Prof

Just to be clear, I'm an atheist (I can imagine from the thread title it might look like a post from an ID type).

I'm wondering if anyone has seen this ID web site, which purports to explain predictions drawn from the theory of Intelligent Design.

They pit it as "Design vs. Descent: A war of predictions." Naturally, you can tell who, in their mind, comes out on top.

Some other fundies with whom I often debate are actually swallowing this stuff of course. I'd love to see the experienced folk on this forum have a go at it. First, a couple of the predictions from the site:


(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.

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

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

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


Here's the full article on the web page:

Link To ID vs Evolution Predictions

Have fun!

Rich.

God Fearing Atheist

Thats cute, seeing as how,

1) If "irreducibly complexity" even makes sense, its perfectly consistent with the modern theory of evolution (co-option of preexisting functionality)...

2) The fossil record unambiguously documents evolution...

3) Is perfectly consistent with common ancestry...

and 4) Despite the fact that some psuedogenes may have function, most do not.

I loved this part:

Well golly, that would be ALL organisms, wouldnt it? :banghead:

-GFA

Nic Tamzek

I'm beginning to think that Casey Luskin's a YEC. He never declared himself in an email debate I had with him awhile ago, and now he says:

The basic answers to Luskin's points are listed below. The quotes are from his last table, I've inserted 'Ev', 'ID', and ''Fact''.

As has been discussed ad nauseum, gradual evolutionary processes can, and regularly do, produce intricate systems with multiple required parts. The most important mechanism is simply change-of-function, emphasized by Darwin and every biological authority since, and supported by numerous examples.

The Origin of "Information" via natural causes
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...act=ST;f=9;t=6

immune system evolution
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...ct=ST;f=9;t=16

Evolution of multiple-parts-required pathways
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...ct=ST;f=9;t=17

Co-option/change of function
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...act=ST;f=9;t=8

Evolving Immunity
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html

Irreducible Complexity Demystified
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html


There are plenty of transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

'Punk Eek' is an application of Mayr's theory of allopatric speciation to paleontology, and applies only to species-species transitions, which are indeed commonly (but not always, studies of good fossil records often put the number at 50-50) absent. Gould himself has said that for transitions between higher taxonomic levels there are plenty of transitionals.

A classic example is the horse fossil record, where some species "microevolve" and some appear abruptly:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/


The Cambrian 'Explosion', OTOH, is probably mostly the result of the emergence of large, hard-bodied critters from their microscopic, wormlike ancestors, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/well...rian-explosion

Luskin quote-mines a whole bunch of quotes on incongruence, but neglects to mention that the big picture is that of congruence with a high degree of statistical confidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...nt_convergence

Quote-mining with molecular phylogeny:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/well...ular-phylogeny

The major exceptions only occur in (1) the well-accepted symbiotic theory for the origin of eukaryotes, and (2) prokaryotes, where we know **on independent evidence** that Lateral Gene Transfer is a common event.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#root


"Junk" DNA
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...ct=ST;f=9;t=35

The basic observation supporting the 'junk DNA' inference is not pseudogenes -- these are a small fraction of noncoding DNA. The basic observation is that closely-related critters can have widely-varying amounts of non-coding DNA with no apparent ill-effects.


Charlie d explains it quite well here:
http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_to...-t-000365.html

Until IDists start talking about these kinds of facts they aren't even in the ballpark regarding 'junk DNA'.

PS: Oh yeah. Luskin accidentally switched his 'predictions' regarding junk DNA.

PPS: The problem Luskin has with creating a "falsifiable" ID theory, when he explicitly says that he is open to a mix-n-match view, where if A is proven to be a result of evolution, he can accept that and instead assert that B, or C is a result of ID, shall be left for others to explore.

Xixax

As usual for creationists, he is playing games with words. All evidence points against design from any type of designer, whether it be supernatural or natural. Invoking a supernatural cause is un-falsifiable, but claiming design is not. Design is falsifiable and contradicts the evidence. The supernatural isn't even worth bringing up.

Yes.

Which unfortunately for their theories do not match the evidence.

This would not allow anyone to determine a designer is responsible instead of natural processes that produce the same result.

Why would this be characteristic of a designer? Why would the designer initially create life, and then at certain intervals inject genetic information into the biosphere? This is pure ad hoc argumentation formed to try and fit the evidence. It doesn't follow from a designer in any way I can see.

Except that a designer would do their best to eliminate reuse of errors in previous designs. We should see more and more perfect designs in nature as time progresses, and assuming a perfect designer as I'm sure these people want to eventually bring to the table, there should be no errors even in the initial designs, much less designs that follow after.

Why typically? This sounds like a back door left in to avoid the argument being used against design, since there are definite functionless objects and parts of organisms alive today ( a nod to Oolon here and point 3).

Now onto the predictions...

Again, not indistinguishable from natural processes that would create the same structures through co-opting of structures that had alternate previous functions.

Except this isn't any indication of design. There are natural explanations that have evidence behind them, and don't require a great leap into the realm of the supernatural.

Our DNA is the strongest "fossil" record we have, and shows conclusively that all life is related and shares common descent. The fossils found in rock only serve to strengthen what we now know from our own genes.

Essentially the same response as to points 3&4 above.


*snicker*

Blech. The problem is that without any identity for the designer, there is little science that can ever happen beyond the question they're already asking: Was it designed? For the sake of argument, let's say the answer came back "yes". Science stops at that point because now we are forced to speculate about that for which there is no evidence.

The answer, fortunately, has already come back, and it's "no".

Then Meyer is misusing the term descent. The origin of life has nothing to do with whether or not once life was seeded by whatever means, it, through natural processes, resulted in all the descendants we see living today.

Complete rubbish. ID is unable and unwilling at the present to even consider, at least publicly, the nature of the designer. Therefore, the intentions, habits and desired outcome of the design is unknowable. The designer could just as easily be a twisted prankster bent on creating creatures with malformations and disease as anything. Without knowing who the designer is, and for what intention life was designed, one cannot make any predictions or assumptions on what should expect to find in nature.

Descent holds no such caveats. There is no unknowable personality that must be understood before examining the evidence or making predictions. The process is based around testable and knowable natural processes. You can understand and determine most everything you need to know all the way back to abiogenesis.

Wrong.

What is this behavior they are referring to?

There are numerous other examples of extremely complex behavior and structures that are irreducible in their current form arising from previous structures used in different ways.

As they do.

As they do.

As it does. It also includes shared errors.


Lie.

False. Multiple mutations may happen, and single mutations may have much more dramatic phylogenic effects than what is implied here.

No. They must not pose a detriment to reproduction in order to be selected for. They may be accidentally kept around because they offer no advantage or disadvantage due to things like drift.

Just because one particular form of argument fails against the theory of common descent does not mean the entirety of the theory is un-falsifiable. There are things that have been pointed out numerous times here on this board that would falsify the theory of evolution as we know it.

Of course. I would add however that I doubt anyone can even define what they mean by specified complexity in biology. That makes it rather difficult to find.

Skipping over a great load of bovine feces.

This argument is infuriating and shows a remarkable lack of understanding as to what exactly is being tested when these separate sequences are examined. The trees are not quite different. They differ, but only in details, not in the broad scope. In no way does this destroy common descent.

Again, evolution and phylogeny at the levels discussed here isn't relevant to more complex organisms. Lateral gene transfer and other idiosyncrasies make building this tree impossible at the base. However, going back from any modern point, mammals for instance, back to a very, very distant past is possible because mammals, reptiles and the like don't accidentally share genes by brushing into each other.

This quote is clearly out of context and is being used to say something it does not. He was speaking specifically to finding a single common ancestor for all of life.

This is pointing out the difficulties in classifying organisms based on morphology alone, not that there is some problem with common descent that cannot be resolved. Morphology is a result of genes, but not always the same genes. Convergent evolution is responsible for nature finding various methods to achieve the same results.

This goes against the idea of a common designer, even as stated in this article! If the morphologies are the same, why would the designer use various genes to achieve the same results? This makes sense in light of how evolution works, but not design.

As shown here: http://www.evolutionsbiologie.uni-ko...e/pdf/P059.pdf

This research into mtDNA as a method of determining phylogenic trees is still in its infancy. There are methods that work, but not all methods produce the same results. This is more than likely a flaw with the testing mechanisms, or perhaps a mistake in exactly how the tree should be designed, but not with the theory of common descent. Even with these problems, the results that are returned [b]do not falsify common descent[/i], but instead support it with slightly different trees than what is expected and found in other tests.

DNA is the only definitive relic we have that traces all the way back to our earliest common ancestor. It has precedence over morphology comparisons in that regard. However, there are reasons why DNA, when compared against morphology, may be less accurate.

Selection happens on exposed traits in organisms, not necessarily in the molecular structure responsible for those traits. Therefore, mutations and evolution can occur in the background on ancestors while maintaining the same morphological traits. This would make the anatomical comparisons more accurate than comparing DNA and genes in those cases.

This still does not falsify common descent. There are clear and undeniable indicators that all life shares a common ancestor at some point in the far distant past. To point to differences in trees as evidence against evolution is ridiculous. It would be like pointing to several snowflakes, and claiming that because each one is not identical, frozen water does not turn into snowflakes.


Of course not all "junk" DNA will be found to be useless. However, not all junk DNA will be found to have a use either.

Even in the cases where this junk DNA is found to have a purpose, again, like the argument with irreducible complexity, this function of the junk DNA is more likely a result of being co-opted than it is a matter of being designed that way. The argument that because it has a function, not related to the production of proteins, it therefore was designed for that function is like claiming shipwrecks that provide a home to sea life were designed for that purpose.


Completely wrong. There is far more fame and personal satisfaction found in discovering new theories and overturning old theories than in confirming someone else’s work.

And which particular superstitions were responsible for holding onto this nonsense in spite of the evidence against it? *sighs*

Amazing how suddenly they turn every discovery of science into a triumph of religious scientific pursuit in the face of evil dogmatic naturalists. In truth, they are consistently the group responsible for standing in the way of scientific progress because it encroaches on their superstitious mythology.

Partially true. The weaknesses of the theory are greatly exaggerated in this statement though. The theory is surprisingly strong, withstanding over a century of intense criticism resulting in only shifts in it's framework and not the entire abandonment of the theory.

No, creationists have a new name for their pet project of proselytizing our children. Biologists don't want anything to do with this waste of time.

I'm glad this site comes with a healthy reservoir of irony meters.

Not even close. This document shows the lengths at which someone will go in order to reinforce their religion in the face of evidence to the contrary. They will twist and manipulate the work of reputable men and women to advance their goals, and practice deceit to convince the uneducated.

markfiend

Hey! I think you've got it! There is an intelligent designer and He is pissed! All hail Loki!

theyeti

The problem is, ID does not predict these things. ID may be compatible with these things (because it's compatible with everything), but it does not predict them such that the opposite would qualify as a falsification.

Take #1. It's true that if life were designed, it might contain IC structures with high information content. But then again it might not. There is no reason why a designer must make IC structures. For example, a hammer is not IC, and it doesn't have much in information (however it's defined), but we know it's designed. If IC were really a prediction of ID, then we would have to conclude that a hammer was not designed.

And what about #2? Why should an IDist who accepts common ancestry, like Behe, expect that forms would appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors?

The others follow the same pattern. They are not actually predictions of design. They are, at best, falsifications of one or more aspects of evolutionary theory.

I actually agree with Luskin when it comes to his claim that "many forms of "creation science" make a variety of predictions which are empirically testable." It's true. YEC for example does make empirically testable claims, which is how we can easily tell it's false. ID is not among them however. It does not make any emprically testable claims, because it won't commit itself to any set of basic propositions about biology or Earth history. How old the Earth is, whether or not organisms have shared ancestry, whether or not natural selection is capable of causing adaptation -- ID doesn't make a commitment to any of these. It makes no claim other than "design", whatever it is, exists somewhere in the biotic world. There is no way of telling from this basic premise what it is that we expect to see in biology or Earth history.

theyeti

Prof

I want to thank everyone who responded! I would have posted sooner but the wonderful "rolling power blackouts" in these parts held me up.

You guys are masters of the detailed, informed, well-reasoned post!

Prof.