caveat : I'm not saying the bacterial flagellum is inexplicable by EvobyNS, I'm merely explaining the kind of observation which might lead someone to propose the need for a new conjecture. It is possible for observations to be 're-interpreted' in such a way that a current theory can account for it, and the need for a new conjecture disappears.)
Given the observations, a conjecture is proposed, roughly 'There exist some features in some organisms which are the result of intervention by an IDer'.

The next part of the process is to generate hypotheses. This is done by honing down the general claim of conjecture, to a specific testable prediction.
Asan example of this 'honing' process, from a theory of gravitation
If it's universal then it applies on earth.
If it applies on earth then it applies in my lab.
If it applies in my lab then it applies on my lab bench.
---
If it applies to all masses then it applies to masses about 20g.
If it applies to masses about 20g then it applies to ping-pong balls about 20g
If it applies to ping-pong balls about 20g then it applies to my ping-pong ball.

Now I can test predictions made by the theory of gravitation using my ping-pong ball in my lab. At each step a 'subconjecture' is generated until a final testable hypothesis is produced.


For ID, a general 'subconjecture' is that there will be more features which are not explicable by EvobyNS.

We then need a list of potential features which are not explicable by EvobyNS. If this list is produced, then specific hypotheses can be generated - 'an organism with feature x will be discovered'. If 'an organism with feature x' is discovered, then bada-bing your conjecture is supported. The longer you wait without discovering such an organism, the less likely your conjecture becomes, and the more like the original theory is to be true.

But, and here's the point, we need to work through the subconjecture stage before we get to the hypothesis (prediction) stage. If we can't get this ' list of potential features which are not explicable by EvobyNS' then the process grinds to a halt.


Pretty funny. Not sure what you mean except perhaps you thought my example was ridiculous, but I've heard ID proponants say things very similar to my "hypothetical example", and you probably have too. I suppose "hypothetical" was the wrong word. I really meant that it wasn't "word-for word" what I had heard.

I suppose I was just trying to make it clear that I'm only defending my own arguments, not what any particular ID proponent happens to say. [ I don't really think that what you intended, I just thought it was funny and responded in kind.]


Well, I have to find an example where ID makes a definite claim. They are as rare as hen's teeth. This was one I had actually heard, though it still isn't really a claim, because it doesn't address the mechanism for directing the cosmic rays. Do you have any examples of specific mechanisms that ID proponants have put forth?


Perhaps the mechanism cart is a bit ahead of the event horse. But the only "event" I can see ID proposing is that "the designer directed it". No specific event is ever described in a way such that a mechanism [I]could be proposed. So about the only question you can ask is "how did the designer direct it"?

Until it's clear what kind of potential events/observations couldn't be accounted for by the current theory, it not possible to produce an example which requires an alternative mechanism. Once that potential class is produced, observations can be made and (assuming observations are actually obtained), a mechanism to account for it can be produced.


LOL. Then ID won't progress, because there is no natural process which cannot [I]potentially be explained by natural means. Lots of them are difficult, for sure. So it seems as if you are asking to define, "where does science give up?" I'm guessing they won't ever give up.

Oops. I pulled it off a paleo chart on my wall. We geologists are notoriously bad spelars. Once again, I apologize.:o

Sorry, that last characterisation of what I said is completely off-the-hook.

"There is no natural process which cannot potentially be explained by natural means", is tautological. If it requires other than natural means then it it is by definition not a natural process. If you want to use the word 'natural' then you'd better define it, are you contrasting it with 'artificial', 'man-made', 'supernatural' or what?

I never said anything about science giving up; by 'we' I meant you and me, in this thread, discussing this topic. 'We' can't agree on what this class of organisms is, so I couldn't see how to progress. That was the point I was making, nothing about what science in general is capable of (I'll admit to an inflated sense of my own importance, but gee whizz I don't see my personal limitations in this area as the ultimate boundary of what science can achieve)
[Though I'll understand if you want to disagreed with that last bit. :) ]

[Tricky]

Yes, point made. I should perhaps be clearer in stating what aspect of evolution I would like to see tested. As a starting point, it's the claim that 'All organisms can be accounted for purely in terms of Evo by NS', (I'll include sexual selection in that - though to my mind it requires a certain level of intelligence - but what the heck, I'm feeling generous.)

LOL. Well, I'll accept that. Evolution does predict that any new organisms that discovered will have DNA. ID could not make a prediction like that, because the designer could potentially use anything it liked.
But what makes you think sexual selection is not an evolved trait? Or intelligence?:D

The chain of reasoning involved in science generally runs.

Observations are made.
A conjecture is produced to explain the observations.
The conjecture is used to generate hypotheses (predictions).
The hypotheses are tested using new observations.
The conjecture is adjusted to account for the results of the hypotheses testing.
The cycle repeats.
After a sufficient number of cycles, the conjecture is regarded as 'well-attested' and merits the status of theory.
I'm not sure I would diffrentiate between conjecture and hypothesis. I don't see any substantial difference between steps one and two above. Also I might change observations to include testing. But that's nitpicking. I'll accept the above a general process

With ID
An organism is observed, which it is felt, is not explicable by Evo by NS.
(I'll take the bacterial flagellum as an example, with this caveat : I'm not saying the bacterial flagellum is inexplicable by EvobyNS, I'm merely explaining the kind of observation which might lead someone to propose the need for a new conjecture. It is possible for observations to be 're-interpreted' in such a way that a current theory can account for it, and the need for a new conjecture disappears.)
Well you see, that is really not step one. You are supposed to be making conjectures about ID, not negative conjectures about Evo by NS. (Let's just call it Evo to keep it short). That would be like saying, "I'm going to make conjectures that gravity must be designed because it can't explain magnetism".


Given the observations, a conjecture is proposed, roughly 'There exist some features in some organisms which are the result of intervention by an IDer'.
You could just as well say 'There exist some organisms which are the result of collision of parallel but slightly different universes'. You have said nothing to describe ID. You have just picked ID as the fallback position when you can't figure out Evo. You could have picked anything.



The next part of the process is to generate hypotheses. This is done by honing down the general claim of conjecture, to a specific testable prediction.
Asan example of this 'honing' process, from a theory of gravitation
If it's universal then it applies on earth.
If it applies on earth then it applies in my lab.
If it applies in my lab then it applies on my lab bench.
---
If it applies to all masses then it applies to masses about 20g.
If it applies to masses about 20g then it applies to ping-pong balls about 20g
If it applies to ping-pong balls about 20g then it applies to my ping-pong ball.

Now I can test predictions made by the theory of gravitation using my ping-pong ball in my lab. At each step a 'subconjecture' is generated until a final testable hypothesis is produced.
Except that if you tried to test gravitational theory by measuring the attraction of ping-pong balls for each other, you would conclude that it does not exist in small objects, since the effect would be unnoticable except with very sophistocated equipment.

Remember the famous experiment where Galilio supposedly dropped balls of different masses from the Tower of Pisa and concluded that acceleration due to gravity is the same for all objects? Well he was wrong. But the difference in acceleration at that scale is so minute that it was undetectable. Had he been able to drop a metal moon and a wooden moon onto earth from space, the difference would have been noticable.

Yes, evolution is happening "on your lab bench" but at the scale of time and population that you are working with, it is undetectable.

Now I can test predictions made by the theory of gravitation using my ping-pong ball in my lab. At each step a 'subconjecture' is generated until a final testable hypothesis is produced.
And you would probably conclude that ping-pong balls have no inherant gravity. After all, they don't attract each other. Your tests would verify this. You can't predict the tides by watching the water in your bathtub.

For ID, a general 'subconjecture' is that there will be more features which are not explicable by EvobyNS.
Except thay you have no observations, not a single one, about ID. Again, you are not testing ID at all, but using it as your fallback position if your observations about Evo are inconclusive. This in a nutshell is the problem with those who support "teaching" ID in school. Their position is "ID must be correct because science can't explain everything." Substitute 'astrology' for 'ID' and they would go nuts. To give evidence for ID, the conjectures and experiments must be about ID, not about evolution.
***
[I](chopped into two posts because I exceeded the character limit).

[Tricky]

(continued from previous post.)
We then need a list of potential features which are not explicable by EvobyNS. (emphasis mine)
Well, that the problem, innit? How could you possibly put a feature on that list until you had total knowledge of everything? How could you be certain that you hadn't simply overlooked something? Though you've taken a slightly circuitous path, you have run into the brick wall of trying to prove a negative.

If this list is produced, then specific hypotheses can be generated - 'an organism with feature x will be discovered'. If 'an organism with feature x' is discovered, then bada-bing your conjecture is supported.
Nope. You've nothing in your conjecture or hypothesis or testing regarded how you predicted feature x.

Take for example, if you found an organism without DNA, would that support ID? Not unless it explained how the designer did it. It might falsify lots of what is believed about Evo, but it would still not support ID.

The longer you wait without discovering such an organism, the less likely your conjecture becomes, and the more like the original theory is to be true.
Actually, if you are making the hypothesis that ID predicts feature x, even if it remains forever unsupported, that does not, of itself, support Evo. Evo must provide its own predictions, not rely on the failure of other possibilities.

But, and here's the point, we need to work through the subconjecture stage before we get to the hypothesis (prediction) stage. If we can't get this ' list of potential features which are not explicable by EvobyNS' then the process grinds to a halt.
Well, you can't get that list, for reasons I have explained, any more than I could give you a list of all things that are impossible.


I suppose I was just trying to make it clear that I'm only defending my own arguments, not what any particular ID proponent happens to say. [ I don't really think that what you intended, I just thought it was funny and responded in kind.]
Well, I knew you meant it to be funny because of the smiley, but I also recognized the light-hearted sarcasm. That's okay. I use sarcasm too. Sorry if I "strawmanned" you.
:rolleyes:

Until it's clear what kind of potential events/observations couldn't be accounted for by the current theory, it not possible to produce an example which requires an alternative mechanism. Once that potential class is produced, observations can be made and (assuming observations are actually obtained), a mechanism to account for it can be produced.
Yes, and my answer is a variety of similar responses: You're not testing ID. You're testing Evo for failure. The conjecture/hypothesis/theory of ID cannot rest upon asking for a list of where Evo stumbles. It must stand or fall on its own.

Sorry, that last characterisation of what I said is completely off-the-hook.
I think it is dead center. Look at what you have asked for: A list of the areas that Evo could potentially fail. In the search for truth, the only way to truly fail is to give up looking. Science, of which evolution is one part, is nothing more than a method of searching for truth. As long as you are still searching, you have not failed.

ID is not science because it does not seek truth. It seeks failure.


"There is no natural process which cannot [I]potentially be explained by natural means", is tautological. If it requires other than natural means then it it is by definition not a natural process. If you want to use the word 'natural' then you'd better define it, are you contrasting it with 'artificial', 'man-made', 'supernatural' or what?
LOL. Well you got me there. That is indeed a tautology. I really need to proof-read my stuff better.

How about this then: "There is nothing real which cannot potentially be explained by natural means." If God is real, then even He could be explained by natural means.

I never said anything about science giving up; by 'we' I meant you and me, in this thread, discussing this topic. 'We' can't agree on what this class of organisms is, so I couldn't see how to progress.
I would say that it is incumbent upon the ID proponants to provide this class of organisms. You are asking Evo proponants to agree to a list of where evolution not only fails, but cannot succeed. I would say I've paraphrased you accurately.

That was the point I was making, nothing about what science in general is capable of (I'll admit to an inflated sense of my own importance, but gee whizz I don't see my personal limitations in this area as the ultimate boundary of what science can achieve)
[Though I'll understand if you want to disagreed with that last bit. :) ]
I don't think you intended to say anything about what science is capable of, but that is certainly the result. Please be assured though that I do not intend this a a personal attack. You've been nothing but polite, and I've greatly enjoyed discussing this with you. If I've been overly harsh or sarcastic, I truly apologize. I try to save that for Iacchus. :p

[sphenisc]

(continued from previous post.)
(emphasis mine)
Well, that the problem, innit? How could you possibly put a feature on that list until you had total knowledge of everything? How could you be certain that you hadn't simply overlooked something? Though you've taken a slightly circuitous path, you have run into the brick wall of trying to prove a negative.


Nope. You've nothing in your conjecture or hypothesis or testing regarded how you predicted feature x.

Take for example, if you found an organism without DNA, would that support ID? Not unless it explained how the designer did it. It might falsify lots of what is believed about Evo, but it would still not support ID.


Actually, if you are making the hypothesis that ID predicts feature x, even if it remains forever unsupported, that does not, of itself, support Evo. Evo must provide its own predictions, not rely on the failure of other possibilities.


Well, you can't get that list, for reasons I have explained, any more than I could give you a list of all things that are impossible.


Well, I knew you meant it to be funny because of the smiley, but I also recognized the light-hearted sarcasm. That's okay. I use sarcasm too. Sorry if I "strawmanned" you.
:rolleyes:


Yes, and my answer is a variety of similar responses: You're not testing ID. You're testing Evo for failure. The conjecture/hypothesis/theory of ID cannot rest upon asking for a list of where Evo stumbles. It must stand or fall on its own.


I think it is dead center. Look at what you have asked for: A list of the areas that Evo could potentially fail. In the search for truth, the only way to truly fail is to give up looking. Science, of which evolution is one part, is nothing more than a method of searching for truth. As long as you are still searching, you have not failed.

ID is not science because it does not seek truth. It seeks failure.


LOL. Well you got me there. That is indeed a tautology. I really need to proof-read my stuff better.

How about this then: "There is nothing real which cannot potentially be explained by natural means." If God is real, then even He could be explained by natural means.


I would say that it is incumbent upon the ID proponants to provide this class of organisms. You are asking Evo proponants to agree to a list of where evolution not only fails, but cannot succeed. I would say I've paraphrased you accurately.


I don't think you intended to say anything about what science is capable of, but that is certainly the result. Please be assured though that I do not intend this a a personal attack. You've been nothing but polite, and I've greatly enjoyed discussing this with you. If I've been overly harsh or sarcastic, I truly apologize. I try to save that for Iacchus. :p

Thanks for that, I've really appreciated reading your ideas , and it's definitely helped hone my critical thinking skills. Your levels of sarcasm and harshness have been highly appropriate. It's still my view that science seeks failure. If a theory cannot be falsified then it isn't really a scientific theory, but I can see that you disagree with that, so it's probably best if we leave it at that - thanks for the fascinating discussion, I shall mull over it some more, (I'll also get back to doing some work!).

Cheers

[Tricky]

Thanks for that, I've really appreciated reading your ideas , and it's definitely helped hone my critical thinking skills. Your levels of sarcasm and harshness have been highly appropriate.
I'm glad. I do try to match my responses to the input I'm given, but I don't always do a good job of it. For the record, I'd say that you do the same.

It's still my view that science seeks failure. If a theory cannot be falsified then it isn't really a scientific theory, but I can see that you disagree with that...
No, I don't disagree with your explanation. It is correct to say that in the search for truth, there must be an option for "false". But science doesn't focus on what is false, it leaves it behind (well, it should anway). From what I've seen of ID proponants, they focus on what is false (or perceived to be false) in evolution. No time is spent on verifying or even explaining what is true.

...so it's probably best if we leave it at that - thanks for the fascinating discussion, I shall mull over it some more, (I'll also get back to doing some work!).

Cheers
What? You're not on the dole? :D
I hope you won't leave it at that for long. Come back soon with some more of your harebrained "theories". Me and the other atheist bullies will be waiting.;)

Regards

[PatKelley]

Thanks for that, I've really appreciated reading your ideas , and it's definitely helped hone my critical thinking skills. Your levels of sarcasm and harshness have been highly appropriate. It's still my view that science seeks failure. If a theory cannot be falsified then it isn't really a scientific theory, but I can see that you disagree with that, so it's probably best if we leave it at that - thanks for the fascinating discussion, I shall mull over it some more, (I'll also get back to doing some work!).

Cheers
I'd have to be of the opinion that science does seek failure; if a theory fails, it is probably not correct. If a theory can't have failure at all, it can't be tested to see if it is correct or not. Building a failure-proof theory is not as important as being able to test predictions against reality. Darwinian evolutionary theory did not arise in a vaccuum; before there were genes or DNA, it was on shaky ground other than saying "there might be a mechanism." Once it was discovered that there was a mechanism (the genes in the nucleus) and that it was based on pairing, evolution became a lot more likely as it's prediction had borne out. There was something central to an organism that was present in a single cell; enough to plan the entire somatic organism. That's what's lost in a lot of this conversation: the amazing amount of information in such a tiny package. There are trillions of cells in a human body; yet all of this information was organized by something that stretched out would be measured in nanometers in width and a few meters in length all packed into a single cell.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The idea that "by chance" must mean "completely random" is not what ID claims. Evolution is a random process. On this point, I will claim some professional expertise. I know what a random process is, and evolution is one of them. ID claims that the probability of a random process giving rise to life as we know it is virtually 0. They do not claim that all probabilities are equal. This is what is commonly known as a "straw man" - stating that another viewpoint maintains a position which it does not.
The ID folks use at last two definitions of "by chance." One means "by random chance." The other means "by any naturalistic process." If they would make up their mind, it would help.

You may call evolution a random process, but to leave it at that is misleading, because you neglect to mention the parameters of the probability space over which it is defined.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

I disagree. Even if you could show precice evolutionary steps that led to the development of a flagellum, that would still not prove that those steps weren't guided.

But that would be theistic evolution, not ID. ID claims, without proof, that it can show that the steps must be guided. Behe claims that if you were to lay out a set of precise evolutionary steps that could lead to a flagellum, it would be obvious to anyone who saw that sequence of steps that it was so complicated that it would have to be the result of design.

To restate: If you say it is guided, that's theistic evolution. If you say it has to be guided, that's ID. The first is not scientific. The second....sort of. It's a hypothesis with precious little analysis and no experimental evidence.

Oh, and by the way, evolution is not and has never claimed to be random. Like all things on earth, it contains certain random elements inside a whole lot of cause-and-effect.

Back when I tracked nuclear missiles for a living (part of the infamous Star Wars project) we inserted random variables in all of our models. I don't have any problem at all saying that nuclear missile tracking is a random process, and it is a whole lot more predictable than evolution. I don't understand why there is such fear and loathing of that word.




It is indeed a God of the gaps. Well conceded.:D
What would you say the slight difference is?

It's related to the first point in this reply. A God of the gaps argument says, "I can't explain it, so I'll say God did it." ID says, "Your explanation is wrong, and I don't have any other explanation, so I'll say God did it." On the other hand, the "your explanation is wrong" part of ID is only supported by the gaps argument, so it is really, really, close to God of the gaps.

[Meadmaker]

You may call evolution a random process, but to leave it at that is misleading, because you neglect to mention the parameters of the probability space over which it is defined.

~~ Paul

Good luck defining those parameters, but that's a good point.

My only real point of that whole post was that saying evolution happens "by chance" is in no way a straw man.

I see this all the time on these message boards. For some reason skeptics love to talk about "straw men". The conversation usually goes like this.

A: Your theory says X.
B: My theory does not say Y. When you said my theory says Y, that's a straw man!



Evolution is a random process, and the heart of ID is that the randomness of evolution is high enough that it cannot produce the structures we see in life. The weakness of ID is that it can't quantify that randomness, or the level of randomness that can be tolerated. The weakness of evolution is that it can't, either.

I don't want to say in the above that evolution and ID should be considered equals in every way, either. Evolution says a whole lot of useful things that have led to advances in our understanding of life on Earth. ID has resulted in people getting elected to school boards.

ETA: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. For homework, contemplate the evolutionary advantages of the domestic turkey, which has successfully bred far more effectively than its wild cousins. Part 2: Is the domestic turkey an artifact of evolution, or design. Extra credit: Discuss how that applies to Butterball turkeys. Make sure to eat that brand, because I own stock in ConAgra foods. Moreover, I also own stock in Intuitive Surgical, which makes equipment for performing better heart bypasses, so when you eat Butterballs, I win two ways.

[PatKelley]

Good luck defining those parameters, but that's a good point.

My only real point of that whole post was that saying evolution happens "by chance" is in no way a straw man.

I see this all the time on these message boards. For some reason skeptics love to talk about "straw men". The conversation usually goes like this.

A: Your theory says X.
B: My theory does not say Y. When you said my theory says Y, that's a straw man!



Evolution is a random process, and the heart of ID is that the randomness of evolution is high enough that it cannot produce the structures we see in life. The weakness of ID is that it can't quantify that randomness, or the level of randomness that can be tolerated. The weakness of evolution is that it can't, either.

I don't want to say in the above that evolution and ID should be considered equals in every way, either. Evolution says a whole lot of useful things that have led to advances in our understanding of life on Earth. ID has resulted in people getting elected to school boards.

You still don't appear to understand. The idea is one of rules that reduce the randomness. We are not speaking of a carbon atom randomly colliding with some nitrogen and oxygen and hydrogen to make some sugar, and bam you've got a life-form. It is a mischarictarization of the argument to take the random from random process and provide it in its meaning as totally chaotic and directionless then tack this onto evolutionary theory as a label. There are probabilities here that are less likely, and in that wise it is not chaotic. Selection pressure prevents many mutations from surviving to birth, and selection pressure in general is not random; it is not intelligent either. It exists as a parameter that provides a measure of fitness for an organism.

Randomly eliminating members of a population would not be evolutionary theory. In that it is not random. Randomly throwing together genetic strands would also not be evolutionary theory; this also is not random.

The mischarictarization through absurd simplification of an opposing viewpoint is a specialty of emotional appeals, painting the other as a tottering charicature of its arguments. Taking one word and focusing on it as the sum total of the opposing argument is not good debate, and does constitute a pseudo-opponent that one is hacking away at. It does not address the true argument.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My only real point of that whole post was that saying evolution happens "by chance" is in no way a straw man.
I disagree. There is a lot of straw hanging out of that man. By saying it is a random process, you are neglecting to mention the very part of the process that selects from the randomness.

Remember, something is a random process even if only part of the process is random. By not mentioning the other parts, you are misleading the listener.

~~ Paul

[Tricky]

But that would be theistic evolution, not ID. ID claims, without proof, that it can show that the steps must be guided. Behe claims that if you were to lay out a set of precise evolutionary steps that could lead to a flagellum, it would be obvious to anyone who saw that sequence of steps that it was so complicated that it would have to be the result of design.
There's really no difference in those two statements, other than the level of detail they go into. One says evolution is too complicated to be unguided. The other says specific parts of evolution (like the evolution of a flagellum) are too complicated to be unguided. And both assume that it is impossible to find a non-supernatural explanation, so they are doing no more than predicting the failure of the evolutionary model at some level. I know that people like Behe like to learn enough about science to sound as if they understand evolution, but they do not. It just makes them better snake oil salesmen. It doesn't make ID snake oil any different from TE snake oil.


To restate: If you say it is guided, that's theistic evolution. If you say it has to be guided, that's ID. The first is not scientific. The second....sort of. It's a hypothesis with precious little analysis and no experimental evidence.
Again, I see no distinction between the two. Neither is scientific, one is just a more educated brand of unscientific. And you seem to understand that, based on the way you've described them. Like I said to Sphenisc, ID can't be a theory of why evolution is wrong. It has to be a theory of why ID is right.

Back when I tracked nuclear missiles for a living (part of the infamous Star Wars project) we inserted random variables in all of our models. I don't have any problem at all saying that nuclear missile tracking is a random process, and it is a whole lot more predictable than evolution. I don't understand why there is such fear and loathing of that word.
LOL. If you missile tracking was mostly random, it would have never tracked a single missle. Just as I said, inclusion of a few random variables does not make a system random. The reason that the word "random" is used with such fear and loathing is because ID proponants like to portray evolution as just throwing out a bunch of molecules and they fall into the shape of a human. You surely can understand why people who have studied the incredible complexity of evolution for many years would object to such a charactarization.

It's related to the first point in this reply. A God of the gaps argument says, "I can't explain it, so I'll say God did it." ID says, "Your explanation is wrong, and I don't have any other explanation, so I'll say God did it." On the other hand, the "your explanation is wrong" part of ID is only supported by the gaps argument, so it is really, really, close to God of the gaps.
LOL. So the difference is just that the gap they're trying to plug is smaller? Well, I can accept that.

[Meadmaker]

You still don't appear to understand. The idea is one of rules that reduce the randomness. We are not speaking of a carbon atom randomly colliding with some nitrogen and oxygen and hydrogen to make some sugar, and bam you've got a life-form.


And since I never said, implied, or in any other way suggested that this is what is meant by "by chance", that is not very relevant, is it?


In fact, you have taken the words that I said, twisted them to mean something else, and now you are attacking the words that I did not say in order to show the weakness in the argument that I did not say.

And that is the very definition of "straw man".

Which is so ironic, since your purpose in twisting the words was to say that I was using a straw man argument.

In my X and Y description, X="evolution happens by chance" and Y="speaking of a carbon atom randomly colliding with some nitrogen and oxygen and hydrogen to make some sugar, and bam you've got a life-form"

Evolution really does happen by chance. It has no purpose. It is not "trying" to get anywhere. It just happens. Mutations occur. They occur randomly. Some of those mutations increase the probability of reproduction of the organism that has those mutations. (There's that "probability again. More randomness. Just because a beneficial mutation occurs doesn't mean it will ever be passed on. If a plant mutates in such a way as to better withstand drought, it won't pass those genes on if it happens to get eaten by an cow before it creates seed.) You agree with that, don't you? So which part of "by chance" is offensive?

Maybe it is the part that says there are no processes in place that make certain outcomes far more likely than other outcomes. In other words, "by chance" implies all outcomes are equally likely. Oh, wait...I never said that. "By chance" doesn't mean that. So, where did that come from. Oh, yeah. That's the straw man part.

Or maybe, as Paul says, the offensive part is saying "by chance", without mentioning that there are parts that are not random. But as he said, a process is random even if only part of the process is random, so saying "by chance" isn't misleading. It's perfectly accurate. If you read something into the statement that isn't there, you aren't being misled. At least not by external forces.

[Meadmaker]

ETA:
Randomly eliminating members of a population would not be evolutionary theory.

Yes. It would be. Some traits, acquired through mutation or sexual reproduction, make some members of the population more likely to pass their genes on to others. It's a random process. The fact that it doesn't have a uniform distribution is irrelevant. You could have a plant that develops a wonderful mutation that would make it the most successful plant of the ages, and if it happens to sprout right next to a hungry stegosaurus, those genes don't get passed on. Randomness. Chance.

There were probably some pretty darned good mutations that happened right about 65,000,001 years ago, but they didn't make those dinosaurs more likely to survive asteroid impacts. Bummer for them.


This goes to my whole motivation for talking about this thread, trying to understand both ID and the opposition to it. And what I find is that ID itself has very little substance to it, but that the opposition to it is incredibly disorganized, in large part because they spend a lot of time arguing against the straw men that are not part of the theory. (Here, "theory" is being used correctly, actually.) Of course the greatest straw man of all is the "ID is just creationism" straw man.

[PatKelley]

And since I never said, implied, or in any other way suggested that this is what is meant by "by chance", that is not very relevant, is it?


In fact, you have taken the words that I said, twisted them to mean something else, and now you are attacking the words that I did not say in order to show the weakness in the argument that I did not say.

And that is the very definition of "straw man".

Which is so ironic, since your purpose in twisting the words was to say that I was using a straw man argument.
The stipulations of the unreasonable appearance by chance of life are based on total probability rather than on sequential and regulated reaction. The numbers often cited for the unlikelyness of random generation of life are based on these chances of random individual atoms coming together, rather than the process that we observe.

In my X and Y description, X="evolution happens by chance" and Y="speaking of a carbon atom randomly colliding with some nitrogen and oxygen and hydrogen to make some sugar, and bam you've got a life-form"

Evolution really does happen by chance. It has no purpose. It is not "trying" to get anywhere. It just happens. Mutations occur. They occur randomly. Some of those mutations increase the probability of reproduction of the organism that has those mutations. (There's that "probability again. More randomness. Just because a beneficial mutation occurs doesn't mean it will ever be passed on. If a plant mutates in such a way as to better withstand drought, it won't pass those genes on if it happens to get eaten by an cow before it creates seed.) You agree with that, don't you? So which part of "by chance" is offensive?

"By chance" is a deliberate misrepresentation and simplification of an identified opposing argument, and hence a strawman. Probability is different than random; one is a population analysis, the other is an individual within the population. Evolution does not happen to an individual organism; an organism is selected for or against by environmental pressures; the population evolves when this plus mutation changes the genetic composition as a whole. The individual changes are random; evolution is not. Evolution follows a set of internal rules which can be identified; in this respect it is hardly chance. It proceeds by a mechanism of chance, but is not itself completly chaotic. Thus saying evolution happens by chance is a deliberate misrepresentation and oversimplification.

Just so, I could say that you dating is discrimination. It really is, if you look at it: one determines what makes up a suitable dating partner. Can I then say you dating is the moral equivalent of race riots? Calling your dating discrimination would be a deliberate misrepresentation and oversimplification to elicit a reaction.


Maybe it is the part that says there are no processes in place that make certain outcomes far more likely than other outcomes. In other words, "by chance" implies all outcomes are equally likely. Oh, wait...I never said that. "By chance" doesn't mean that. So, where did that come from. Oh, yeah. That's the straw man part.

Precisely. That is the straw-man part of saying evolution is by chance. The implication is left hanging that it is completely chaotic. In that it is a misrepresentation. I'm glad to see we appear to have reached a consensus.

Or maybe, as Paul says, the offensive part is saying "by chance", without mentioning that there are parts that are not random. But as he said, a process is random even if only part of the process is random, so saying "by chance" isn't misleading. It's perfectly accurate. If you read something into the statement that isn't there, you aren't being misled. At least not by external forces.

So, you have any good discrimination coming up this Friday?

[Meadmaker]

And both assume that it is impossible to find a non-supernatural explanation,

Theistic evolution doesn't make that assumption. It is just the belief that says evolution happened, but God did it.

I know that people like Behe like to learn enough about science to sound as if they understand evolution, but they do not.

I'm curious about this. I've been reading some papers by Behe and Dembski, and I haven't found any errors in them. They run off on wild speculation to fill in those gaps, but I just haven't seen anything in their writing that is an actual mistake about evolution. I have seen their work mischaracterized, and those mischaricterizations frequently have faults. See the previous discussion on "straw man".

Neither is scientific, one is just a more educated brand of unscientific.


Snicker. Yeah, that's more or less fair.

But, seriously, I would say that TE is a matter of faith, and never claims to be otherwise. ID claims to be otherwise, but can't prove anything.


LOL. If you missile tracking was mostly random, it would have never tracked a single missle.


Don't laugh too loud. But thanks for the money. Your tax dollars at work.


The reason that the word "random" is used with such fear and loathing is because ID proponants like to portray evolution as just throwing out a bunch of molecules and they fall into the shape of a human. You surely can understand why people who have studied the incredible complexity of evolution for many years would object to such a charactarization.

Do they? Or is that the straw man? It's true that preachers here and there might make that claim, and school board members. But is that a fair characterization of what scientists like Behe claim? (Yes, Behe is a real scientist. He publishes papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. One of those was even supportive of ID, I believe.)

[PatKelley]

ETA:


Yes. It would be. Some traits, acquired through mutation or sexual reproduction, make some members of the population more likely to pass their genes on to others. It's a random process. The fact that it doesn't have a uniform distribution is irrelevant. You could have a plant that develops a wonderful mutation that would make it the most successful plant of the ages, and if it happens to sprout right next to a hungry stegosaurus, those genes don't get passed on. Randomness. Chance.


Again, you do not appear to have understood. The individuals eliminated are not by chance. They are eliminated by internal factors interacting with the environment. The combination of internal factors is due in part to chance, but more in part due to this longstanding interaction of environment and population of individuals. The percentage of an organism that is purely random chance is quite small; the rest is due to the process of evolution operating over time (iterative application of changing selection pressure) so the truly random part of a generation is a very small percentage; perhaps less than one hundredth of a percent. You have better odds with evolution than any place in Vegas or any horse-racing joint.


There were probably some pretty darned good mutations that happened right about 65,000,001 years ago, but they didn't make those dinosaurs more likely to survive asteroid impacts. Bummer for them.

You appear to misunderstand an extinction event. It is a radical alteration in the selection pressures; it is not a rate of mutation driven event, it is driven by the new selection pressures. When these change drastically, the number of lifeforms able to survive these new pressures declines to where entire populations are eliminated until a new equilibrium is established.


This goes to my whole motivation for talking about this thread, trying to understand both ID and the opposition to it. And what I find is that ID itself has very little substance to it, but that the opposition to it is incredibly disorganized, in large part because they spend a lot of time arguing against the straw men that are not part of the theory. (Here, "theory" is being used correctly, actually.) Of course the greatest straw man of all is the "ID is just creationism" straw man.

No, ID is Creationism. It is dressed up, it has called a truce with heritable random attributes, but it is still Creationism. Find-Replace would not exhonorate Nixon from the Watergate scandal any more than it would change Creationism to not-Creationism.

[Meadmaker]

Again, you do not appear to have understood..

Maybe if you explain it again, I'll get it. I'm a little slow sometimes.

[Meadmaker]

Probability is different than random;

My math professors apparently did not understand the distinction.

So, you have any good discrimination coming up this Friday?

If I did, my wife would have an objection to it, and the parts you found at the end of the process would be about what you would expect to find left of a straw man.

[PatKelley]

My math professors apparently did not understand the distinction.

It is possible there was a miscommunication. Probability describes bands of possible outcomes. There are some which are improbable- the truly random would not have such things as probable or improbable outcomes but an even distribution. Once one speaks of probability, one speaks of more than one random event, and a distribution of probable outcomes is born. However, it is not totally random. A population is a distribution of possible outcomes; probability determines the likelyhood of various outcomes. It is not random. An event might be random; however, the distribution described in a population is not. Evolution is not an event; it is a description of a process of iterative selection pressure on a fluctuating population. The random portion is overblown by calling evolution a "chance" process. This mischarictarization is the essence of the strawman in calling evolution "chance" or "random." It is a disparagement, much like calling a theory of universal expansion "The Big Bang." An overly simplistic and charicaturing portrayal of an alternate position.





If I did, my wife would have an objection to it, and the parts you found at the end of the process would be about what you would expect to find left of a straw man.

I would assume this is an oblique attempt at characterizing me as somehow the purveyor of said strawman? However, it is the mischaracterization of the argument that I wish to address; so far, this appears to hinge upon a simplification and charicature of evolution as "chance." As with dating, or in your case marriage, called discrimination. Avoiding missing the point, I raise the issue again how is calling dating "discrimination" different from calling evolution "chance?"

[PatKelley]

Maybe if you explain it again, I'll get it. I'm a little slow sometimes.
I am not here to address any of your education to date; merely pointing out what might be assumptions drawn from an incomplete or cursory understanding of the thought involved. Many things seem plausable at a glance until looked at more closely; many things also seem counterintuitive until more accurately described. This is the case in calling evolution "chance": it is an attempt to push the concept into the counterintuitive. By calling it random or chance, it is characterized as counterintuitive, as there seems to be order in life. Creatures beget similar creatures; this does not seem random.

It is a poor method of argument, as it is more an appeal to the observers rather than a logical statement. I could equally argue that all words are meaningless beyond our understanding or common agreement, so anything you say is meaningless. It is, as I said, a poor argument.

[Tricky]

Theistic evolution doesn't make that assumption. It is just the belief that says evolution happened, but God did it.
God is not supernatural? Could you describe what you mean by "God" then?


I'm curious about this. I've been reading some papers by Behe and Dembski, and I haven't found any errors in them. They run off on wild speculation to fill in those gaps, but I just haven't seen anything in their writing that is an actual mistake about evolution.
Wild speculation to fill in gaps is error. Conclusion not based on evidence is error. The concept of IC is most definitely error.

I have seen their work mischaracterized, and those mischaricterizations frequently have faults. See the previous discussion on "straw man".
Perhaps it has been mischaracterized by some. That does not diminish the fact that it is thoroughly unscientific. ID is not a theory and it does not adhere to the processes that science uses. At best, it can be seen as raising some good questions about evolution, which it makes no attempt to answer with other testable hypotheses. Many of the questions ID asks already have been answered, but Behe et. al. had not researched enough to know this.

But, seriously, I would say that TE is a matter of faith, and never claims to be otherwise. ID claims to be otherwise, but can't prove anything.
So TE is just adding "but I also believe in God" to everything that evolution says? Gosh, that's helpful.:rolleyes:

Don't laugh too loud. But thanks for the money. Your tax dollars at work.
The vast majority of your work was not at all random. You added one random variable. That does not make the tracking system "random". Same with evolution. There are a few random variables, like mutations. The vast majority of evolution is not random.

Do they? Or is that the straw man? It's true that preachers here and there might make that claim, and school board members. But is that a fair characterization of what scientists like Behe claim? (Yes, Behe is a real scientist. He publishes papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. One of those was even supportive of ID, I believe.)
I hate to harp on IC again, but it is a big part of what Behe uses to support his claims. IC essentially claims evolution is a random process which could not have resulted in such complex structures as the eye or the flagellum.

Perhaps Behe is a scientist. Even scientists can be blind when it comes to their religion, a la Blaise Pascal, Lord Kelvin et. al. So perhaps I should amend my statement to say that Behe is a scientist who is off duty when proposing ID.

[BillHoyt]

My math professors apparently did not understand the distinction.
I'm quite sure the opposite is true. The level of your course may have been responsible for your having missed the distinction.

[Meadmaker]

I'm quite sure the opposite is true. The level of your course may have been responsible for your having missed the distinction.

The last course I took was "Probability and Random Processes" taught to graduate students by the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Michigan. There, they told me that a "random variable" was a variable whose value is described not as a single number, but as a probability density function. A random process was a process whose outputs or states included at least one random variable. (It has been 15 years since the class. I might have gotten something slightly wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's close.)

There's something I find rather funny about this. The word "random" is frequently used colloquially to describe events whose outcomes could be anywhere among a given set of options, i.e, each outcome is just as likely as the other. However, its actual definition has nothing to do with uniform density. (The uniform density function is the one in which every event in the space, for discrete systems, is as likely as any other event. There's a corresponding defintion for continuous systems.) So, "random" is a term that has a meaning commonly used, but which is in fact, wrong.

Kind of like "theory".

P.S. Don't be misled by the title "Probability and Random Processes". They weren't talking about two different things.

[Meadmaker]

Wild speculation to fill in gaps is error. Conclusion not based on evidence is error. The concept of IC is most definitely error.

Good point.

What I should have said is that I haven't noticed any errors about evolution. These guys, especially Behe, seem to know their stuff. When they go beyond what is known, they wander into speculation, and I agree with you that they tend to reach conclusions from this speculation, which is an error.

All I really meant is that lots of critics of ID tend to say that these people obviously don't understand evolution, but I don't think that's the case. I haven't seen any errors of that sort in their work. In some cases, it's almost an ad hominem attack. "These people don't agree with evolution. They must be idiots."

Many of the questions ID asks already have been answered, but Behe et. al. had not researched enough to know this.

Such as?

[Meadmaker]

I would assume this is an oblique attempt at characterizing me as somehow the purveyor of said strawman? However, it is the mischaracterization of the argument that I wish to address; so far, this appears to hinge upon a simplification and charicature of evolution as "chance." As with dating, or in your case marriage, called discrimination. Avoiding missing the point, I raise the issue again how is calling dating "discrimination" different from calling evolution "chance?"

Actually, it was an oblique attempt at characterizing my wife as someone who would rip me to shreds in the event I practiced that particular form of discrimination (dating) this Friday.

But, there is actually an extreme similarity between calling dating "discrimination" and calling evolution "chance". They are both perfectly accurate descriptions using perfectly good words, which are frequently twisted to mean something that is not part of the definition of the word. Back when I was dating, I practiced discrimination all the time, especially based on age and gender, and I have no remorse.

[PatKelley]

The last course I took was "Probability and Random Processes" taught to graduate students by the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Michigan. There, they told me that a "random variable" was a variable whose value is described not as a single number, but as a probability density function. A random process was a process whose outputs or states included at least one random variable. (It has been 15 years since the class. I might have gotten something slightly wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's close.)

There's something I find rather funny about this. The word "random" is frequently used colloquially to describe events whose outcomes could be anywhere among a given set of options, i.e, each outcome is just as likely as the other. However, its actual definition has nothing to do with uniform density. (The uniform density function is the one in which every event in the space, for discrete systems, is as likely as any other event. There's a corresponding defintion for continuous systems.) So, "random" is a term that has a meaning commonly used, but which is in fact, wrong.

Kind of like "theory".

P.S. Don't be misled by the title "Probability and Random Processes". They weren't talking about two different things.

Random, as used colloquially, is indeed the equal chance of any occurrence. I can find no variants on this meaning.

Random Variables are used in a specific formalized language regarding probability theory. It was not claimed evolution was a random variable.

Claiming evolution is a random process puts it as a stochastic process (a synonym), and more appropriately as a discrete stochastic process. Subsets of it can be defined in a three-dimensional space if very simplified, and involve strange attractors and variable probability spaces.

Claiming evolution is random is woefully inaccurate in using mathematical language, and prone to biased perception when used colloquially. It would carry the implication that evolution was a subset of the sample space: an elementary event, when this is clearly not what it is. It either needs more of a stringent treatment if treated in mathematical language, or it needs to be distinguished in the space of colloquial understanding from "random" meaning equal probability of all events for what it is in part: a discrete stochastic process.

[PatKelley]

Actually, it was an oblique attempt at characterizing my wife as someone who would rip me to shreds in the event I practiced that particular form of discrimination (dating) this Friday.

But, there is actually an extreme similarity between calling dating "discrimination" and calling evolution "chance". They are both perfectly accurate descriptions using perfectly good words, which are frequently twisted to mean something that is not part of the definition of the word. Back when I was dating, I practiced discrimination all the time, especially based on age and gender, and I have no remorse.

Random means random, equal chance of all possibilities. This does not represent evolution, not even in part.

Discrimination means discernment between objects; its secondary definition is more colloqially used, and refers to otherwise equally qualified persons chosen not based on individual merit but on surface features. Is this dating? It is an aspect of dating, but to label dating as discrimination is inappropriate and does not address the entire definition but only a small aspect of it.

You also state that you discriminated while you "[were] dating" you "practiced discrimination all the time," which implies a nonequivalence of the terms; this is what I also was attemting to get across when the description of evolution as "random chance" was broached as appropriate. I disagree, and have provided assertions and other applications of the word random as well as the process of evolution as understood as evidence.

[Meadmaker]

Random means random, equal chance of all possibilities.

Therefore, the game of craps is not a random game, because snake-eyes are much less likely than 7.


Come on, Pat. Here's the problem. You obviously understand enough about probability to know that "random" doesn't mean uniformly distributed, and if you think about the above example, you will know that even colloquially, it doesn't mean a layman's understanding of uniformly distributed.

So why do you need to characterize, "by chance", which I even qualified as saying, "as a result of a random process" as a straw man argument? You know what I meant, and you know I didn't mean anything about equally likely outcomes, and if you have read any of Behe or Dembski's work, you know they don't use it that way. So either you know that they don't use the word in that way, in which case your characterization of their work is a straw man, or more likely, you aren't sufficiently familiar with their work to accurately characterize it, in which case it is repeating a straw man.

I think the latter is more likely, because that same post in which you called my use of the term "by chance" a straw man contained several inaccurate statements about intelligent design.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms one could make of ID. Educate yourself enough to make them.

And why is that important? Let's take the man on the street. He probably doesn't know beans about evolution. Maybe he took biology in high school, but maybe not. But he can read, and maybe he has read something, probably biased, in favor of ID. If you go out and attack something that ID is not, he thinks you look stupid. He thinks you don't know your stuff. And if all he sees is you, or some other voice he encounters, criticizing ID as something it clearly is not, he figures that he knows you are wrong about one thing, so you are probably wrong about the rest. That's not fair, but that's why we lost in Kansas, and squeaked by in Dover.

[PatKelley]

Therefore, the game of craps is not a random game, because snake-eyes are much less likely than 7.

This appears to be a habit; you have taken two random events and collected them into a random process; this is not random as per the definition of "random chance" unless one is admitting that the mathematical definition is not what you were defining initially. Now, defining a subset of a discrete stochastic process... you see where I am going. You choose which definition you prefer depending on what light it puts you in or in what light it places evolution. You don't want to be seen as dismissive, so it is mathematical. But, when tracked on the mathematical explanation for inaccuracy, suddenly it is colloquial?

Please take one position to defend, as a battle fought on two fronts is soon lost.


Come on, Pat. Here's the problem. You obviously understand enough about probability to know that "random" doesn't mean uniformly distributed, and if you think about the above example, you will know that even colloquially, it doesn't mean a layman's understanding of uniformly distributed.

Random in layman's terms means completely without pattern; chaotic. Random means there is no rhyme or reason. This does not characterize evolutionary theory, but is appropriate for dismissing it if one is speaking colloquially.

So why do you need to characterize, "by chance", which I even qualified as saying, "as a result of a random process" as a straw man argument? You know what I meant, and you know I didn't mean anything about equally likely outcomes, and if you have read any of Behe or Dembski's work, you know they don't use it that way. So either you know that they don't use the word in that way, in which case your characterization of their work is a straw man, or more likely, you aren't sufficiently familiar with their work to accurately characterize it, in which case it is repeating a straw man.

It is used in the same sense as "Big Bang." It is perjorative, and dismissive of the body of work in addition to insulting to the years of research and effort put in by many people with no agenda other than discovery.



I think the latter is more likely, because that same post in which you called my use of the term "by chance" a straw man contained several inaccurate statements about intelligent design.

In "Of Pandas and People" it is clearly (word for word) a replacement term for Creationism, and Intelligent Designer a replacement for God. If it has been changed in description beyond this, someone had best tell the Discovery Institute so they may change the books they recommend in the effort to engender a discussion. "Of Pandas and People" is clearly not appropriate if it is a mischaracterization of ID to say it is Creationism, as it very definitely presents ID as a renamed proposition of Creationism in the manner of find and replace (a simplistic, insulting, and almost childish attempt at deception).

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms one could make of ID. Educate yourself enough to make them.

I would not endeavor to name myself as educated, however I would take issue with the effort to disparage evolutionary theory while providing no falsifiable elements. I have seen this argument before, as I have said, in Arp (active galaxies, intrinsic redshift and QUASARS) where no actual quantifiable proof has been offered other than "it looks like" and the tack of argument was an attempt to win by default. Pointing out the flaws in another does not make you better; it makes you a crank. There is no counter-argument offerred that is quantifiable other than it appears to be so. I have been round and round in these discussions, both regarding Arp and next with Behe and in the end it comes down to attempts to attack another theory rather than any true research. Thier research methodologies are shoddy, their reasoning suspect, and very often they come from other more concrete areas of research (engineering, chemistry, and the like) with a very good grounding in practical laboratory procedures but no grounding in theoretical discussion or statistical analysis. They lack critical analysis of their own theories and their weaknesses, particularly in the idea of "negative proof" challenging others to prove them wrong rather than providing their own support.



And why is that important? Let's take the man on the street. He probably doesn't know beans about evolution. Maybe he took biology in high school, but maybe not. But he can read, and maybe he has read something, probably biased, in favor of ID. If you go out and attack something that ID is not, he thinks you look stupid. He thinks you don't know your stuff. And if all he sees is you, or some other voice he encounters, criticizing ID as something it clearly is not, he figures that he knows you are wrong about one thing, so you are probably wrong about the rest. That's not fair, but that's why we lost in Kansas, and squeaked by in Dover.

No, it happens that the literature appeals to opinions he's already formed, and the arguments in favor of evolution entail more than gut feelings and the familiar. When it is further disparaged by mischaracterization, there is no chance of discussion, as a misconception is already formed and cannot be dispelled so long as it persists by being repeated ad nauseum.

[Meadmaker]

In "Of Pandas and People" it is clearly (word for word) a replacement term for Creationism, and Intelligent Designer a replacement for God.

I haven't read it, but I believe you are correct, based on the Dover testimony. On the other hand, Behe, despite recommending the book, disclaimed the creationist portion. Dembski, I suspect, is a creationist, because he seems to always qualify his statements with "according to evolutionary biologists." However, in the material I have seen from him, he doesn't make a creationist argument, and every time I have read "according to evolutionary biologists" in his work, his statements are accurate. Dembski also calls Behe an evolutionist, from which I infer that Behe is in fact an evolutionist, and I am guessing that Dembski is making a contrast between Behe and himself.

All creationism is intelligent design, but all intelligent design is not creationism.

I liken it to the oft-repeated assertion that belief in evolution is atheistic. I would imagine that all educated atheists who have considered the problem are evolutionists, but not all evolutionists are atheists.

[DevilsAdvocate]

If a theory cannot be falsified then it isn't really a scientific theory...OK, I’m going back a few posts, but this seems particularly relevant. Is something a theory if it cannot be falsified? Proponents of God or ID seems to have lately latched onto issues of astronomy and evolution for this reason.

Theories of physics, chemistry, medicine, etc. can be falsified. How? By isolating specific components in controlled environments for repeated tests to show that not only that observed results are repeated, but also that unknown results are predictable. These theories can be “falsified” (shown to be always true) because all other outside components that could explain the observation have been eliminated in the test.

Astronomy and evolution occur in a huge complex universe or ecological environment over millions of years. The theories behind astronomy and evolution cannot be tested and falsified the same way that you can take a few minutes to test combining chemical A with chemical B in a lab. The theory can to verified or falsified by testing multiple times under controlled conditions. ANY theory of how the universe or life was created or came to be what it is now is based on the one and only known system of the universe and life.

I simply don’t see how evolution could be absolutely verifiable or absolutely falsifiable without the ability to create planets with life forms under controlled conditions observed for millions of year to recreate the evolutionary process. Of course we can’t do that. So we go to the next best thing—what the existing evidence shows us. And being not absolute, we apply Occams razor in our evaluation.

[Tricky]

Good point.

What I should have said is that I haven't noticed any errors about evolution. These guys, especially Behe, seem to know their stuff. When they go beyond what is known, they wander into speculation, and I agree with you that they tend to reach conclusions from this speculation, which is an error.
D'accord

All I really meant is that lots of critics of ID tend to say that these people obviously don't understand evolution, but I don't think that's the case. I haven't seen any errors of that sort in their work. In some cases, it's almost an ad hominem attack. "These people don't agree with evolution. They must be idiots."
No, not idiots. Like so many people (including myself) they have certain blind spots or areas in which they have formed conclusions. (Mine tend to be political.) I work with a bunch of scientists, many of whom are quite religious, and even more of whom lean heavily towards the US brand of conservatism. Take a politically charged issue such as, say, global warming, and you will see them drop their scientific impartiality like a hot potato.

Such as?
Such as the evolution of the eye.

[PatKelley]

I haven't read it, but I believe you are correct, based on the Dover testimony. On the other hand, Behe, despite recommending the book, disclaimed the creationist portion. Dembski, I suspect, is a creationist, because he seems to always qualify his statements with "according to evolutionary biologists." However, in the material I have seen from him, he doesn't make a creationist argument, and every time I have read "according to evolutionary biologists" in his work, his statements are accurate. Dembski also calls Behe an evolutionist, from which I infer that Behe is in fact an evolutionist, and I am guessing that Dembski is making a contrast between Behe and himself.

All creationism is intelligent design, but all intelligent design is not creationism.

I liken it to the oft-repeated assertion that belief in evolution is atheistic. I would imagine that all educated atheists who have considered the problem are evolutionists, but not all evolutionists are atheists.


It appears once more you have missed the point. It is not a case of belonging to a camp. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist." This too, like calling evolution "random chance" is a made-up argument designed to throw water on what the ID movement considers "the opposition." Another label. Another shorthand of derision. It is putting the face of a movement on what is a body of scientific study stretching from Linnaeus to now, a quick way of discrediting a theory as a cult.

Evolutionary theory is what it is, regardless of one's stance on the supernatural. ID requires the supernatural as a foregone conclusion, not open to argument. One gets into sophist arguments rather rapidly with "who created that creator" in the case of physical postulated creator until ending up inevitably at the supernatural. Not all ID is creationism; but then, not all supernatural explanations are God. This is a smokescreen at best, claiming that because ID is not Creationism (Behe accepts most of evolution, for instance, to the point of admitting God might be an undetectable subatomic influence indistinguishable from natural laws) it is therefore not subject to precedent. That's what this comes down to: precedent. To avoid the application of precedent regarding the teaching of Creationism.

ID is legal maneuvering overlaid on foregone conclusions of the supernatural.

[chipmunk stew]

Therefore, the game of craps is not a random game, because snake-eyes are much less likely than 7.I haven't been following this thread closely, but it's true that craps is not a random game. It's a game of probability involving pairs of random events.

[BillHoyt]

The last course I took was "Probability and Random Processes" taught to graduate students by the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Michigan. There, they told me that a "random variable" was a variable whose value is described not as a single number, but as a probability density function. A random process was a process whose outputs or states included at least one random variable. (It has been 15 years since the class. I might have gotten something slightly wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's close.)
"Whose value is described ... as a p.d.f," is correct as far as it goes. But that is a description of the variable, not the underlying process. A sufficiently complex determinate process can result in p.d.f. outputs. Those outputs may be probabilities, but the process is determinate, not random.

There's something I find rather funny about this. The word "random" is frequently used colloquially to describe events whose outcomes could be anywhere among a given set of options, i.e, each outcome is just as likely as the other. However, its actual definition has nothing to do with uniform density. (The uniform density function is the one in which every event in the space, for discrete systems, is as likely as any other event. There's a corresponding defintion for continuous systems.) So, "random" is a term that has a meaning commonly used, but which is in fact, wrong.

Kind of like "theory".
Uh-huh, which is why we need to be cautious in interpreting science and mathematics without first disabusing ourselves of those colloquial denotations and connotations.

P.S. Don't be misled by the title "Probability and Random Processes". They weren't talking about two different things.
No, in fact they were talking about two different things, which is precisely the reason for the title.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's deja vu all over again. We already went through this. While evolution may be a "random process" according to certain mathematical definitions of the term, it is utterly misleading to say to someone: Evolution is random, or Evolution is a random process.

~~ Paul

[BillHoyt]

It's deja vu all over again. We already went through this. While evolution may be a "random process" according to certain mathematical definitions of the term, it is utterly misleading to say to someone: Evolution is random, or Evolution is a random process.

~~ Paul
Hence my quip about the course title. And, yes, it is deja vu all over again. In all fairness, though, the distinctions are not often drawn for students except in higher-level mathematical statistics courses. The common misunderstanding is that something determinate can't yield randomness. I'm not sure why, given how popular books on chaos theory have been over the years and given how even the popular books cover these points.

[Meadmaker]

It appears once more you have missed the point. .

Whatever you said after this, I haven't read it.

[Meadmaker]

No, in fact they were talking about two different things, which is precisely the reason for the title.

Somehow, I got an A in the class, anyway. I don't know how I managed, since I apparently misunderstood the entire course.

[Meadmaker]

Such as the evolution of the eye.

I only read a little bit about the eye, but I did read their stuff about flagella, and I read a summary of the blood clotting issue. I assume it's basically the same stuff.

What I read that they said is, simplified, "Gosh this stuff is really, really, complicated. I don't see how this could have evolved. And the Darwinists insist that it could have, but they don't show any sort of model that we can test or analyze."

The first half is an argument from ignorance. It's rather meaningless, but it doesn't say anything about evolutionary theory. The second half is accurate. We really don't have any sort of model about how those complex structures evolve. To the extent that we can describe the mechanisms at all, there are huge holes.

So, I asked the "such as" question in response to your statement that Behe et. al. hadn't done enough research to realize that their questions had already been answered. I don't think that's the case. For example, the one area that I did read about the eye was a discussion by Behe about the mechanism involved in vision. He described the proteins that were light sensitive in the retina. He described the changes that happened to the shape of the proteins when the light hit them. He described the electrical signals that get put on the optic nerve. And he noted that for all its talk about gradual improvements to light sensitive spots and transformations of functions of various parts, evolutionary theory hadn't even begun to discuss how these proteins came to be in those places and to take on such specific functions.

Now, maybe there is enough research out there that he had missed, and his objections could have been answered, but I don't think so. I think he did an awful lot of research, and found that there were certain things that no one could explain.

At that point, of course, is where he wanders into the speculative realm, and he basically makes an argument from ignorance. "You can't explain it, so there is no explanation." That isn't good logic, but it also isn't lack of comprehension of evolution.

[Meadmaker]

Whatever you said after this, I haven't read it.

So why didn't I read Pat's response? To make a point, of course.

My basic premise in this thread is that while ID supporters might be wrong, they aren't stupid. In fact, what they are saying is not even provably wrong. There's a subtext of that message, which is that if you want to convince them, or the laymen who read their material, that they are wrong, you're going to have to understand the arguments. Just calling them idiots won't work. In fact, it's counterproductive, because they will tune out everything you say after that.

The last couple of pages have been largely devoted to trying to convince me that I just don't get it. Well, if I don't, I never will, so there really isn't much point in reading material that begins with, "you are missing the point". I'm pretty darned convinced that I didn't miss the point. But I can take some comfort in the fact that my professors, who awarded me diplomas from one of the finest engineering schools in the world managed not to notice my ignorance.

(ETA: I went back and read it. I hadn't missed the point.)

[PatKelley]

So why didn't I read Pat's response? To make a point, of course.

My basic premise in this thread is that while ID supporters might be wrong, they aren't stupid. In fact, what they are saying is not even provably wrong. There's a subtext of that message, which is that if you want to convince them, or the laymen who read their material, that they are wrong, you're going to have to understand the arguments. Just calling them idiots won't work. In fact, it's counterproductive, because they will tune out everything you say after that.

The last couple of pages have been largely devoted to trying to convince me that I just don't get it. Well, if I don't, I never will, so there really isn't much point in reading material that begins with, "you are missing the point". I'm pretty darned convinced that I didn't miss the point. But I can take some comfort in the fact that my professors, who awarded me diplomas from one of the finest engineering schools in the world managed not to notice my ignorance.

(ETA: I went back and read it. I hadn't missed the point.)


So in the end your argument is insulting me and dismissing my arguments rather than addressing the multiple points at which you were shown potentially mistaken, or deliberately misleading?

That is not much of an argument, and I can see now why you have abdicated response. One cannot make the claim that ID eschews the supernatural. What the argument consists of beyond this is immaterial; as much so as the supernatural element of the ID hypothesis.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My basic premise in this thread is that while ID supporters might be wrong, they aren't stupid. In fact, what they are saying is not even provably wrong. That is because there is no substance to their argument. They have yet to demonstrate, empirically or logically, that a single biological mechanism could not have evolved.

Why do we have to address them when they haven't said anything? We don't address the people who say that the Jolly Rancher constructed the flagellum from cheese and crackers, either.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

That is because there is no substance to their argument. They have yet to demonstrate, empirically or logically, that a single biological mechanism could not have evolved.


And biologists have yet to demonstrate that one could.

Do you not see that? I think biologists will do that someday, but "someday" isn't here yet.

[Meadmaker]

One cannot make the claim that ID eschews the supernatural.

Did I make that argument? Did Behe? Did any author of any book make that argument? It must have been one of those times I was deliberately misleading people.

[Tricky]

And biologists have yet to demonstrate that one could.

Do you not see that? I think biologists will do that someday, but "someday" isn't here yet.
You are right that there are still many gaps. But what biologists have demonstrated at great length is a process that leads to the development of various structures. They have demonstrated it in quite detailed fashion for a number of structures, and in much less detail (i.e. full of gaps) for other structures. And evolution has been shown to work, and to work for a great many things. Therefore, one prediction (and all good theories have predictive power) is that many of these gaps in the processes will be filled in. To your credit, you have said much the same thing.

So it is not, nor will it ever be possible for evolution to fill in all the gaps, but it has shown itself time and time again to be the best theory for filling in the gaps. That is why it is so annoying when Behe et. al. can do nothing but carp because it isn't perfect. They remind me of the Jewish underground group in "The Life of Brian" complaining, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And biologists have yet to demonstrate that one could. Oh please. We've seen evolution happen. That's why we're running around worried about overuse of antibiotics. That's why we know that hippos and whales are close cousins.

Oh, you mean we haven't see your favorite mechanism evolve.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

They have demonstrated it in quite detailed fashion for a number of structures, and in much less detail (i.e. full of gaps) for other structures.

This is refuted by the Union of Intelligent Design Supporters, although the Union of Supporters of Intelligent Design disagrees.

Seriously, though. As strange as it may seem, one of my motives in starting this thread is to learn something. Do you have any accessible references (i.e. web links) for descriptions of structures that have demonstrated evolution "in quite detailed fashion"? It's my understanding that they are all "full of gaps".

The closest thing to demonstrations of evolution that I know of would be cases where it can be shown that a specific change in a sequence of DNA causes a specific condition. For example, it is known that the "defective" gene that causes Huntington's Disease has two many copies of a specific amino acid in it, IIRC.

Meanwhile, here's a link I stumbled on that some people might find interesting. It's a software tool that helps investigate mutations, evolution, that sort of thing. Just found it interesting.

http://www.cs.nyu.edu/cs/faculty/mishra/PUBLICATIONS/02.RandomWalk.pdf

[PatKelley]

Did I make that argument? Did Behe? Did any author of any book make that argument? It must have been one of those times I was deliberately misleading people.
No, which is precisely why that claim cannot be made. The forced incorporation of the supernatural throws the entire idea of it being a serious analysis out of the window and bolsters the claim that it is reworked Creationism. It's tantamount to sticking up signs in science saying "Do Not Tamper! God's Domain!" What can one hope to know about the supernatural? How is it tested, this capricious force which ebbs and flows with the skepticism of the people at the testing site?

My contention is that any evidence of a supposed force that disappears upon observation can be essentially eliminated from consideration. In other words, evolutionary theory does not address a deity; it never meant to. The only people who appear to take this position are additionally, not so surprisingly, biblical literalists, Hard (Creationists) or Soft (ID).

To evolutionary theory, it does not matter.

Listen carefully: there is no grouping called "evolutionists" except in the minds of Creationists and ID proponents. There is no shadow cabal out to purge God from the world.

Likewise, the definition of evolution as "random chance" is only applicable if one wishes to cast it in an implausable light. It is a poor cursory definition, sloppy and, even if not deliberately so, misleading.

This is rhetoric, designed (if I may use the term) to shorthand the perceived opposition into an easily charicatured mold, like any perjorative used politically or in the circles of scholars. Calling evolutionary theory "random chance" is a mischaracterization, either through a very poor understanding, or a deliberate effort to disparage.

[BillHoyt]

And biologists have yet to demonstrate that one could.

Do you not see that? I think biologists will do that someday, but "someday" isn't here yet.
"Someday" has come and gone, over and over again. Where were you?

[BillHoyt]

Somehow, I got an A in the class, anyway. I don't know how I managed, since I apparently misunderstood the entire course.
Argument from authority fallacy. I stand by my point. Would you like references supporting it?

[Tricky]

This is refuted by the Union of Intelligent Design Supporters, although the Union of Supporters of Intelligent Design disagrees.
:D
Seriously, though. As strange as it may seem, one of my motives in starting this thread is to learn something. Do you have any accessible references (i.e. web links) for descriptions of structures that have demonstrated evolution "in quite detailed fashion"? It's my understanding that they are all "full of gaps".
I am ashamed to say I do not. Though I majored in biology in college (um... a few years ago...), I've not kept up on the journals. About the best I could do is some old copies of Scientific American I have lying around. Sure, I could Google, but you know how you can find anything you like on the internet. But I truly am glad that you have the desire to learn. You wouldn't believe how many folks do not.


The closest thing to demonstrations of evolution that I know of would be cases where it can be shown that a specific change in a sequence of DNA causes a specific condition. For example, it is known that the "defective" gene that causes Huntington's Disease has two many copies of a specific amino acid in it, IIRC.
I think I recall reading (in Scientific American) that they are also becoming more adept at pinpointing the locations on viral DNA where changes have occurred to allow them to gain resistance to certain drugs. Your example is probably better than mine. It is true that these are just baby steps, compared to the "big picture" evolution-wise, but they are steps in the right direction, IMHO. Certainly enough to encourage us to continue to use evolution as the model for future research.

Meanwhile, here's a link I stumbled on that some people might find interesting. It's a software tool that helps investigate mutations, evolution, that sort of thing. Just found it interesting.
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/cs/faculty/mishra/PUBLICATIONS/02.RandomWalk.pdf
Pretty cool. Thanks.

[hammegk]

My contention is that any evidence of a supposed force that disappears upon observation can be essentially eliminated from consideration. In other words, evolutionary theory does not address a deity; it never meant to. The only people who appear to take this position are additionally, not so surprisingly, biblical literalists, Hard (Creationists) or Soft (ID).

To evolutionary theory, it does not matter.
Indeed, but it certainly seems to matter to your non-existent "evilutionists", who erect the 'supernatural' strawman. SFAIK, the question devolves to "It CANNOT happen" vs "we're not quite that certain". One could conclude the in-ability to predict the result of processes of three of more partial differential equations is not a point in Science's favor.


Calling evolutionary theory "random chance" is a mischaracterization, either through a very poor understanding, or a deliberate effort to disparage.
As your comment may be taken as disparagement by your opposition who you choose to characterize as not-Bright anti-science.

[Ed]

A point that I never quite understood is why creationists have a problem with the notion that their god could be subtle enough to create a process like evolution. It seems that the creativity of their god is <= their own. Rather anthropomorphic and blasphamous, IMHO.

[sphenisc]

Hi Tricky,

[QUOTE=Tricky;1299418] Therefore, one prediction (and all good theories have predictive power) is that many of these gaps in the processes will be filled in. To your credit, you have said much the same thing.
QUOTE]

How do you falsify this prediction, since it's impossible to demonstrate the negative? If you can't then is it really a 'scientific' prediction?

cheers

[Tricky]

Hi Tricky,

Therefore, one prediction (and all good theories have predictive power) is that many of these gaps in the processes will be filled in. To your credit, you have said much the same thing.


How do you falsify this prediction, since it's impossible to demonstrate the negative? If you can't then is it really a 'scientific' prediction?

cheers
If the gaps were filled in by something that contradicted evolution, like the IDer leaving behind a set of blueprints for a flagellum written in Aramic. Or perhaps by the spontaneous generation of a flagellum in the lab. Or by inserting a tiny mechanical flagellum and discovering that after many generations of doing this, the protozoans were born (more correctly, split off) with flagella (Lamaarkism). There could be many ways.

[Meadmaker]

Argument from authority fallacy. I stand by my point. Would you like references supporting it?

Oh, why not. Although, wouldn't the references just be an argument from authority anyway?

Out of curiousity, I did look up "stochastic" in the dictionary. I had always seen it used as a synonym for "random", as in "stochastic process" or "random process". I was surprised to see a one word definition: "conjectural".

I was also surprised to see a very brief set of definitions for "random". I used the big, thick, dictionary. There was no definition that fit the phrase "random variable" or "random process". The first definition, and the only applicable one was "without direction or purpose". I leave it to the reader to decide if that fits evolution.

I would be curious though to see if anyone can provide any definition from any textbook or dictionary of the word "random" that is clearly inappropriate to apply to evolution. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just curious if it can be done. The definition from my dictionary is arguable, because it isn't clear if "direction" implies being directed, or simply moving in a specific direction. If the latter interpretation is used then you could say that "toward greater reproduceability" is a "direction".

ETA:

Here's what dictionary.com has to offer:

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

I suppose you could say evolution follows a "pattern", though it certainly has no purpose or objective. It certainly fits number 2. It certainly doesn't fit number three.

[Meadmaker]

A point that I never quite understood is why creationists have a problem with the notion that their god could be subtle enough to create a process like evolution.

Every creationist I have ever met is also a biblical literalist. There are probably some who are not, but I don't know any.

[Meadmaker]

:D

I am ashamed to say I do not.....
I think I recall reading (in Scientific American) that they are also becoming more adept at pinpointing the locations on viral DNA where changes have occurred to allow them to gain resistance to certain drugs. .

I think the reason you don't have them is that they don't exist. I think your example, and mine, really are as far as they get.

[Meadmaker]

The forced incorporation of the supernatural throws the entire idea of it being a serious analysis out of the window

I'm surprised Hammegk didn't pick up on this.


Listen carefully:


I'm listening.


there is no grouping called "evolutionists"


Then what alternative would you suggest? I don't particularly like the term, either, but it is so much more convenient than always saying or writing, "those who accept the theory of evolution".

[PatKelley]

I'm surprised Hammegk didn't pick up on this.




I'm listening.

Then what alternative would you suggest? I don't particularly like the term, either, but it is so much more convenient than always saying or writing, "those who accept the theory of evolution".

It is labelling a group that does not exist in order to create one. The theory of evolution is a theory; it is not a doctrine. Many people have different ideas regarding portions of mechanism, action, distribution, and methods of determining such seemingly simple things as scaling of systems; while this appears no different than a religion and internal interpretation of doctrine, there is an important difference: there is no doctrine.

The language of scientists with regards to claims is cautious for a reason;"we think" "we can reasonably infer that" "our tentative conclusion is" and so on. It is not to be evasive; it is to be as honest as possible. There is often a lack of absolute certainty in the data, so any interpretation of the data must necessarily be cautious in drawing conclusions. This does not mean the supernatural is included; it means it cannot be excluded outright. Note the subtle difference; lack of exclusion criteria is not proof.

Positive evidence of supernatural pheonmena needs evidence and a testable hypothesis of its own. It cannot simply say "you can't prove us wrong" and claim victory when the reverse is equally unproven and has even less data.

[BillHoyt]

Oh, why not. Although, wouldn't the references just be an argument from authority anyway?
The complete name of the fallacy is appeal to false authority.
Out of curiousity, I did look up "stochastic" in the dictionary. I had always seen it used as a synonym for "random", as in "stochastic process" or "random process". I was surprised to see a one word definition: "conjectural".
Which dictionary says that? Why would you consult an unnamed dictionary to get at the formal and technical definition? This is yet another example of appeal to false authority.

I was also surprised to see a very brief set of definitions for "random". I used the big, thick, dictionary.
Again, dictionary is unnamed. Appeal to false authority, a la McCarthy.
There was no definition that fit the phrase "random variable" or "random process". The first definition, and the only applicable one was "without direction or purpose". I leave it to the reader to decide if that fits evolution.
Right.
I would be curious though to see if anyone can provide any definition from any textbook or dictionary of the word "random" that is clearly inappropriate to apply to evolution. I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just curious if it can be done. The definition from my dictionary is arguable, because it isn't clear if "direction" implies being directed, or simply moving in a specific direction. If the latter interpretation is used then you could say that "toward greater reproduceability" is a "direction".
Dictionary. Wrong resource. Unnamed. Appeal to false authority. "Direction" - fallacy of equivocation.

ETA:

Here's what dictionary.com has to offer:

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

I suppose you could say evolution follows a "pattern", though it certainly has no purpose or objective. It certainly fits number 2. It certainly doesn't fit number three.
Wow. A dictionary, unnamed, that doesn't provide a correct technical definition. Go figure. But it is big and thick. Wow. :rolleyes:

[Ed]

Every creationist I have ever met is also a biblical literalist. There are probably some who are not, but I don't know any.

There is no literal statement as to mechanism. God willing something can take any form whatsoever. Do they presume to know the thoughts of the almighty?

[sphenisc]

There is no literal statement as to mechanism. God willing something can take any form whatsoever. Do they presume to know the thoughts of the almighty?

Literalism requires an average of 1/6th of Creation to occur in a single day. This is faster than any currently proposed evolutionary mechanism could produce observed levels of biodiversity. And the answer to your question is 'Yes'. :)

[BillHoyt]

Literalism requires an average of 1/6th of Creation to occur in a single day. This is faster than any currently proposed evolutionary mechanism could produce observed levels of biodiversity. And the answer to your question is 'Yes'. :)
Cripes. Since when is *poof* a mechanism? And which version of the Judeo-Christian creation myth is the [b]literally correct[/b one? The one where the animals first go *poof*, followed by a man *poof* or the one where man goes *poof* first, followed by an animal *poof*?

Will the fundies never send us representatives who can think, or is this truly representative fundy thinking?

[sphenisc]

Cripes. Since when is *poof* a mechanism? And which version of the Judeo-Christian creation myth is the [b]literally correct[/b one? The one where the animals first go *poof*, followed by a man *poof* or the one where man goes *poof* first, followed by an animal *poof*?

Will the fundies never send us representatives who can think, or is this truly representative fundy thinking?

1732, April 16th; Yes and Yes; No and No

[hammegk]

I'm surprised Hammegk didn't pick up on this.

I thought I had done so. viz. "Indeed, but it certainly seems to matter to your non-existent "evilutionists", who erect the 'supernatural' strawman."


And whatta 'ya think? Is 'Evilutionist' just the opposite of a BillyHoyt 'fundie'? :p

[BillHoyt]

Yes and Yes
Fabulous. So, you think the order of creation was man, beasts and you think the order of creation was beasts, man. Logically put, you agreed that both A and Not-A are True. Care to offer an explanation of how that can be so?

[sphenisc]

Fabulous. So, you think the order of creation was man, beasts and you think the order of creation was beasts, man. Logically put, you agreed that both A and Not-A are True. Care to offer an explanation of how that can be so?

As I don't accept the premise on which your question is base - I don't really feel obliged to answer it... Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[PatKelley]

Fabulous. So, you think the order of creation was man, beasts and you think the order of creation was beasts, man. Logically put, you agreed that both A and Not-A are True. Care to offer an explanation of how that can be so?
I don't think he's necessarily arguing this position, just pointing out that currently Creationism makes no distinction but postulates multiple creation events in some circumstances, with the whole catastrophism thrown in in-between creation events (explains fossils of no-longer-extant creatures and major land features).

Or was he referring to himself with the second No and No? ;)

[BillHoyt]

I don't think he's necessarily arguing this position, just pointing out that currently Creationism makes no distinction but postulates multiple creation events in some circumstances, with the whole catastrophism thrown in in-between creation events (explains fossils of no-longer-extant creatures and major land features).

Or was he referring to himself with the second No and No? ;)
He's a games player. I've no time for games, or for such players.

[Meadmaker]

Pat's last response brings to mind another Pythonesque reply. "Let's not call them anything. Let's just ignore them."


I wonder if I can talk about "Punctualists" and "Gradualists".

What about "scientists"?


Again, dictionary is unnamed. Appeal to false authority, a la McCarthy.


I just want to see if I've got this straight. Not citing the name of a dictionary is like McCarthyis...I mean, it's acting like McCarthy. Joe McCarthy,right? Or is there a different, more specialized McCarthy?

So how about those references. Come on. I've got to see them.

[Meadmaker]

I thought I had done so. viz. "Indeed, but it certainly seems to matter to your non-existent "evilutionists", who erect the 'supernatural' strawman."


And whatta 'ya think? Is 'Evilutionist' just the opposite of a BillyHoyt 'fundie'? :p

I thought you might comment on Pat's insistence that any inclusion of the supernatural automatically disqualifies something from serious consideration. Although, to be honest, I didn't understand his use of the term "forced" in his sentence, and the rest of the post was...interesting, but applying it to this particular conversation was one case where I truly did miss the point.

[PatKelley]

Pat's last response brings to mind another Pythonesque reply. "Let's not call them anything. Let's just ignore them."


I wonder if I can talk about "Punctualists" and "Gradualists".

What about "scientists"?


I am not here to stop you from doing anything; merely point out that it is incorrect to label a nonexistant group, and inappropriate to equate evolutionary theory with "random chance." If you feel I am somehow restraining you, I can check but as near as I know I do not control or have authority over you.

What should you call "them?" With regard to evolutionary theory, there is no "them." There are biologists, but they do not adhere to Darwin in any strict manner, nor to any one form of evolutionary theory. The theory is separate from any individual or identified group because it is a body of work and not an established doctrine. It survives, is modified, or it dies based on evidence. Anyone can verify DNA through onions, soap, and alcohol. One is free to accept or reject parts, modify parts, propose modifications of the theory and attempt to provide enough replicatable evidence to eventually add to the body of work. It is not dedicated solely as an exercise in attempting to win by default.

By contrast, when tracked down ID is outlined in various forms, has lists of supporters (which scientists and concerned persons did not do well to emulate), a formal representative organization (actually more than one) dedicated to popularizing it specifically rather than debate or scientific enquiry. It is a formalized movement, complete with strategy and tack for expanding its influence. It is primarily dedicated to attacking a created opposition and opposing a phantom agenda. The last thing it can be called is a formalized hypothesis.


I just want to see if I've got this straight. Not citing the name of a dictionary is like McCarthyis...I mean, it's acting like McCarthy. Joe McCarthy,right? Or is there a different, more specialized McCarthy?

This case, the artificial comparison to McCarthyism, appears to be common in your arguments. Not the comparison to McCarthyism per se, but rather attempting misdirection, ignoring your failed arguments, and eventually feigning indifference. I'm also convinced you did not start from a neutral viewpoint but arrived already an Intelligent Design apologist.

So how about those references. Come on. I've got to see them.

Well, I'm sure this wasn't meant for me, but:
Ten Reasons Why "Evolution Only" is Logically, Scientifically, and Legally Controversial (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/tenreas.PDF), the author details not any support for ID but rather arguments against evolution including a characterization of science as religion in attempting to facet "methodological naturalism" as a philosophical position actively arrayed against religion. It specifically decries the exclusion of design or teleological arguments. This is not an objection to alternative theories; it is an objection to exclusion of the supernatural. Why would ID object to exclusion of the supernatural? Why not restrict it to design rather than including teleological arguments?

It could be because many of the arguments of ID are supportive of the "theistic" community. Is this by chance or design? I would argue, in this case, against the former.

And as to negative proof, in reason five: "Accordingly, until science can rule out on the basis of the evidence, Natural Selection as the basis for all of the diversity of life remains nothing more than a very controversial speculation"

It additionally, in [I]reason seven, refers to the "it looks like" aspect of the argument. "An 'evolution only' assumption is controversial because it requires us to ignore our minds and intuition that lead us to a contrary design inference." Emphasis added. Making evolution appear more unintuitive and unlikely would appear to be to the benefit of Intelligent Design, and indeed the opportunity is immediately exploited:"Statistical studies indicate a random arrangement for just one gene is statistically impossible." Not improbable, unlikely, or remote in possibility: impossible.

And, of course, outright falsehood in the case of reason eight in which an argument that is false is invoked because it appears to make the opposition look bad: "...the use of staged photos of moths on tree trunks to demonstrate the efficacy of natural selection when biologists have known since the 1980's that moths don't rest on tree trunks..." Someone had best tell the biologists, as apparently the moths are doing it wrong by actually resting in trees during the day and this should be taken into account in accruing field observation.

Now, this is one document of many in only one Intelligent Design site, and the remainder follow this pattern. Please tell me again where I got these ideas that ID proponents were making the arguments I'd claimed they had made, as apparently my own eyes are, like the peppered moths, not doing what they are supposed to do.

[Meadmaker]

This case, the artificial comparison to McCarthyism, appears to be common in your arguments.

If it's common in my arguments, it must be really common in Billy's. He's the one who said it.

[/QUOTE] I'm also convinced you did not start from a neutral viewpoint but arrived already an Intelligent Design apologist. [/QUOTE]

If you want to know where I started, you can read the first post. I'm not sure "apologist" is the best word, but it isn't the worst. I'm certainly not an ID believer, but I do think it is a valid hypothesis that has not (yet) been disproven. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.

Well, I'm sure this wasn't meant for me,

It certainly wasn't. Billy was talking about randomness, and said he would post some references, but I'll read yours, too.

It could be because many of the arguments of ID are supportive of the "theistic" community. Is this by chance or design? I would argue, in this case, against the former.

You would be wasting your argument. Everyone, including everyone in the ID community, already agrees with you.


Please tell me again where I got these ideas that ID proponents were making the arguments I'd claimed they had made, as apparently my own eyes are, like the peppered moths, not doing what they are supposed to do.

I'm sorry. You've lost me. I recall saying that "by chance" was not a straw man, and I recall saying that ID was not creationism. I still believe those statements. Was there something else?

[Meadmaker]

Cripes. Since when is *poof* a mechanism?

Ever since "Let there be light." I think that happened in the beginning.

Seriously, though, ID won't provide a mechanism. That isn't what they do. Why should they? It isn't part of their concept. The more or less scientific part of their arguments is that it is statistically improbable for life as we know it to have originated as part of a random process.

[PatKelley]

If it's common in my arguments, it must be really common in Billy's. He's the one who said it.

Again, you failed to address the effort of the post. Your reading appears to be cursory, or you would have noted the continuation of the "McCarthyism" statement did not even call what you did McCarthyism, but included what you are doing now: behaving dismissively and not addressing the argument. Even to giving cursory reading to the posts of a person engaged in delivering an argument. I'm now suspicious of your reading and comprehension of Intelligent Design and evolutionary theory texts in addition to definitions. '

Actually, let's get my unexpurgated quote in full so we can see the entire quoted passage:
This case, the artificial comparison to McCarthyism, appears to be common in your arguments. Not the comparison to McCarthyism per se, but rather attempting misdirection, ignoring your failed arguments, and eventually feigning indifference.


I'm also convinced you did not start from a neutral viewpoint but arrived already an Intelligent Design apologist.

If you want to know where I started, you can read the first post. I'm not sure "apologist" is the best word, but it isn't the worst. I'm certainly not an ID believer, but I do think it is a valid hypothesis that has not (yet) been disproven. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.

It can never be disproven. That is the point. It was stated in the ID arguments if you'd read them. They insist that evolutionary theory is not valid unless it completely eliminates the idea of intelligent design.



Evolutionary theory doesn't have to disprove ID.



Intelligent design has to come up with its own mechanism and theory, while at the same time covering all the ground that evolutionary theory covers.


One doesn't win a basketball game by dissing the opponent's shoes. One has to actually step up and play.





It certainly wasn't. Billy was talking about randomness, and said he would post some references, but I'll read yours, too.

You would be wasting your argument. Everyone, including everyone in the ID community, already agrees with you.

So it is an openly theistic argument. Based on pushing teleology, and founded on the principle of "if it looks like, it is."

Glad we have no illusions festering about that.


I'm sorry. You've lost me. I recall saying that "by chance" was not a straw man, and I recall saying that ID was not creationism. I still believe those statements. Was there something else?

"By chance" is a strawman.

We've already covered that chance and random are not colloquially or even in the language of probability and statistics remotely accurate portrayals of evolution.

You've admitted this. Sometimes directly, sometimes through omission of response.

Why is it still not a straw man?

It is presented in the ID proponent arguments themselves, reason five, claiming that random chance cannot make a gene, "impossible" was the word used. Evolution makes no such claim; that randomness makes a gene out of whole cloth. A straw man; a position set up by an opponent as easier to assail.

Additionally, the assertion that evolutionary theory needs to disprove Intelligent Design is argumentum ad ignorantiam, subspecies Shifting the Burden.

Finally, ID is not Creationism. It differs in a few key points: omitting openly declaring God the Intelligent Designer, the name Intelligent Design instead of Creationism, the acceptance of microevolution or genetics and inheritance in the de novo term "microevolution." Beyond this, it is similar in pushing for the introduction of teleological arguments and the supernatural into the classroom. and similar in its demographic of support among Biblical literalists. My counter claim is that this was not done out of any advancement in Creation science, but as a method of attempting to avoid precedent and stari decisis. Bolstering this is the find-replace methodology in "Of Pandas and People," the same resources and arguments used in both movements, the strategy of each in attacking evolutionary theory and attempting to portray it as a religious movement, and the similarities continue.

[Meadmaker]

Pat, are you serious about trying to understand anything about ID, including why people like me might be apologists for it, or why scientists like Behe might be proponents? Or, more importantly, why Kansans might vote for it? If you are, here's what I recommend. Look up Behe or Dembski, see what they say, quote some flaws, and put it forward for discussion.

But if you already know everything that's worth knowing about the subject, there's no need to do that.

[PatKelley]

Pat, are you serious about trying to understand anything about ID, including why people like me might be apologists for it, or why scientists like Behe might be proponents? Or, more importantly, why Kansans might vote for it? If you are, here's what I recommend. Look up Behe or Dembski, see what they say, quote some flaws, and put it forward for discussion.

But if you already know everything that's worth knowing about the subject, there's no need to do that.
I have read, and I have understood. If you want particular quotes from particular individuals, this I can supply. I will look up the verbatim positions of both Behe and Dembski, put together sets of direct quotes, and return with questions and observations specifically pertaining to these individuals. Are they accepted as the sole representatives of Intelligent Design, or rather some among eminent authorities, because I'd rather not spin my wheels if they are going to be later declared not the true authorities on Intelligent Design.

I would ask that if I have stated in error, that I be corrected.

It would appear, however, that ID so far is claiming it does not need to provide a mechanism while evolutionary theory must instead provide proof that it is wrong.

This is shifting the burden, and as a core element of a supposedly scientific movement does not bode well for the remainder of their logic.

This is, bottom line, not science. People are free to like it, but liking and popularity are not substitutes for data and rigorous analysis, as much as the plural of anectdote is not data.

Discomfort with science is par for the course, as our numerous books (Frankenstein) and movies (Them, Godzilla) bear out. It is not a reason to rewrite it into a form we find palatable; science is not popular culture, and can't be rejected just because we don't like it or its implications.

I will return with quotes, questions, and observations.

[sphenisc]

You've admitted this. Sometimes directly, sometimes through omission of response.


:confused:
I've not appreciated that omission of response was indicative of agreement on Meadmaker's part. This seems to turn this thread from a reasoned debate into a war of attrition.

[BillHoyt]

Ever since "Let there be light." I think that happened in the beginning.
Ah, so a book, written by men who claim God wrote it, trumps all the evidence of science. Now there is a foundation.

Seriously, though, ID won't provide a mechanism.
In fact, it does. In fact, that mechanism is the foregone conclusion that an intelligent designer had to be involved to have created anything so complex. What could this designer be? ID won't say. So, let us reason about it: it is either natural or not. If natural, then it is also some kind of being, equally or more complex than life here on earth. Therefore, it, too, must have had an intelligent designer behind it. Oops, sounds like begging the question to me! Therefore, ID has to be saying the designer is not natural. But ID won't admit this. This completely disingenuous position makes ID a non-starter simply on logical grounds.
That isn't what they do. Why should they? It isn't part of their concept. The more or less scientific part of their arguments is that it is statistically improbable for life as we know it to have originated as part of a random process.
There are no scientific arguments in ID. There are pseudoscientific arguments. The other fatal flaws of ID abound and include: NO credible research supporting it, NO credible research from IDers refuting any aspect of it, no mechanism other than "poof", absolutely ignoring available research refuting the "too complex" arguments, an absolute misunderstanding of probability and processes. The most important misunderstanding is the one you've revealed here: Evolution is not a random process. It is a combination of random and deterministic processes, the latter so complex as to appear random. The selection process, at any given time and any given location, has directional arrows.

[BillHoyt]

Pat, are you serious about trying to understand anything about ID, including why people like me might be apologists for it, or why scientists like Behe might be proponents? Or, more importantly, why Kansans might vote for it? If you are, here's what I recommend. Look up Behe or Dembski, see what they say, quote some flaws, and put it forward for discussion.

But if you already know everything that's worth knowing about the subject, there's no need to do that.
Subject / Motive shift fallacy, meadmaker; back to logic class.

[PatKelley]

:confused:
I've not appreciated that omission of response was indicative of agreement on Meadmaker's part. This seems to turn this thread from a reasoned debate into a war of attrition.
Can I accept refusal to respond or refute assertions made as tacit approval of the logic? The alternative is to assume Meadmaker is cherry picking the responses for the sections he thinks most weak, or those which he can misrepresent through selective quoting.

I chose to interpret in a more positive light.

[Ed]

I am curious about the implications of ID. If something cannot be understood by an individual and that individual declares in a refereed paper "A Designer Did It", where does one go from there? Is further investigation blasphamous? Suppose I am an ID doctor. You come in and I can't figure out what is wrong. Is it reasonable to say "The Designer Did It"?

It seems that ID is codification of ignorance. How far should this "philosopy" extend?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Seriously, though, ID won't provide a mechanism. That isn't what they do. Why should they? It isn't part of their concept. The more or less scientific part of their arguments is that it is statistically improbable for life as we know it to have originated as part of a random process. Yes, this is what they say so that don't have to answer any questions about who the intelligent designer is. Unfortunately, if they stop at "it's really really improbable," then ID is vapid. This is particularly true if the attempts at probabilistic calculations do not address the particular path to the biological mechanism that we call evolution. Check out No Free Lunch: It does not include any probability calculations for evolution.

Pat, are you serious about trying to understand anything about ID, including why people like me might be apologists for it, or why scientists like Behe might be proponents? Or, more importantly, why Kansans might vote for it? If you are, here's what I recommend. Look up Behe or Dembski, see what they say, quote some flaws, and put it forward for discussion. I have, and you chose to ignore it.

Dembski treats the flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object and then proposes some (flaky) probability calculation for its falling together from amino acids. Is there some biologist proposing this as the origin of the flagellum? Dembski needs to do the probability calculation for the evolution of the flagellum.*

But if you already know everything that's worth knowing about the subject, there's no need to do that. You're being quite disingenuous here.

~~ Paul

* Of course, then he would first have to determine how it might have evolved. But then he would be admitting that its evolution was worth considering. Uh oh, spaghetti-Os.

[BillHoyt]

You come in and I can't figure out what is wrong. Is it reasonable to say "The Designer Did It"?
Now, Ed, don't confound ID with Christian Science.




(rim shot) Thanks for the straight line. I'll be here all week...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unfortunately, designerdidit just doesn't read as well as goddidit.

~~ Paul

[BillHoyt]

Unfortunately, designerdidit just doesn't read as well as goddidit.

~~ Paul
One must not forget the God gotta daddy argument.

[sphenisc]

Can I accept refusal to respond or refute assertions made as tacit approval of the logic? The alternative is to assume Meadmaker is cherry picking the responses for the sections he thinks most weak, or those which he can misrepresent through selective quoting.

I chose to interpret in a more positive light.

Hmm, 'tacit provisional acceptance for the sake of argument' perhaps, but near enough for the purposes of discussion.
'Cherry picking the responses for the sections he thinks most weak' seems to be standard practice on/in this forum. I've seen little evidence of people attacking each others' arguments at their strongest points.

Point made, agreement achieved (I think) ..pray continue. :)

[Tricky]

Dembski treats the flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object and then proposes some (flaky) probability calculation for its falling together from amino acids. Is there some biologist proposing this as the origin of the flagellum? Dembski needs to do the probability calculation for the evolution of the flagellum.*

* Of course, then he would first have to determine how it might have evolved. But then he would be admitting that its evolution was worth considering. Uh oh, spaghetti-Os.
Precisely.

I have a way I like to describe evolution which is a bit simplistic, but it illustrates the principle.

Have you ever played the game of yahtzee? It is a dice game where you try to get certain combinations using five dice. You get three rolls to achieve a "combination that works". The odds of rolling very good combination on the first roll are very low, but on the second roll, you get to keep the combinations that work a little. You then re-roll and the odds of getting a better combination on the second roll are much better, because the non-working parts are discarded. The second roll gives you better odds. Even more so on the third roll.

Now, think of the dice as the "random" element of evolution, and the successful combinations as the "working combinations". Lets call the rules of Yahtzee "natural selection" because that is what determines what is successful and what is not. If you've played the game, you will quickly discover that "working combinations" are highly likely after a few "naturally selected" rolls. If you added more rolls, they would be almost inevitable.

So when Dembski speaks of "amino acids falling together", he is implying that evolution must "pick up all the dice after each roll". He is simply ignoring the "rules of the game" that say that things which have even partial usefulness will stay "on the board".
***
Edited to add another concept

If you've played the game, you know that there are certain "niches", such as "sixes, full house, four-of-a-kind" etc. Once one of those niches is filled, the rules for what is a "successful combination" are changed. Four-sixes is not a good first roll ("partially successful combination") if your sixes, three-of-a-kind, four-of-a-kind and five-of-a-kind niches are already filled.
***

One thing that flaws this model is that the rules of Yahtzee are determined by some person. The "rules of the game". in the case of evolution, are not arbitrarily chosen, but are determined by the ecological niches that exist, creating selective pressure for some combinations to be successful and others not. Establishment of selective pressure is not a designed process, but it is far from random and indeed is changed by each new "successful combination". (e.g., blue-green algae didn't "plan" to poop out oxygen which would kill most of them, but make the planet hospitable for other life, and yet, that's was the inevitable consequence of their metabolism. Not planned, but not random.)

[sphenisc]

..snip... If natural, then it is also some kind of being, equally or more complex than life here on earth. Therefore, it, too, must have had an intelligent designer behind it. ...snip...

'I think you need to be more explicit here in step 2.'

[BillHoyt]

'I think you need to be more explicit here in step 2.'
Thank you, Sydney.

[Meadmaker]

Are they accepted as the sole representatives of Intelligent Design, or rather some among eminent authorities, because I'd rather not spin my wheels if they are going to be later declared not the true authorities on Intelligent Design.

Well, to me, those two guys, and Behe in particular, are pretty much the core of the movement. If you trash Behe, then you have pretty much answered my original question about whether ID can be disproved. As for why convincing me matters, think of me as a "swing voter". You'll never convince the hard core creationists, and you don't need to convince a lot of other people. However, people like me are rather indifferent to teaching about ID in schools. If you want to win Kansas, try out your arguments on me, first.

[BillHoyt]

Well, to me, those two guys, and Behe in particular, are pretty much the core of the movement. If you trash Behe, then you have pretty much answered my original question about whether ID can be disproved. As for why convincing me matters, think of me as a "swing voter". You'll never convince the hard core creationists, and you don't need to convince a lot of other people. However, people like me are rather indifferent to teaching about ID in schools. If you want to win Kansas, try out your arguments on me, first.
Science by vote? Science by debate? Science by court decree? Sorry; fuggit about it. If you want to win me, try understanding how science actually works, first.

Let's try this one first: from whatever "peer-reviewed ID journals" exist, please give me five citations of research demonstrating refuted null hypotheses designed from a pro-ID perspective

[Meadmaker]

So when Dembski speaks of "amino acids falling together", he is implying that evolution must "pick up all the dice after each roll". He is simply ignoring the "rules of the game" that say that things which have even partial usefulness will stay "on the board".


In the writings I have seen of his, and I haven't read all of them by any stretch, he doesn't seem to be saying this. I think what he is saying is that you have three rolls of the dice, but to get a Yahtzee, you have 100 dice that all have to line up.

One good analogy to Yahtzee, evolution, and ID theory would be to note that in Yahtzee, you can look ahead to see what rolls are good rolls. If I have my ones slot filled, and I roll four ones on my first roll, I will select those four ones as keepers, anyway. I do this because I know I have a good chance of receiving the huge payout, which is the Yahtzee.

However, natural selection doesn't allow that. Those four ones are useless by themselves, so natural selection wouldn't allow them to survive. The Yahtzee is irreducibly complex!

On the other hand, I usually get a Yahtzee when trying for something else, such as the four of a kind or the stuff in the top row. This demonstrates cooption. I am aiming for one thing, but discover it is useful in another way. I have taken an indirect Darwinian path, in Dembski's terms, to get to my Yahtzee.

And, have you ever noticed that it is almost as common to leave the Large Straight unfilled, even though it is statistically much, much, more likely than a Yahtzee. This is because the notion of irreducible complexity applies even moreso to large straights. Individually, those pieces are almost worthless, with no survival benefit. I rarely keep them around. Unlike three threes, which I can use elsewhere, a 1,2,3, 5, 6, is likely to result in a complete reroll, unless my card is nearly full, and the only niche left is the large straight. So, using unnatural selection, I aim for the large straight.

But anyway, I say that mostly because it's kind of fun to discuss Yahtzee and ID, but if there is a serious point to be made, it is that I don't read Dembski as saying what you said about him. That's why I asked Pat to provide some references. I think a great deal is misunderstood about him and Behe. There still isn't a lot of substance there, but it's not as bad as people make it out to be, IMHO.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh Bill, you party pooper, you.


If you want to win Kansas, try out your arguments on me, first.
I just did. I can't find a single example of a probability calculation that puts the kibosh on evolution. Is there one among those citations Bill requested?

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Let's try this one first: from whatever "peer-reviewed ID journals" exist, please give me five citations of research demonstrating refuted null hypotheses designed from a pro-ID perspective

Why?

That's a serious question by the way. I don't understand what refuted null hypotheses have to do with anything.

Of course you know that you won't find five citations of ID in peer reviewed journals. To the best of my knowledge, and I will probably look it up later, Behe has published one pro-ID paper in a peer reviewed journal. I could be wrong about that, but I think he had one in Journal of Molecular Biology.

Any luck on those references?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In the writings I have seen of his, and I haven't read all of them by any stretch, he doesn't seem to be saying this. I think what he is saying is that you have three rolls of the dice, but to get a Yahtzee, you have 100 dice that all have to line up. But he doesn't allow for any sort of step-by-step evolution. He calculates the probability of the flagellum falling together, like the stoopid airplane-from-a-junkyard analogy. This is patently silly, even if you ignore evolution completely.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Oh Bill, you party pooper, you.


I just did. I can't find a single example of a probability calculation that puts the kibosh on evolution. Is there one among those citations Bill requested?

~~ Paul

Therefore ID is unproven. Your point?

[BillHoyt]

Why?

That's a serious question by the way. I don't understand what refuted null hypotheses have to do with anything.

Of course you know that you won't find five citations of ID in peer reviewed journals. To the best of my knowledge, and I will probably look it up later, Behe has published one pro-ID paper in a peer reviewed journal. I could be wrong about that, but I think he had one in Journal of Molecular Biology.

Any luck on those references?
No, of course, you know there are no such citations available. The reason is the research sucks eggs. To wit, a response to your Behe article:

"A recent paper in this journal has challenged the idea that complex adaptive features of proteins can be explained by known molecular, genetic, and evolutionary mechanisms. It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic."
Protein Sci. 2005 Sep;14(9):2217-25; discussion 2226-7. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16131652&query_hl=6)

Now, please do provide the citations I asked for, from "ID" journals, sir. Not ones in which you can engage in a subject/motive shift, please, but their own "journals." If you don't understand the reason for my question, or its import, as your first sentence implies, I will gladly elaborate.

[Tricky]

In the writings I have seen of his, and I haven't read all of them by any stretch, he doesn't seem to be saying this. I think what he is saying is that you have three rolls of the dice, but to get a Yahtzee, you have 100 dice that all have to line up..
Well, that is why the analogy is limited. Sure you have to get 100 dice to line up, but you also get as many "rolls" as there are mutations. Toss the bad ones, keep the good ones. Repeat for several thousand generations.

One good analogy to Yahtzee, evolution, and ID theory would be to note that in Yahtzee, you can look ahead to see what rolls are good rolls. If I have my ones slot filled, and I roll four ones on my first roll, I will select those four ones as keepers, anyway. I do this because I know I have a good chance of receiving the huge payout, which is the Yahtzee.
However, natural selection doesn't allow that. Those four ones are useless by themselves, so natural selection wouldn't allow them to survive. The Yahtzee is irreducibly complex!

Well, I did point out that this is a difference. There is a human dictating the rules of yahtzee versus natural selection. But you can sort of get around this. Say there is a niche out there, something like, "there's an environment accessible to these organisms, but they can't populate it because it is too warm for them." So the "slot" is determined: More heat tolerant. Any "roll" that results in even partial heat tolerance is going to be a "keeper".
The Yahtzee parallel is that if you haven't filled your "ones" niche, then four ones is a "keeper". It depends on the niches available in your scoresheet. (The non-parallel to yahtzee is that if you already had three ones, you couldn't replace them with "better selected" four ones, but like I said, it's not a perfect analogy. Too many rule differences.)

Just to ruminate on this for a moment, do you suppose that there would be much better adapted organisms if they didn't have the annoying problem of finding a niche for their "ones", aka precursors or "hopeful monsters"?

On the other hand, I usually get a Yahtzee when trying for something else, such as the four of a kind or the stuff in the top row. This demonstrates cooption. I am aiming for one thing, but discover it is useful in another way. I have taken an indirect Darwinian path, in Dembski's terms, to get to my Yahtzee.
LOL. I don't doubt at all that this has happened many times in evolution. For example, sharks teeth are modified scales, and it is their teeth that are perhaps their most notable characteristic. You might say they were rolling for the "body protection" four-of-a-kind, but lucked into the "perfect eating machine" yahtzee.

And, have you ever noticed that it is almost as common to leave the Large Straight unfilled, even though it is statistically much, much, more likely than a Yahtzee. This is because the notion of irreducible complexity applies even moreso to large straights. Individually, those pieces are almost worthless, with no survival benefit. I rarely keep them around. Unlike three threes, which I can use elsewhere, a 1,2,3, 5, 6, is likely to result in a complete reroll, unless my card is nearly full, and the only niche left is the large straight. So, using unnatural selection, I aim for the large straight.
Yes. You see a yahtzee parallel to so-called "living fossils", like the coelacanth and the horseshoe crab; Organisms that are far different from almost anything else, but under very specific circumstances, are competitive. Most other things that "couldn't fill in the large straight" have died out. Was it a lucky throw for a very narrow, low potential niche?

And if only a very few niches were available, might you see some organisms exhibit some very odd "rolls" that allow them to fit the niche? Think of things like the sulphur-metabolizing microbes that manage to live in hyperthermal vents, an environment that no other organisms can inhabit.

So if your only niche is the large-straight/hotspring-vent, it takes very specific "rolls" to fit them, and they aren't rolled very often.

But anyway, I say that mostly because it's kind of fun to discuss Yahtzee and ID...
Isn't it though!
:p
...but if there is a serious point to be made, it is that I don't read Dembski as saying what you said about him. That's why I asked Pat to provide some references. I think a great deal is misunderstood about him and Behe. There still isn't a lot of substance there, but it's not as bad as people make it out to be, IMHO.
It is not that what they say doesn't have merit. They may contain some very legitimate critiques of evolutionary theory. The problem is their motives. I do not believe for one second that their goal is to provide a better understanding of how life has arisen on earth. If that were the case, then they would be writing at length about how biblical fundamentalists should stop tying them to their cause. But they seem to be making no attempt to clarify their position to creationists. That is just my impression. I could be wrong.

And of course, there is the problem that even though they may be good as critics, they are not good at providing alternative theories. Not that there isn't a need for critics, but to call their critiques "Intelligent Design" is false advertising because they never get into the part where they explain how ID works. They should call it "Unsolved Problems with Evolution".

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running.” -- Channing Pollock

[Meadmaker]

No, of course, you know there are no such citations available. The reason is the research sucks eggs. To wit, a response to your Behe article:



But Billy, I wasn't asking about those references. I was asking for the references that you were going to use in order to correct my comprehension of randomness. Although, goodness knows, I'm getting a great deal of education about randomness trying to follow some of these conversations.

Well, it isn't all that important, I suppose. The whole affair wasn't very significant anyway, although I was amused by the introduction of the McCarthy reference.

I was, in fact, incorrect about Behe's one ID-supportive peer reviewed paper. It was in Protein Science, not the Jounal of Molecular Biology, as you have already pointed out. And, as your link makes clear, it was not universally praised. (I'm not familiar with biological journals, but I'm guessing that "Protein Science" is considerably less prestigious than the Journal of Molecular Biology.) Unfortunately, both the original paper and the refutation are in copyrighted material, not available on the web, so I can't read either one.

I'm going to see if I can get any of Behe's or Dembski's books out of our local library. I certainly am not going to pay for them. I will bet that they are available, if not locally, at least by interlibrary loan. They're just the sort of things that some people, you know, those people, would just love to donate to a library where schoolchildren frequently visit.


Now, please do provide the citations I asked for, from "ID" journals, sir.

Billy, you know I can't do that. I'm sure there's a Latin term for deliberately demanding something that cannot be produced, but I don't know what it is.

And you didn't answer why journal articles about null hypotheses are important. I understand why journal articles of any sort would bolster their case, but I don't understand why null hypotheses are relevant here.

[Meadmaker]

Well, that is why the analogy is limited. Sure you have to get 100 dice to line up, but you also get as many "rolls" as there are mutations. Toss the bad ones, keep the good ones. Repeat for several thousand generations.

But you only have about 400 million years to get from some soft, squishy, pre-Cambrian things to a fully grown Stegosaurus. Feel lucky?



Just to ruminate on this for a moment, do you suppose that there would be much better adapted organisms if they didn't have the annoying problem of finding a niche for their "ones", aka precursors or "hopeful monsters"?

Absolutely. That's part of ID "theory" as well. They point out that one difficult of Darwinian evolution is that there has to be a niche available for the organism at every step along the way. First, roll your threes. Then your four of a kind. Then your Yahtzee. If your four of a kind niche is already filled, then there's no point getting your fourth three at all. You aren't better adapted by being closer to a Yahtzee. That's irreducible complexity for you. In the evolution version of Yahtzee, you can keep your threes as good threes, but you can't get any benefit from the possible future Yahtzee.

But it's even worse than that. Your threes are perfectly happy just being threes. They aren't trying to turn into Yahtzees. They are just trying to be better threes. At some point, they have to suddenly start being Yahtzees, when all they had been doing was minding their threes business. And above, I noted that threes could turn into four of a kind, which provides a nice stepping stone to a Yahtzee, but threes are really lousy at being four of a kind, because sixes get more four of a kind points than threes do. So, on their way from being threes, they are stuck in a substandard niche, and yet somehow they end up as Yahtzees anyway? Preposterous! That might work in standard five dice games, but at my house we play with special 1000 dice rules, and the rules say that your score has to increase on every single roll, or else your turn ends. It's like dying without offspring.



It is not that what they say doesn't have merit... They should call it "Unsolved Problems with Evolution".

I almost started started talking about this myself, but got sidetracked. That's a good point. Even if every single thing that they say which is scientific could somehow be verified, what you would be left with is the fact that Darwinian evolution doesn't explain some problems. I suppose it wouldn't automatically leave design as the only possible explanation. On the other hand, it would leave "godidit" as a pretty reasonable alternative.

[Taffer]

Even if every single thing that they say which is scientific could somehow be verified, what you would be left with is the fact that Darwinian evolution doesn't explain some problems.

Which ones would those be, then?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Therefore ID is unproven. Your point?
So is every other possible idea with no evidence or logic to support it. Do we pay them any heed or give them the time of day?

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Which ones would those be, then?
How proteins came to exist.

[Tricky]

But you only have about 400 million years to get from some soft, squishy, pre-Cambrian things to a fully grown Stegosaurus. Feel lucky?
That would take incredible luck... if the Stegosaurus was the goal. But evolution doesn't have a goal, other than, "whatever works". Stegosauruses worked... for a while.
Absolutely. That's part of ID "theory" as well. They point out that one difficult of Darwinian evolution is that there has to be a niche available for the organism at every step along the way. First, roll your threes. Then your four of a kind. Then your Yahtzee. If your four of a kind niche is already filled, then there's no point getting your fourth three at all. You aren't better adapted by being closer to a Yahtzee.
It's a simplistic model. Make it a hundred dice, and you have many more reason to keep your threes. But it is still true that if a mutation creates and individual that can't find a new niche or force a better-adapted organism out of an old niche, then it will become extinct, even though it is "pretty good". If it can, force the old organism out, then the old organism will have to find another niche, or become extinct.

But I think we've about reached the limit of using Yahtzee as a model. It was only meant to show how evolution is not a new roll of the dice every time, but is build on numerous successful rolls.


That's irreducible complexity for you. In the evolution version of Yahtzee, you can keep your threes as good threes, but you can't get any benefit from the possible future Yahtzee.
Actually, in evolution, you can't stop rolling until you are extinct. There is no option to "decide not to evolve". It is not goal-seeking.

But it's even worse than that. Your threes are perfectly happy just being threes. They aren't trying to turn into Yahtzees. They are just trying to be better threes. At some point, they have to suddenly start being Yahtzees, when all they had been doing was minding their threes business. And above, I noted that threes could turn into four of a kind, which provides a nice stepping stone to a Yahtzee, but threes are really lousy at being four of a kind, because sixes get more four of a kind points than threes do. So, on their way from being threes, they are stuck in a substandard niche, and yet somehow they end up as Yahtzees anyway? Preposterous! That might work in standard five dice games, but at my house we play with special 1000 dice rules, and the rules say that your score has to increase on every single roll, or else your turn ends. It's like dying without offspring.
All you have said in the above paragraph supports evolution. Things don't "try" to evolve. It just happens. Things get stuck in niches with no growth potential, like the living fossils I mentioned earlier. The sixes of the world will outnumber the threes of the world, but there is still a place for threes.

But, as is well noted by both of us, Yahtzee is an insufficient model to explain all of evolution (or intelligent design). Just kinda fun.

I almost started started talking about this myself, but got sidetracked. That's a good point. Even if every single thing that they say which is scientific could somehow be verified, what you would be left with is the fact that Darwinian evolution doesn't explain some problems. I suppose it wouldn't automatically leave design as the only possible explanation. On the other hand, it would leave "godidit" as a pretty reasonable alternative.
No, once again you are suggesting "giving up" and accepting "godidit" as a fallback, even though there is no evidence whatsoever for "godidit". I find this to be the main flaw with ID. Certainly you can agree that we can never try every possible explanation, but the explanations with evidence have the inside track. To give the explanation with no evidence the nod, just because there are no clear winners among the explanations with evidence strikes me as favoritism. It is what people who were cheering for god all along would do.

And that's what creationism and, to a lesser extent, ID are doing. They have a favorite candidate. Their candidate has no qualifications whatsoever, but they know they can win public support by running a smear campaign against the other opponent(s). Even if they win public support, their candidate still has no qualifications.

[BillHoyt]

But Billy, I wasn't asking about those references.
Please note my name is "Bill," not the diminutive.

I was asking for the references that you were going to use in order to correct my comprehension of randomness. Although, goodness knows, I'm getting a great deal of education about randomness trying to follow some of these conversations.

"PSEUDO-RANDOM
A source of data which is effectively unpredictable although generated by a determinate process. Successive PSEUDO-RANDOM data are produced by a fixed calculation process acting upon preceding data from the PSEUDO-RANDOM sequence. To start the sequence it is necessary to decide arbitrarily upon a first datum, which is termed the SEED value. Also see : BOOTSTRAP, MONTE-CARLO TEST"

Source (http://linkage.rockefeller.edu/wli/glossary/stat.html)

"Chaotic systems are mathematically deterministic but nearly impossible to predict. Chaos is more evident in long-term systems than in short-term systems."
Source (http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/)

"Randomness should not be confused with practical unpredictability, which is a related idea in ordinary usage. Some mathematical systems, for example, could be seen as random; however these are considered unpredictable. This is due to sensitive dependence on initial conditions (see chaos theory). Many random phenomena may exhibit organized features at some levels. For example, while the average rate of increase in the human population is quite predictable, in the short term, the actual timing of individual births and deaths cannot be predicted. This small-scale randomness is found in almost all real-world systems. Ohm's law and the kinetic theory of gases are statistically reliable descriptions of the 'sum' (ie, the net result or integration) of vast numbers of individual micro events, each of which are random, and none of which are individually predictable. (Theoretically the micro-events of gases, for example, could be predicted if the exact position, velocity, atomic composition, angular momentum, and so on of each particle were known.) All we directly perceive is circuit noise and some bulk gas behaviors."

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random)

I was, in fact, incorrect about Behe's one ID-supportive peer reviewed paper. It was in Protein Science, not the Jounal of Molecular Biology, as you have already pointed out. And, as your link makes clear, it was not universally praised. (I'm not familiar with biological journals, but I'm guessing that "Protein Science" is considerably less prestigious than the Journal of Molecular Biology.) Unfortunately, both the original paper and the refutation are in copyrighted material, not available on the web, so I can't read either one.
Both are respected journals. Both are available at any university library. It is not hard to research these things. One must question why you're so interested in defending this pap, willing to fling off a mangled citation and then simply retreat to the defense: "Oh, this is hard to look up." Yes, ignorance is far easier.
I'm going to see if I can get any of Behe's or Dembski's books out of our local library. I certainly am not going to pay for them. I will bet that they are available, if not locally, at least by interlibrary loan. They're just the sort of things that some people, you know, those people, would just love to donate to a library where schoolchildren frequently visit.
The books are a joke in science. Better to review Behe's pitiful work and review the replies in the literature.

Billy, you know I can't do that. I'm sure there's a Latin term for deliberately demanding something that cannot be produced, but I don't know what it is.
No, there is no fallacy in my request. It can't be produced because it doesn't exist. Yet ID journals do exist. You won't find research in them that indicates serious scientific research is going on. That is my point. Go try to find it, sir. It ain't there. The problem is not my asking for it; the problem is they are not actually doing science and this is one of the easiest pieces of evidence of their disingenuous efforts.

And you didn't answer why journal articles about null hypotheses are important. I understand why journal articles of any sort would bolster their case, but I don't understand why null hypotheses are relevant here.
I suspect you don't know what a null hypothesis is, then. I suggest you learn quickly before you try to convince anybody about anything to do with science.

If you are willing to learn, I am willing to point you in the right direction.

[Ed]

And you didn't answer why journal articles about null hypotheses are important. I understand why journal articles of any sort would bolster their case, but I don't understand why null hypotheses are relevant here.

Because at the core of science is falsifiability. Something is demonstrable or it isn't. The refutation of the null hypothesis is the formal manner in which this is done. And you will also note that if the null hypothesis is not refuted, the truth of the hypothesis is not absolutely rejected, it is simply not supported with an acceptable level of liklihood.

Religious beliefs are not gneerally subjected to this sort of scrutiny.

What would be interesting are citations of research that support evolution in ID Journals. If they are science after all....

[PatKelley]

But Billy, I wasn't asking about those references.

Please note my name is "Bill," not the diminutive.

Again with the name calling, Meadmaker? Next you'll be calling him a "Random Evolutionist."

[hankalme]

Absolutely. That's part of ID "theory" as well. They point out that one difficult of Darwinian evolution is that there has to be a niche available for the organism at every step along the way.

This is only a problem is you insist that evolution has some goal in mind. If the ToE insisted that life moves from simple to complex, or from slime to stegasaurus, then the lack of a niche for intermediate forms would be an issue.

The process does not work that way; it has no goal. The ToE proposes a system where organisms best adapted to whatever the environment is will tend to produce more offspring -- nothing more. Looking at a particular organism or structure, it is not reasonable to insist each step had a 'niche'. The string of precoursors indicate the set of 'niches' that were there. They are the one (or one of the) sets of organisms that fit the environments best.

First, roll your threes. Then your four of a kind. Then your Yahtzee. If your four of a kind niche is already filled, then there's no point getting your fourth three at all. You aren't better adapted by being closer to a Yahtzee. That's irreducible complexity for you. In the evolution version of Yahtzee, you can keep your threes as good threes, but you can't get any benefit from the possible future Yahtzee.

But it's even worse than that. Your threes are perfectly happy just being threes. They aren't trying to turn into Yahtzees. They are just trying to be better threes. At some point, they have to suddenly start being Yahtzees, when all they had been doing was minding their threes business. And above, I noted that threes could turn into four of a kind, which provides a nice stepping stone to a Yahtzee, but threes are really lousy at being four of a kind, because sixes get more four of a kind points than threes do. So, on their way from being threes, they are stuck in a substandard niche, and yet somehow they end up as Yahtzees anyway? Preposterous! That might work in standard five dice games, but at my house we play with special 1000 dice rules, and the rules say that your score has to increase on every single roll, or else your turn ends. It's like dying without offspring.



This is a false analogy, for the same reason discussed above. In the 'yahtzee environment', with the rules as set above, a yahtzee is unlikely, but that is not due to any problem with evolution, rather due to the fact that the rules (the environent) make a yahzee unlikely. The combinations of dice that end up being common in the above are those best suited to the environment.




I almost started started talking about this myself, but got sidetracked. That's a good point. Even if every single thing that they say which is scientific could somehow be verified, what you would be left with is the fact that Darwinian evolution doesn't explain some problems. I suppose it wouldn't automatically leave design as the only possible explanation. On the other hand, it would leave "godidit" as a pretty reasonable alternative.

"Goddidt" is never "Reasonable", as it is not sommething that can be reasoned about. A supernatural explanation is not falsafiable, so a rational thought process is not possible. Once thing happen by divine fiat, any explanation is equally possible: God, Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever else comes to mind.

As a way to better understand our world, ID is worthless. It is surrender to ignorance and mysticism.

Cheers,

Hank

[Meadmaker]

Please note my name is "Bill," not the diminutive.

Sorry. My mistake.

[Meadmaker]

Again with the name calling, Meadmaker? Next you'll be calling him a "Random Evolutionist."

Actually, there's a simpler explanation. I need glasses. This bums me out incredibly because, until recently, I had incredibly good eyesight. I hate this middle age thing.

[BillHoyt]

Sorry. My mistake.
I was rather hoping for a more substantive reply. There was a bit more to my post, as you'll recall.

[Meadmaker]

"Randomness should not be confused with practical unpredictability, which is a related idea in ordinary usage.


Precisely. "Practical unpredictability" would be a lot like a uniform density function, would it not? If I have a uniform density function, I cannot predict the answer, but if I have randomness, I might be able to predict the final result. To apply this to evolution, the end results of evolution are fairly predictable. Organisms will evolve toward greater survivability, related to their ability to fill available niches.

It does so by random events. When I said "random", that should not be confused with me saying that it exhibits "practical unpredictability". I was accused of using a straw man argument because when I said "random" (actually I started by saying "by chance", but I meant random), it was asserted that I was saying that there was no predictability, or no pattern, or something. That was not the case. Evolution does precede predictably, at random. That is what I said. That is what I meant. Not unlike the following:


Many random phenomena may exhibit organized features at some levels. For example, while the average rate of increase in the human population is quite predictable, in the short term, the actual timing of individual births and deaths cannot be predicted. This small-scale randomness is found in almost all real-world systems.

Evolution, like almost all real-world systems, exhibits small scale randomness. Can we agree on that? And if we agree on that, then we agree that using "random" in conjunction with evolution is not a straw man, correct?

Now, to go back to the original comment that I made, I said that ID insists that the probability of the development of complex organismism is such that it could not have happened "by chance". I'll substitute "randomly", if there is no objection. They would probably say that evolving a flagellum in such a manner is theoretically possible, but would be a bit like crowding all the gas molecules of a jar into the left half. It is theoretically possible, but it is so improbable that in practice it can never happen.

Now, since we understand what they are saying, and what I was referring to, and we realize that this is not a straw man, we then have to ask if they are correct? To do that, we would have to calculate the probability that a system could evolve. Has any evolutionist (more on that word in a moment) ever done that? No. Has any creationist , ID supporter, or other anti-evolutionist ever done that? Not in any way that anyone takes seriously. So, can we determine the accuracy of the ID proponent's asserion? No.

A note on "evolutionist". I asked for an alternate term, and got three paragraphs of explanation, with no alternate term. I'm going to keep saying "evolutionist".

I suspect you don't know what a null hypothesis is, then.

Au contraire. I just don't understand how it has anything to do with this conversation. ID is trivially falsifiable, in principle. Evolve something. Or provide a model of how it could happen. The closest thing we sort of have to that is maybe a little bit of a description of modifications to a virus or bacteria population. Not very persuasive.

Meanwhile, a note about those bacteria. Does anyone know if even the oft-cited antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria actually are exhibiting anything more than population evolution? In other words, most bacteria die when exposed to antibiotics. A few do not. Zap a lot of antibiotics onto the bacteria, and the next generation of will have a whole bunch of antibiotic resistant bacteria, because the others will be dead. That isn't evolution, in the sense we normally think about it. No new features of any organism were developed. Does anyone know if "true" evolution is occurring in those bacteria? i.e. are there new proteins or combinations of proteins developing in those bacteria that make them more able to resist antibiotics?



ETA: Good things, come to those who wait, Bill. Or at least things.

[BillHoyt]

Precisely. "Practical unpredictability" would be a lot like a uniform density function, would it not? If I have a uniform density function, I cannot predict the answer, but if I have randomness, I might be able to predict the final result. To apply this to evolution, the end results of evolution are fairly predictable. Organisms will evolve toward greater survivability, related to their ability to fill available niches.
No. The udf is predictable in a stochastic way, but not in a deterministic way. I don't know what you mean by the distinction you draw between "answer" and "final result."

It does so by random events. When I said "random", that should not be confused with me saying that it exhibits "practical unpredictability".
No, organisms do not evolve solely by random events. This is an important point to understand. Mutation events are random, but do not follow a uniform distribution, btw. Selection, at a given time and locale, has a directionality to it. It has an "arrow," if you will.

I was accused of using a straw man argument because when I said "random" (actually I started by saying "by chance", but I meant random), it was asserted that I was saying that there was no predictability, or no pattern, or something. That was not the case. Evolution does precede predictably, at random. That is what I said. That is what I meant. Not unlike the following:




Evolution, like almost all real-world systems, exhibits small scale randomness. Can we agree on that? And if we agree on that, then we agree that using "random" in conjunction with evolution is not a straw man, correct?

No, we cannot agree on that. See my previous paragraph.
Now, to go back to the original comment that I made, I said that ID insists that the probability of the development of complex organismism is such that it could not have happened "by chance". I'll substitute "randomly", if there is no objection. They would probably say that evolving a flagellum in such a manner is theoretically possible, but would be a bit like crowding all the gas molecules of a jar into the left half. It is theoretically possible, but it is so improbable that in practice it can never happen.
No. The calculations IDers make are simplistic and wrong-headed. 1. Evolution is not wholly random. 2. Mutation is random. 3. Each mutation step needs to be described as a conditional probability, given the previous system state.

Now, since we understand what they are saying,
Uh, no "we" don't. How about we halt here until we get this material down?

Au contraire. I just don't understand how it has anything to do with this conversation. ID is trivially falsifiable, in principle. Evolve something. Or provide a model of how it could happen. The closest thing we sort of have to that is maybe a little bit of a description of modifications to a virus or bacteria population. Not very persuasive.
No, you don't understand. The Intelligent Falling theory is also trivially falsifiable. Fall up. That's a non-starter. How about you work on understanding my question before we go on?

[BillHoyt]

Oops. meant to edit.

[Meadmaker]

Mutation events are random, but do not follow a uniform distribution, btw.

Could you please tell Pat that such a thing is possible:

PatKellythe truly random would not have such things as probable or improbable outcomes but an even distribution.

More later. For now, back to work.

[BillHoyt]

Could you please tell Pat that such a thing is possible:



More later. For now, back to work.
My points, sir?

[PatKelley]

Mutation events are random, but do not follow a uniform distribution, btw.
Could you please tell Pat that such a thing is possible:

If you will return to the thread- oh, wait this is the thread - you'd see that I did not argue that random events did not occur; I argued that evolutionary theory cannot be described as "random chance." I in fact argued that only the random events within a framework of an iterative probability space can be construed as truly random. As such, they are only part - a small part - of evolutionary theory, and to characterize the entirety of evolution as random is disingenuous or sloppy.

I don't suppose you caught the part that said mutation events were random, but their distribution is not uniform i.e. not random.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Pat, Pat, Pat ... evolution shall be random. Otherwise the IDers would have to do all the hard work involved in computing the probabilities of biological mechanisms coming about by evolution.

So much easier to commit a few AND-multiplication errors and be done with it.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

My points, sir?
Patience, milord.