Is Id Science?

[Mordecai]

So there is only one issue now - should IDers be trying to prematurely shove ID into school textbooks at this point? By claiming that it is a theory that is just as legitamete as Evolution right now?

The Discovery Institute itself has stated that they did NOT want it taught in schools yet, as they need to gain greater support from the scientific community that Darwinism isn't The Answer. In reality, Darwinism must be proven to be deficient before any other theory can be taken seriously.

[asbestosman]

Well, with ID, we don't have to accept any undesigned designer.

Then why not just accept evolution? Doesn't ID say that the information in DNA had to come from Someone/Something and that that there is some kind of Ultimate Source or Final Cause of this information? If the Designer was designed, then how on earth did He obtain sufficient complex information to give it a bacterium a flagellum? Who designed Him, etc?

[Mordecai]

Then why not just accept evolution? Doesn't ID say that the information in DNA had to come from Someone/Something and that that there is some kind of Ultimate Source or Final Cause of this information? If the Designer was designed, then how on earth did He obtain sufficient complex information to give it a bacterium a flagellum? Who designed Him, etc?

The reason we don't just accept evolution is because of things like irreducible complexity, the complete lack of evidence for the types of mutations that could extrapolate into the type that is needed for macroevolution, the prohibitive chances of it occuring (unless we assume there have been many more earths so that the chance of one of them being like this one would be a lot higher) and the lack of explanation for abiogenesis. Also, a few other things, like the mounting evidence that mutations aren't random and can be induced through stimuli. Thus, we really don't have evidence that random forces even can produce the diversity of species on earth. Also, even if it can we don't know that we "won the lottery" in this universe. There is no reason we can assume that, unless all other possibilities are definitively eliminated. To say, "It is random," is just as bad as the God of the gaps argument. Thus, science shouldn't be willing to go down that road, unless there is good reason to.

ID doesn't really say anything about the designer. It avoids discussion on any specifics about who or what that designer would be. To leave the question open, seeing as no one has observed the designer(s), seems to be the most logical choice for IDers. I've noticed that the anthropic design argument has some interesting responses like, "We don't know that we're the only type of life. There could be other types of life in other universes that we can't imagine." I think they have a good point. If a different type of life exists in a way that we don't understand well, that could be the source of the information. The more open an explanation is left for the designer(s) in ID, the better, in my view. It allows that each person can simply decide for themselves if it is the Bhuddist type universe, where inherrant in nature, there is something more than just matter or the Mormon universe, where gods not terribly unlike us played a part in creation.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Youve made some interesting edits to your ealier post Mordecai...

Still, the word theory helps garner public support.

Im sure it does. But its innaccurate, so it shouldnt do it.

And the fact that it is not even trying to specify how it will start building up positive evidence is an indication that - currently - it is not taking itself that seriously even as a scientific hypothesis. A serious scientific hypothesis would at the very least be identifying how one might go about inspecting the evidence, even if it isnt technically possible at this time.

Lets use an existing example - abiogenesis. Abiogenisis assumes that the first imperfect self-replicating molecules came together by sheer chance. Quite a claim. We can both agree on that. But the anthropic principle does come into play and potentially takes a serious edge off these extremely low probabilities.

...but regardless of whether it actually happenned or not, how do you possibly go about testing this? The most direct and clear-cut way would be to do the following:

* Come up with a solid estimate on what the chances actually are that the appropiate molecules would be constructed by sheer chance. Lets say its one in a billion. (Yes, Im pulling that figure out of my arse, and Im doing that on purpose, because my intention isnt to start getting into a debate about the nitty gritty details. Im trying to concentrate more on the over-riding philosophies...)

* Find a way to detect planets in the universe, and whether they have the right conditions for abiogenesis to occour. Enough planets with the right conditions to match the predicted probability. e.g. if the chances of the right molecules forming by chance are concluded to be 1 in a billion, then we will probably need around a billion planets with sutiable conditions to reasonably test the theory. Ideally, youd find a lot more than that...

* Find a way to detect whether life is present (or ever was present) on any of the identified planets. Assuming that we have identified a billion planets - and that the calculated probability is 1 in a billion, finding one planet that conclusively has (or had) life, and if all the other planets give no indication of present, nor past life - then that would be an absolute bullseye for abiogenesis. The further the number observed from the number predicted, the less confidence we would have in the existing abiogenesis theory. (It would deserve to be a theory by this point - we have a way to either verify it, or falsify it .via observation).

And an interesting point is, abiogenesis would be in trouble regardless of which way the error went in.

Its easy to imagine the situation where a billion potential planets are inspected, and it can be seen that none of them detect life. And then another billion potential planets, and STILL, none of them detect life. You would have to be considering the theory to be in a bit of trouble by this stage. You may continue searching planets, but the theory should also be getting a re-inspection to double-check its probability estimates, since it is starting to look - at the very least - like the intiial 1 in a billion figure was too optimistic.

But now consider the situation where life is found to exist on every hundreadth planet! Life isnt that uncommon at all! In fact, its everywhere! Wouldnt this be the athiest dream? And wouldnt this still be a vindication of abiogenesis? Id argue not at all. Its far too common. The abiogenesis theory does not predict that life would be so common, and therefore it actually puts it in doubt (at least in its current form). Maybe the reality is that a God, or some other powerful being, goes around plonking life everywhere and anywhere...

...or perhaps other alternate, but related abiogenesis-like theories can be explored. Comets seeding life when they crash into planets is also a possible theory, and would potentially be consistent with larger ratios of life on planets. Or perhaps other possible forms of Panspermia. But these would essentially be different theories, that would require their own observations. It simply wouldnt be good enough to show that life existed on any given planet, you would need to demonstrate that life was bought there, rather than originating there. One possible method could be to find life on planets that dont qualify for abiogenesis. Im not sure how likely or even possible that kind of senario is, but imagination can certainly help when trying to think of ways to turn hypothesies into theories.

A less clear-cut way to try and prove abiogenesis is to reproduce it artifically in a lab. While I do accept that this could be some kind of evidence for it, I personally remain cautious about this approach, and may be slightly cynical about the results at first. Obviously, they wont be relying on rediculously low odds somehow naturally occouring, so they will have to be artifically helping things along in some way. And Id have to be convinced that this nudging is legitamte, and is really giving us an accurate picture of what really happenned.

But - anyway - while abiogenesis may be just a hypothesis, and not a theory, it is a well matured hypothesis, where a decent attempt is being made at tying the probablities down, and trying to think of ways to test it. We appear to be a LONG way off, but at least the details are being worked out for when the time does come when it could possibly be tested.

...what is ID currently doing in the same vein? As far as I can see, very little. My confidence in ID being a legitamte scientific hypothesis could potentially burst into life tomorrow. Here is what would need to happen for that to be the case. Tomorrow, the Discovery Institute would have to issue a statement, and specify - that after so much time refusing to give even the smallest detail about what the Intelligent Designer is or exactly what they actually affected (that isnt based on gap-filling) - they do finally give at least ONE clear detail. They stick their neck out, and make even one clear, specific, unambiguous claim about some event or events that they are going to attribute to the Intelligent Designer. And not only that, but they describe HOW - potentially - that event / these events could be detected. It wouldnt matter if it couldnt be currently tested for technical reasons. As long as it made logical sense, and as long as it was distinguishable from evolution or other known phenomona - then at that point, Id be far more confident in thinking that ID was a legitamte scientific hypothesis.

...but until then, I reserve my right to be cynical about it...

In fact, Darwinism is not a theory with regard to the origin of species; its only a scientific hypothesis

Hmmmm. I think youd better explain yourself here. Perhaps I shouldnt have been so optimisic that wed reached a consensus. But Ill let you clarify before I wade in.

[Weezer]

I'm going to explain this once and TRY to have some reading comprehension. Since it entails a non-Darwinian path by definition, that means it must be proven that it did not evolve through Darwinian means. That's the point: he's laying out a hypothesis. He's not saying that by definition the flagellum is irreducibly complex. He's saying that irreducible complexity is by definition impossible to produce by way of selective pressures.

Yes, I know. So when you asked "Is it extremely plausible statistically that irreducibly complex structures were produced through Darwinism?", what you were asking was "Is it extremely plausible statistically that structures produced by non-Darwinian paths were produced through Darwinism?"

[Weezer]

asbestosman:

Dembski himself seems say that the probability of an event occuring given that there is a designer is a meaningless question because designers don't work on probability.

Mordecai

Also, I'm not sure that is what Dembski is saying.

Then you need to reread the chapter, since Dembski says so quite clearly. See, for instance, my quote in post #119.

[Weezer]

Mordecai:

It's growing at a very high rate as it stands.

Mordecai:

More and more scientists are accept ID as science.

Would you care to share your data? Can you name one scientist who has converted to ID within the past, say, 5 years?

[ED500]

ID is not science. There is no evidence supporting ID and it cannot be subjected to analysis or the scientific method. I think that ID is merely something that certain religious individuals who understand evolution hope to be true in order to somehow reconcile the things they know about science with their religious beliefs.

Evolution and natural selection is not even science when it was proclaimed by Darwin.

Intelligent Design is influenced by the idea that evolution and natural selection is scientifically impossible to prove or explain the complexity of life. There is a documentary that I encourage everyone to watch "Unlocking The Mystery Of Life - The scientific case for Intelligent design."

Why can't we find MILLIONS of intermediate "forms" of Homo sapiens if H. sapeins actually "evolved" for millions or billions or years? There......provide a scientific answer and proof - NOT THEORY.

I am not pushing you to believe in Intelligent Design - I am also a skeptic that is willing to investigate these issues.

I'm not a scientist or expert in anything. But I am frustrated whenever my instructors pushed their "BELIEF" about "HOW IT TOOK MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS yada yada." Then every year they change the textbooks.....

[Weezer]

According to Behe, prior to ID's arrival, the Darwinists were silent on even ATTEMPTING to explain irreducibly complex things in biology.

You might want to have a look at the Kitzmiller transcript, especially the part where Rothschild presents Behe with a stack of studies on the evolution of the immune system, dating as far back as 1971. At which point Behe raised the goalpost several yards:

Behe: Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.

Rothschild: And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those?

Behe: I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.

[Weezer]

And speaking of Kitzmiller, I'm disappointed that Meyer dropped out at the last minute, leaving the defense hanging.

It's pretty easy to say that Meyer "won" a town hall discussion with no judge and no verdict to contradict your claim. I'd be more impressed if Meyer had the courage to go up against scientists in a judged forum. I'd be even more impressed if he published a paper on ID (not ID pedagogy) in a science journal, without the journal subsequently repudiating the paper.

[PhysicsGuy]

But irreducible complexity, because it is so specified and would require so many steps to produce, strongly reflects the type of thing that an intelligent being would produce. And where is the gap with irreducible complexity? It's not just a gap. It's positive evidence against evolution; as Darwin said, if any organ that can't be produced in increments is discovered, my theory will fall apart. It's actually a contradiction to Darwin's theory, in his own words. It also represents specified complexity, the same type of thing intelligent beings create. It is a rotor, just like the one people invented. How is that NOT positive evidence FOR intelligent design AND very strong evidence that Darwin's theory has, not only a gap in knowledge of it, but positive evidence against it being The Answer.

I disagree here. I think irreducible complexity is just a fancier "God of the gaps" argument. We can only call something irreducible if we completely understand it entirely. It is very possible (and likely) that something only "looks" irreducible because we don't understand it fully. This is therefore a gaps argument because science can't say that it understands anything absolutely entirely. I really liked RenegadeOfPhunk's analogy of the tribesman and the watch. I think that analogy explains what I'm trying to get at.

ID cannot be called science until it presents some information on exactly how they propose God created things (from first principles). I don't think this will be possible in this life (or at least my lifetime).

[cksalmon]

I'm currently editing articles for an upcoming Fortress press book entitled (still, I believe) Debating Design, which was an oral dialog between the very serious ID proponent William Dembski and the very affable atheist Michael Ruse, along with response papers presented by several notable EV scholars. See here.

Some of the articles are quite interesting. I'm not sure how handily this will move the conversation forward, but at the very least, I think the articles (as well as the dialog itself) will prove fodder for further discussion.

Should appear on bookshelves later this year.

Best.

CKS

[Mordecai]

And speaking of Kitzmiller, I'm disappointed that Meyer dropped out at the last minute, leaving the defense hanging.

It's pretty easy to say that Meyer "won" a town hall discussion with no judge and no verdict to contradict your claim. I'd be more impressed if Meyer had the courage to go up against scientists in a judged forum. I'd be even more impressed if he published a paper on ID (not ID pedagogy) in a science journal, without the journal subsequently repudiating the paper.

I was going by Peter Ward's increasingly desperate arguments at the end. If you listened to the debate, you would see that Ward seems to know he is losing.

[Mordecai]

I disagree here. I think irreducible complexity is just a fancier "God of the gaps" argument. We can only call something irreducible if we completely understand it entirely. It is very possible (and likely) that something only "looks" irreducible because we don't understand it fully. This is therefore a gaps argument because science can't say that it understands anything absolutely entirely. I really liked RenegadeOfPhunk's analogy of the tribesman and the watch. I think that analogy explains what I'm trying to get at.

ID cannot be called science until it presents some information on exactly how they propose God created things (from first principles). I don't think this will be possible in this life (or at least my lifetime).

Apparently, scientists know a lot about the flagellum, because their argument is not, "We don't know enough." The typical response has been, "Well, maybe it evolved through indirect pathways." This is a concession, in my view. It appears even Darwinists know what it is and how it works and that each part is NOT useful in itself. Thus, it would require many steps with no selective pressures to act on it. This is exactly what Darwin said would prove him wrong. This is not a God of the gaps argument and has nothing to do with the God of the gaps. This has to do with how much is known about things like the flagellum and the fact that the only known observable phenomenon that can produce a machine like that is human intelligence. Thus, the analysis/knowledge of two things that exist in the real world, lead to an argument in favor of the type of thing (intelligent beings) that makes irreducibly complex mechanisms existing prior to human beings. It is both a scientific attack against Darwinism through positive evidence and a pro-pre-human-intelligence argument. It's not that, "You can't explain this, so that proves God!" It's more like, "We now understand this, we understand Darwinism and this is a contradiction in what Darwinism predicts." This also leads to, "We understand what intelligent beings can do (like building a rotor). We understand what Darwinism or any other natural processes can't produce irreducible complexity. We understand that a flagellum is a rotor. Intelligent being(s) are responsible for the flagellum."

When you claim it is science based on what is not known (i.e. God of the gaps argument), what do you mean? Do you mean that the REAL argument is, "You don't know how the flagellum evolved, thus it must be God." I don't think so. Darwin HIMSELF said that if there is any biological mechanism that can't be produced in increasingly beneficial increments, his theory fails. That is the flagellum, as even many Darwinists implicitly admit. (Notice how the previous sentence is a positive assertion and has nothing to do with what is NOT known).

(P.S., if you think "maybe it evolved through an indirect route" is a good argument, Behe's response is, "Even if each part were at one time useful in itself and then lost complexity, selective pressures would also have to piece each part together properly before they could work as unit.")

[Mordecai]

Hmmmm. I think youd better explain yourself here. Perhaps I shouldnt have been so optimisic that wed reached a consensus. But Ill let you clarify before I wade in.

I don't believe Darwinism is a scientific theory as far as the claim that it is responsible for the origin of species found in the fossil record. Granted, a new species of frog can come from Darwinian processes acting on a frog, gradually over time (not with any punctuated equilibrium... never been observed) . I'm talking, though, about macroevolution. Darwinism didn't predict how the fossil record would apear. In fact, it doesn't look like what Darwin predicted. Scientific hypotheses like "punctuated equilibrium" attempt to explain this, but this is not a theory either. That such a hypothesis is needed illustrates that Darwinism doesn't predict the type of "punctuated equilibrium" that is found in the fossil record. Furthermore, Darwinism predicted that the types of mutations that can extrapolate into the types needed for macroevolution would be observed. They never have. It furthermore doesn't explain the Cambrian explosion. It also doesn't explain how the genes controlling eyes in various phyla are exactly identical and how species can be nearly identical, despite the fact that they developed indepently of one another. With the discovery of "adaptive mutations" (consistently beneficial mutations that occur in response to stimuli), the researcher who discovered it declared, "This violates our most basic assumptions" (emphasis added). Both adaptive mutations and the mounting evidence for them across many different species and irreducible complexity contradict the theory at its most basic level. The real question is, did complexity arrise/increase through random forces (and selective pressures). If not, Darwinism doesn't explain the diversity of species. Lastly, it has no predictive power with regard to macroevolution, thus it is only a scientific hypothesis to claim Darwinism has produced the diversity of species. Oh, we can't forget that abiogenesis occured at the same time it was POSSIBLE to support life. It used to be thought that abiogenesis occured after hundreds of millions of years. Not true. Thus, it appears, there is another example of complexity emerging without Darwinism and it being extremely unlikely to have been caused by random forces, given how short a time it took.

In response to your complaint about how ID is not a full-blown theory (at least not the official scientific definition), that's true. But I still don't have a problem with them taking advantage of the informal definition of the word. It is true that scientists have abused their authority when claiming, "Evolution is a fact," without clarifying that Darwinism is not proven to have produced the diversity of species. (Yes, evolution in itself is a fact. But then again, ID doesn't reject evolutin in any way). So, it's only fair to use the word to help counter the campaign of misinformation about what is and isn't proven. I have no problem with their clever and effective (thus far) propoganda.

[PhysicsGuy]

Apparently, scientists know a lot about the flagellum, because their argument is not, "We don't know enough." The typical response has been, "Well, maybe it evolved through indirect pathways." This is a concession, in my view. It appears even Darwinists know what it is and how it works and that each part is NOT useful in itself. Thus, it would require many steps with no selective pressures to act on it. This is exactly what Darwin said would prove him wrong. This is not a God of the gaps argument and has nothing to do with the God of the gaps. This has to do with how much is known about things like the flagellum and the fact that the only known observable phenomenon that can produce a machine like that is human intelligence. Thus, the analysis/knowledge of two things that exist in the real world, lead to an argument in favor of the type of thing (intelligent beings) that makes irreducibly complex mechanisms existing prior to human beings. It is both a scientific attack against Darwinism through positive evidence and a pro-pre-human-intelligence argument. It's not that, "You can't explain this, so that proves God!" It's more like, "We now understand this, we understand Darwinism and this is a contradiction in what Darwinism predicts." This also leads to, "We understand what intelligent beings can do (like building a rotor). We understand what Darwinism or any other natural processes can't produce irreducible complexity. We understand that a flagellum is a rotor. Intelligent being(s) are responsible for the flagellum."

When you claim it is science based on what is not known (i.e. God of the gaps argument), what do you mean? Do you mean that the REAL argument is, "You don't know how the flagellum evolved, thus it must be God." I don't think so. Darwin HIMSELF said that if there is any biological mechanism that can't be produced in increasingly beneficial increments, his theory fails. That is the flagellum, as even many Darwinists implicitly admit. (Notice how the previous sentence is a positive assertion and has nothing to do with what is NOT known).

(P.S., if you think "maybe it evolved through an indirect route" is a good argument, Behe's response is, "Even if each part were at one time useful in itself and then lost complexity, selective pressures would also have to piece each part together properly before they could work as unit.")

Here I must say that I know very little about Biology, so that very well may be the case. If the flagellum is reasonably simple, then that makes the ID guys criticism of Evolution even more plausible. I still would argue that you would have a difficult time selling ID as a science until you have replaced that criticism with exactly how you propose God built the flagellum.

Science is the study of how driving forces (Gravity, Electromagnetism, or God) affect things in our world, not just the existence of such forces (that would be metaphysics or something).

[Mordecai]

Here I must say that I know very little about Biology, so that very well may be the case. If the flagellum is reasonably simple, then that makes the ID guys criticism of Evolution even more plausible. I still would argue that you would have a difficult time selling ID as a science until you have replaced that criticism with exactly how you propose God built the flagellum.

Science is a methodology/philosophy. WHAT you decide to apply that methodology to doesn't determine whether it is science or not.

Science is the study of how driving forces (Gravity, Electromagnetism, or God) affect things in our world, not just the existence of such forces (that would be metaphysics or something).

I've never seen that definition of science personally. Science, basically, is the study/analysis of things based on objective evidence, reason and idealy experimentation. It's only a means of arriving at truth. Your defintion would eliminate aspects of mathematics and forenzics. IDers use the same methodology as any scientist to examine things like the flagellum. The way in which they differ is that they attempt to define what an intelligent being can do that is unique and that no other mechanism can produce. They then apply what they think they know about intelligent design and apply that knowledge to biology. The inference is based on observation of things in the real world and is testable to a degree. The conclusion is that the TYPE of thing that produces irreducible complexity was present prior to human beings, due to the fact that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Since the ONLY type of thing capable of doing that is intelligent being(s), based on observations and based on what is known about Darwinism/nature/physics, then intelligent being(s) at least appear to be responsible for the flagellum and other irreducibly complex mechanisms in biology.

[The Dude]

Actually, I don't think you have a good point, because for one, I don't deny that what you're describing is POSSIBLE through Darwinian mechanisms. That doesn't mean it DID, though. I just don't see how that is remotely relevant, honestly, unles we KNOW that it was through Darwinism that all that occured. It seems like you're begging the question.

Goal posts here, goal posts there.

You asked for a possible evolutionary path. (Mordecai: "It also doesn't provide a POSSIBLE evolutionary path for that to occur randomly.")

I provided a possible evolutionary path.

Now you say you DIDN'T ever deny it was possible? Um, you implied that it might not be possible.

Now you say it isn't even relevant unless we KNOW that it happened through Darwinian mechanisms?!?!

That's not how it goes, Mordecai. Darwinism is relevant because it provides possible mechanisms through the coupled process of random mutation and non-random selection (thus the end result is not random, but is a fit for the selection criteria). Generally there are many pathways to the top of the mountain, and we don't know which one actually occured, but that's okay in this debate. ID relies on saying there are no paths to the top of the mountain. As long as Darwinism can show there are possible paths to the top, there's no rationale for an intelligent design inference.

MY point, on the other hand, is that increases in complexity are absolutely NECESSARY for Darwinism to work, but they haven't been observed.

And I described a fantastic exception to your point: in the case of the appearance of neural crest at the invertebrate to vertebrate transition. I pointed out that there are many possible Darwinian ways to do that transition without increasing genomic complexity (by your definition). This has been observed experimentally as was presented at the seminar I attended.

I just don't see that as a good point at all, honestly.

Maybe this has to do with miscommunication about what you meant by "for Darwinism to work." (underlined above) Maybe you don't mean specific steps like the transition I'm talking about. Maybe you mean bigger things. Maybe like this:

* If you look at the genomes of three principal model organisms for research in developmental biology -- fruit flies, mice, and zebrafish -- you will see that fruit flies have two sets of hox genes, mice have four sets, and zebrafish have eight. Many other sets of genes occur at similar ratios -- 2:4:8 -- in these organisms (and their relatives, like us humans) leading to the hypothesis that the genome duplicated once between the common ancestor of flies and tetrapods -- 2,4 --, and once more between the common ancestor between land animals and teleost fish -- 4,8. When an entire genome undergoes a duplication event like this, it must qualify as an increase in genomic complexity. Agreed? And this type of complexity increase seems necessary to explain the diversity of body types in living things. Agreed?

Then the question becomes "Can those genome duplication events occur through random forces and selection?" The answer is a qualified "yes". Every time a cell divides it duplicates its genome so that each daughter cell gets a full complement of the genome. However, if the cell doesn't actually complete division, then it gets stuck with two full sets of the genome. Voila! Increased complexity!

Well, not quite. This happens a lot in cancer (bad news), and if it happens during gametogenesis, it would normally result in disastrous defects. Just look at what happens to people who have an extra copy of just chromosome 21. What happens if you have an extra copy of everything? It seems there is some trick of cytology that scientists haven't figured out yet, but somehow, this gap is overcome on rare occasions and it correlates with the appearance of new species. That is, organisms that survive this hurdle become rich ground for further genetic diversification (by Darwinian processes) because they've got a bonus copy of every gene to mess around with and try out new pathways.

Notice that this has nothing to do with statistics. It is a specific, defined genetic problem. It opens the door to a vast increase in genomic complexity. I would say that this problem, if anything, is the place for IDers to get their hands dirty and show how the intelligent designers actually do something that Darwinism can't do. The solution hasn't been observed. Honestly, I don't see any reason why a Darwinian process couldn't solve this; a theistic evolutionist like Kenneth Miller would expect God to rely on natural selection to sort out organisms that manage to resolve the genome duplication problem. But if IDers have some ideas specific to their hypothesis, I would love to hear them.

To recap thus far: increased genetic complexity (IGC) is not required for all significant transitions in evolution, but IGC has occurred at some transitions and we have every reason to think it was critical. Dramatic IGC events would seem to cause great problems for the organism, and how they were/are resolved is unknown. It could well be Darwinian, but if IDers have any good ideas, their input should be welcomed.

[The Dude]

Part 2

Please first admit that "forms may become more complex but the genome retains the same level of complexity" is not itself a problem for significant evolutionary transitions. It is actually a true statement about how evolution is simpler than you realized. Own up to it. Update your arguments like you said you would.

I made no assumptions either way. If it is simple in that respect, O.K. Whatever. Makes no difference to me. That's beyond what I think is relevant here. What's relevant is that increases in complexity just aren't proven to occur through random forces/selective pressures. Yet, we do see the Cambrian Information Explosion.

My neural crest example, which you think "makes no difference", should raise doubt about how much information was required for the Cambrian "information" explosion. You don't know anything about the genomes of the relevant fossils, and are just speculating for effect. Do you realize that?

You said, "What's relevant is that increases in complexity just aren't proven to occur through random forces/selective pressures. " They don't have to be proven, they just have to be possible; the ID inference is only relevant when Darwinian processes are shown to be impossible. The cytogenetic problem I just described is, at the moment, unsolved territory. If ID is a serious competing theory then it cannot claim victory by default -- it must claim victory by proposing a solution.

We also see abiogenesis.

Not relevant to Darwinism. Natural selection requires replicators; the origin of the first replicators is a separate question. RenegadeOfPhunk has given an excellent explanation of this.

According to Lee Spetner, Darwinists asssume that one million simple mutations that also represent increases in complexity must be present at each incriment in the transition from one species to the next, at all 500 steps.

Darwinists don't assume anything of the sort. That's a strawman if I ever saw one.

Of course it's random. You can't say it's "anything but random," when what can and can't, did and didn't occur randomly is just as integral to the process as the selective pressurs. Take either one way, POOF, Darwinism vanishes as a viable explanation. If the necessary mutations can't occur randomly, Darwinism is dead in the water.

Oops, there's another strawman. Just because something involves randomness doesn't mean the outcome is random.

Suppose I develop a process to generate plastic balls of random sizes. Then I pass them through a filter that retains anything over 2.2cm in circumference. Then I pass those balls through a second filter that lets anything under 2.4cm pass through. If I select the balls that pass through the second filter, I should find them all to be between 2.2 and 2.4 cm in circumference. This outcome is "anything but random" even though the input involved a random population of balls.

So for natural selection. Stop insisting on randomness and chance.

The title of Lee Spetner's book exemplifies the same strawman: Not By Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

Spetner is not an IDer. He just says the numbers don't add up.... Spetner might well know better than you do.

I seriously doubt both of those claims. Did you ever read the book Spetner was supposedly responding to? Which Dawkins book was it?

Perhaps reading Dawkin's book and then Spetner's response would clear all this up, unless Spetner strawmanned him. I have no reason to believe he did, though.

Now you have reason to think.

How did the neural crest arise in the invertebrate to vertebrate transition by an IDer process? Fair is fair in this debate.

Uh... an intelligent being planned it out and did it? What am I, a God?.... ID doesn't claim to know HOW. It is only about the type of source for irreducible complexity.

"ID doesn't claim to know HOW"???

May I point you to an earlier goal post in this thread where you challenged me (and insulted me) by saying "In this debate, it only matters HOW it happened and whether Darwinism did it or not. Hello? Did your mind start wandering off the topic? " That is what I was responding to, and then I asked you to do the same.

What a classic exchange THAT was.

I admit that Darwinism often does not KNOW how, but it offers possible pathways for how, usually by a detailed accounting of actual genes and developmental processes (as I have done). Can't ID do something similar? If not, then why would anybody who knows anything about the science ever take it seriously?

It is idiotically lazy for ID to just posit a source for complexity without making any effort at all to say how the complexity was transferred to the target. Darwinism posits a surprising source (complexity emerges from relative simplicity) and it offers possibilities for how it was transferred (details vary, but always based on random mutation + selection). That's a science worth working on.

Perhaps. Or perhaps Spetner is accurately responding to what Dawkins wrote. That's what he says.

I advise you to not take his authority on it any longer. Read Dawkins' book, whichever one it was.

Also, remember that discussion about the "anti-freeze" gene and the statistics on that?

I remember. I also remember how you thought to use statistics to prove that Nephi/goodly was a significant correlation. It's too easy to use statistics as a tool to advocate a certain argument for or against something when you already have your mind made up where you want to end up. I keep my eyes out for this kind of abuse. I believe statistics when it is used to judge alternative hypotheses, and I only take it to the bank when it is followed up by non-statistical observations. Anybody can set up parameters that force a statistical outcome, and that's usually how it works when statistics is used to advocate a position instead of to test alternatives. So I say "nuts" to this approach.

Spetner also discusses that a change in general that is not a decrease in complexity AND is beneficial AND that actually survives and takes over a population hasn't been observed either. Do you have a single example of a change that is not a decrease in complexity that occured randomly?

No, I don't know of such a thing. (Hint: because Darwinism isn't random.)

But more to the point, earlier I gave the example of the Hox genes as markers for successive duplications in the entire genome. That seems to fit Spetner's bill. It is certainly not a decrease in complexity. It was beneficial in the long run because it survived and took over a population (it must have been or else we wouldn't be here with duplicated Hox genes).

Now you might say this happened millions of years ago and so it wasn't actually observed, but that's such an asinine, unscientific, objection that I'm really, really hoping (against hope) that you won't go there.

You just have no idea without a time machine, it seems.

You went there.

Do IDers have time machines to go back and see how these things happened?

Is abiogenesis plausible?

You are moving the goal posts again.

Are you somehow under the misconception that abiogenesis is a Darwinian process? It's not thought to be. Even Dawkins admits this in his most recent book.

It's part of Darwism, because Darwinism is largely defined by it's appeal to secularists.

Much like ID is defined by its appeal to creationists. Okay, but that's not a scientific discussion, is it?

I've shown you before that Darwinists themselves have said, "Macroevolution is no longer in progress." I dropped a couple names for that assertion as well.

Oh, but it's still a meaningless thing to say. How would anyone know that macroevolution is no longer in progress? It's just plain silly, and carries no authority at all.

I think Spetner is responding to Dawkins position and is not strawmanning anyone. He's worked in the field and has lots of quotes.

He's got lots of quotes? You mean of evolutionists admitting their dirty secrets and deepest darkest fears that Darwin is a farce. Give me a break. You reveal yourself to be a simpleton when you say things like this.

Also, if I've been duped by Spetner, so has Professor E. Simon at Perdue's Dept. of Biology: "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read."

As has Christian B. Anfinsen, Nobel Laureate, Dept. of Biol., John Hopkins: "...extremely thorough and compelling."

As has Leshem, Dept. of Life Sciences, Bar Ilan Univ.: "Spetner's treatise presents a rarely found multidisciplinary approach manifesting scientific expertise in widely divergent fields."

Is that right off the book jacket, eh? ROFL

Name me one book you've read about evolution that wasn't written under the claim of shattering a myth, or putting Darwin on trial, or opening the black box and showing it to be empty, or toppling the icons. Have you read a single book that doesn't sit on that shelf of neo-creationist press?

You don't have to go for the hard core atheists like Dawkins and Dennett. Read Finding Darwins God by Kenneth Miller. I'll let you look it up yourself and examine the quotes on the back of the book jacket.

[Mordecai]

To recap thus far: increased genetic complexity (IGC) is not required for all significant transitions in evolution, but IGC has occurred at some transitions and we have every reason to think it was critical. Dramatic IGC events would seem to cause great problems for the organism, and how they were/are resolved is unknown. It could well be Darwinian, but if IDers have any good ideas, their input should be welcomed.

I'm not going to respond to everything right now 'cause I'm going to bed right now. I've been thinking about what Spetner was saying and what you've been saying and am seeing more what Spetner is talking about applying to your explanations here. It sounds like you're saying that by small and simple... uh... changes in the genetic code something great like the Cambrian explosion can occur. I would further postulate that you are a believer in punctuated equilibrium, which would supposedly produce this type of genetic code prior the Cambrian explosion occuring. If this is not what you believe, it sounds like you're assuming that the genetic code was ready made for the Cambrian explosion. So you're skipping the part that gives Darwinism credit and going straight to the part where the genetic code is ready-made for a Cambrian explosion. If I'm understanding you correctly, you haven't really given Darwinism credit here. Darwinism is supposed to be about tiny changes that have selective value that accumulate over time, adding information gradually. But there is no evidence that Darwinism, as I've just explained it, is responsible for the efficiency and versatility in the genome in the way you explained it. Your description simply says, "Look! The genetic code can do this this and this, and once it does these things, POOF! We have the Cambrian explosion, all because the genetic code is super efficient and the information is already there." Isn't the important part here the part where we got the super-duper genetic code in the first place? And isn't the important part again, as I've been harping on, there is no evidence that Darwinism adds information? You merely illustrated that small changes in genes resulted in BIG changes in form, ultimately dividing the phyla and determining the destiny of all of major life we see today. That's an enormous accomplishment for relatively few changes in the genetic code, don't you think? And that doesn't strike you as FAR more important than the fact that these simple changes can occur randomly (although we don't even know that it wasn't adaptive mutations instead of Darwinsm)? Again, the problem with proving Darwinism is possible is the part where such enormous order in the genetic code is proven to be there because of Darwinism. As Spetner says, the beneficial mutations we've seen so far either do too much (like the ones you're talking about) or too little (where they aren't even beneficial, precluding selective pressures from acting on them). I'll let you respond to this to make sure I'm not completely off base here, and then I'll respond to the rest.

By the way, the way you mocked how the quotes I provided were on the back of the book... what was your point? I didn't realize WHERE something is written can take away the credibility of professors and Nobel Laureates. Maybe it's like voodoo, and I can write your name on my underwear to take away your credibility. And what author WOULDN'T put those quotes on the back of his soft cover book... do you think you could write a strawman book and get those quotes yourself? What horsecrap. You simply tried to minimize the statements of people with as much or more authority as you to save face. Like I said, it's possible Spetner understands evolutionary biology better than you do. You're not an evolutionary biologist. He says that from talking to biologists whose specialty is not evolution, he tends to know more than them about evolution. Isn't it possible he has looked at the big picture, while you haven't to that same extent?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I dont believe Darwinism is a scientific theory as far as the claim that it is responsible for the origin of species found in the fossil record.

Well, I think we have more to discuss on the whole hypothesis / theory definitions. Because I dont think what you said above is that accurate.

Dont get too excited Im not saying that Darwinism cant possibly be in any trouble. Im not saying if it is or it isnt either way. Its more to do with the technical definitions here. Earlier, you tried to describe certain aspects of evolution as mere hypothesies instead of theory. When the real fact of the matter is that evolution became a full-blown theory a long time ago.

...science is kind of like a one-way street thats full of open potholes. Ok, there can be a bit of faffing around at the hypothesis stage. Thats almost like just getting ready before the main challenge. But once you have a full-blown theory, that is it. It remains a theory. And it either lives, or it dies. You step onto the one-way street. It either continues down the one-way street making progress, or it falls down a pothole (is conclusively falsified) and dies. It doesnt travel backwards (I suppose you could argue that this technically happens if evidence if found, but you later realise that the evidence wasnt collected properly, or is somehow faulty. But thats getting a bit pedantic. You could also just as easiely say that the theory hadnt really moved forward, rahter than saying its moved backwards, but anyway...).

It certainly doesnt ever get demoted back to a hypothesis. (A NEW hypothesis and resulting theory could be created, that is in someways similar to the existing theory - but it is in effect a new theory.)

Im not entirely sure whether ID opposes both Common Descent AND natural selection. And Im also not sure if you are attacking them on the basis that they are technically two seperate theories. But anyway, lets focus on common descent for now...

Common descent is either a healthy theory, or it is a dying / dead theory. It is no meer hypothesis. It stopped becoming a hypothesis when it stated exactly what evidence to look for, and how it could potentially be falsified.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Here are at least 29 potential falsifications of Common Descent (the term macro-evolution is effecively what you get when you mesh the theories of Common Descent and Natural Selection). It doesnt matter whether you think any of them have been falsified or not. That would be the difference between whether the ToE is a healthy theory or a dead theory. The point is that as soon as these falsifications were avaliable, that could be attacked by objective observation, THAT is when the Theory of Common Descent (a part of the overall ToE) became a theory, and not just a hypothesis.

Now, science does not have an infalliable grand master that will judge a theory disproven. No such being, or any such independant, infalliable judgement mechanism exists. Only individual scientists can decide whether a particular theory truly is falsified. And therefore the worldwide consensus is what the majority of the scientific community judge to be the case.

And the majority of the scientific community judge evolution to be in good health, and certainly not falsified.

Yes yes, I know. Athiest group-think. As you beleive Im sure. And Im not even saying you cant possibly be right.

But one things for sure - no parts of the ToE are meer hypothesies anymore. Your quite a few decades late on that one. You can try and claim that the ToE is dying or dead if you like. Im not saying that I will nessesarily beleive you (yeah again - the athiest group-think kicking in. But its kinda funny how so many thiests see it the same way isnt it! The athiest group-think must be so strong, it doesnt just affect athiests! Wierd...), but you are free to make the claim. But one things for sure - trying to call any part of it hypothesis is a scientific mis-nomer.

If I have time later, Ill try and move on to your specific critisisms of Evolution. I doubt I know anywhere near as much as many other people here (including yourself, certainly on specific aspects), but hopefully I have enough of a grasp on the topic to at least join in the debate...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

To further enforce the concept of Common Descent and Natural Selection being two distinct theories, Im going to use an analogy. I know you like analogys Mordecai and I happen to think this one is pretty damn accurate, so I hope you will give it due consideration

This is an analogy which I see addressing the idea of Thiestic Common Descent, based around known engineering practises. (And Im a Software Engineer by profession, so this stuff will be from my own practical experience).

There is a practice in engineering known as leveraging, or re-spinning a product. Its basically where youve made an existing product that fulfills one set of requirements, and you want to make a new product that fulfills a similar, but distinctly different set of requirements. Now, there are two main choices to make at this point. Do you:

a. Start from scratch

OR

b. Leverage or re-spin the existing product into the new one.

Designing from scratch - in one sense - is the superior solution. Its cleaner and less prone to problems. But the sheer amount of extra work involved is the main downside. In this sense, re-spinning an existing product is a far superior solution. You could have your product ready to ship in a fraction of the time. (And there are often ideal times to get to market, and other financial pressures, which often makes the time scale issue absolutely essential).

So it is often the case that products are re-spun. Its pretty standard procedure. It happens all the time.

Now, when re-spinning a product, not only are you adding new functionality to the old product, you are also disabling functions in the old product, that are no longer required. This is - again - directly from personal experience. Specifically, as a Software Engineer, I could be re-spinning an old section of code and adding new functionality to it. But I also need to disable quite a few function calls that should no longer be made. I cant disable the function entirely, because it is still needed in certain cases. But there are now cases where I cant and must not call that function. Otherwise, a bug will result.

Now, some software engineers dont get this quite right, and bugs can occour. Not me of course - my code is essentially perfect! But I do know *twitch* other engineers *cough* who dont always get it *scratch* quite right...

...anyway, so as a result, there is a very particular type of bug that can result from re-spinning products. Its where the new product - occasinally - can act like its the old product inappropaitely. Ive got a very specific example from my current work. I work in lighting, and I write PC software that communicates with dimmers (the devices that tell the lights what to do), and other similar equipment. Another device type is a control panel, that can be used to control the lights by a user. We recently made a new type of control panel that was very similar to our old control panel, but had a few changes (different sets of keys and slightly different functions). So - ermm - *cough* somebody I know (Not me, but somebody else. Who was not me...) re-spun the existing code that talks to the old control panel to make it talk to the new one.

This guy - that I know - tested the new code, and it appeared to be fine. Wehey - job done. But when it actually got into the field, there were certain times that the new code would end up talking to the new panels as if they were the old panels! (i.e. sending the wrong messages). And of course the new panel didnt understand and had a nervous breakdown over it. Which didnt please the customer too much...

...so this *ehem* friend of mine *twitch* learned from that mistake, and took more care when re-spinning old code.

I see this as a direct analogy with the theory of common descent. You cant technically call it natural Selection (There can be elements of Natural Selection in Engineering in general, but I wouldnt say the above example counts...), and yet it can be clearly seen as Common Descent. And an independant obvserver could logically work this out. Regardless of whether they ever get to actually inspect my (Ermm - I mean my friends...) code, nor whether they even understand code at all! They could just look at the similarities between the products AND look at the nature of any observed bugs. If someone was inspecting the messages coming from the software, and understood them - then they could work out that the code was going wrong because the code was trying to speak to the new panel as if it was an old one. So the observer could sensiblly deduce that the code to talk to the new panel was re-spun from the code for the old panel.

Eventually, if the observer could learn coding and get actual access to the code, then they could prove even more conclusively that that is the case. But they already have pretty good evidence, without doing that. And there is a way to falsify that theory too, without looking at the code. If they sat and watched the messages, and spotted - say - a message that said Right-back door open (like you might expect in a car system), or Display health: 50%, magical power: 75 magic points (like you might expect in a computer game), then the theory would be blown. At least the theory that the new code was mainly respun from ONE old product. This new evidence makes it look like this new code might be a mish-mash of all kinds of code (And he would likely call into question the sanity of the designer...)

Ok - so whats this got to do with biology? Well, lets try replacing macro-evolution with thiestic common descent. Lets propose that - instead of mammals evolving from reptiles (i.e. the literal ansestors of mammals were reptilian-like creatures...), lets say instead that the I.D. re-spun mammals from reptiles. He took the existing product reptile and respun it into the product mammal. In fact, that granulatiry may be too large. (This is one of the problems - Im never sure with ID where the boundries actually are - and Ill probably end up coming back to that in a later post.) If Im considering this possibility seriously, I think Id find it highly likely that this re-spinning happens with a finer granularity than I just proposed. Consider for example the whale - and the fact that we can find many instances of whales that have mini-hind legs. This is clearly analagous to the bugs that can exist when old code is respun into new code. The occasional call to old functions that should have been completely blocked off, but werent in some rare cases. So I could reasonably conclude that the I.D. respun whales from some kind of legged mammal. That would seem perfectly consistent, and logical.

And this could be falsified at any time. Just find a whale that has little mini wings, for example. Thatd blow the whole theory...

Now - at this point - how is my theory of Thiestic Common Descent inconsistent with the philosophy of ID? Isnt this exactly how you think it should be? Evolution happens to some extent. We all agree on this. Even IDers. But you think that - now and again - The I.D. comes along and nudges things somehow. Isnt the theory of Theistic Common Descent a perfectly valid way of working out some detail about when and how the I.D. may have gone about his nudging?

If so, my next question is - So why do I get the impression that so many IDers are as dead-set against the idea of Common Descent as they are to Natural Selection? When in actual fact, Common Descent doesnt- in and of itself - appear to oppose ID at all? in fact, Ive just constructed an engineering analogy that matches it practically perfectly...!

Natural Selection simply gets replaced with respinning technology. Seems perfectly sensible...

Or perhaps ID doesnt actually oppose Common Descent at all - and only Natural Selection (Or at least Natural Selection to the extent that it can explain the full variation of currently known life). Maybe Im just mistaken on that. If so, feel free to correct me...

[The Dude]

Or perhaps ID doesnt actually oppose Common Descent at all - and only Natural Selection (Or at least Natural Selection to the extent that it can explain the full variation of currently known life). Maybe Im just mistaken on that. If so, feel free to correct me...

I think most advanced IDers (like Behe) do not oppose common descent. The evidence (especially the genetic evidence from the last decade of genome sequencing) is pretty overwhelming. I think Mordecai has told me he accepts common descent.

I also think they accept natural selection in many cases. What's important to them are a few cases where Darwinism doesn't seem to be possible. Even if it comes down to just one case, like a flagellum, that's enough of a platform to argue for ID.

[The Dude]

I'll explain more about the science later, but I can respond to this quickly:

By the way, the way you mocked how the quotes I provided were on the back of the book... what was your point? I didn't realize WHERE something is written can take away the credibility of professors and Nobel Laureates. Maybe it's like voodoo, and I can write your name on my underwear to take away your credibility.

underwear voodoo... that was funny, man.

Sorry for the mocking. I just thought it was humorous that you thought to support your source by presenting an advertisement from the book jacket.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I think most advanced IDers (like Behe) do not oppose common descent. The evidence (especially the genetic evidence from the last decade of genome sequencing) is pretty overwhelming. I think Mordecai has told me he accepts common descent.

I also think they accept natural selection in many cases. Whats important to them are a few cases where Darwinism doesnt seem to be possible. Even if it comes down to just one case, like a flagellum, thats enough of a platform to argue for ID.

Ahh - ok. Well, that makes sense then.

So (at least advanced) ID doesnt oppose Common Descent. And as already established, it doesnt oppose Natural Selection in its entirety. It only opposes Natural Selection when trying to explain the entirety of the agreed Common Descent.

..is that right Mord?

So then my proposal of Thiestic Common Descent - as a direct analogy from engineering practises - would seem to be pretty on the money.

And if that is the case, there is only one question left that remains:

Why wont IDers start specifying exactly where they think the I.D. respun things - in a straight-forward, consistent manner that they then agree to stick by as falsifiable?

In other words, instead of framing the assertions as Evolution cant currently explain this (whilst only every considering the known end result), why cant they start making positive statements like:

The I.D., at this point and this point, changed this into this.

I know this is basically the same question that has been asked many times before by many others, but with all the basis you have for a perfectly sound theory here, it just amazes me that IDers - seemingly - havent even bothered to try yet. Im honestly wondering what is holding you back...?! Why do you need to keep asserting gaps in evolution that will never be filled (which you cant possibly know), when you could be providing positive proof of I.D.?

If I were serious about my Thiestic Common Descent theory, that would be my obvious next step. If I think it happenned, why wouldnt I start trying to predict exactly where it happenned, and hold up those events is instances where my theory could be falsified?! I mean, you have the basis on which to start building a theory. Its all perfectly sound. So I cant understand what the delay is. All you have to do is start predicting where the I.D. respun one creature into another, and declaring that as an event that can be either confirmed or falsified.

Why keep attacking the gaps in evolution?

I know you are really into your flagellum Mord, but is that the only time you beleive the I.D. got involved? Surely not right? Its not a case of the I.D. stepping in to make sure the flagellum got sorted, and then after that it was all Natural Selection? If not, you must beleive that the I.D. intervened in quite a few other times in the history of the development of life. Times that are less far back. Times that should be easier to detect and deduce. Times that are - frankly - far more obvious...

Any estimates on how many times the I.D. got involved? Is it hundreads? Thousands? Millions? If I stack up all the adjustements made by Natural Selection against all the adjustments made by the I.D., what would the ratio be? Can that be determined, and then checked against future evidence? If you truly beleive that this is in fact what actually happenned, then you must have SOME idea on these kind of details - surely? If not, why not?

Why hasnt ID - by this point - made an obvious statement like this:

We assert that creature type X was respun (or whatever the appropaite word would be) into creature type Y. We believe this because of Z. We predict that no so-called transitional fossils will ever be found between creature type X and creature type Y. And here is a full description of what we consider to be a transitional fossil...

...i.e. made a statement that it will live or die by? Instead of always waiting until after potential transitional fossils are found - and then trying to always discredit them - why arent you ahead of the game, and trying to predict examples of transitional fossils that will NEVER be seen, and then allow your theory to be falsified?

I mean - the above prediction doesnt even attempt to explain exactly what the method of respinning was! It just specifies where the I.D. gets involved.

Why has a specific prediction like this - that could be potentially falsified - never been made? What exactly are you waiting for?

I honestly do not get it. This is how science has worked since the beginning. Why is ID only trying to follow the known scientific method when attacking evolution (and even that is somewhat debatable), but seemingly not at all when it comes to its own hypothesis / wannabe-theory? Honestly Mord, Im all ears...