a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

I just got cable and immediately started watching science channels to wash the year and a half of FOX only mind programming out of my head (that was the only channel we could get in with our antenna).The first thing I encountered was a program on THE science channel, called gene hunters. This specific episode was on caulerpa taxifolia x mediteranean.Maybe I missed earlier threads on this topic, and I apologize if i did, because I'm going to raise the issue here.ID theorists seem to come in two sorts, the kind that realize their only real hope is to limit their theory to abiogenesis, and those that are trying to replace evolutionary theory. The latter are clearly in the majority, and to them I wish to give them a little poison plant to chew on...http://www.science-writer.co.uk/...19_years/2002/winner.html
(Synopsis for those who don't want to read the article: Caulerpa Taxifolia is a common Caribean and Indo-Pacific plant. It was sent to Europe for use in Aquariums. In an aquarium in Monaco (unknown to everyone) a mutation occured in a male plant. Accidentally released into the wild while flushing tanks it was discovered to have begun growing off the south of France. France decided not to eradicate it as CT would normally have died off under Mediteranean conditions. But the mutation allowed it not only to survive, but to thrive and it is now threatening ecological disaster worldwide).Here's the deal. Evolutionary theory seems to have gotten a pretty humongous piece of contemporary evidence for random genetic mutation and natural selection leading to speciation with this event.To date, IDists make claims about how random genetic mutation is always bad for the changee. But in this case it was successful in the exact manner evolutionary theory describes. A plant had a mutation occur that was essentially neutral where it was currently living (the aquarium), but then entered a new environment in which that mutation was perfect for its survival. It is now growing to push out less capable species (which in this case is unfortunately most of the flora and fauna in the Med).The way this new species was tracked and identified, including the source of the original mutated plant, gives even further credit to genetics as a way of understanding life and changes in life.I am wondering what model ID theorists have, or could possibly come up with, for this plant that does not involve a lot of handwaving.Since intelligent and design are their main driving components, it appears God set the DNA "clock" to go off in a particular CT plant right when it was in an aquarium and before getting accidentally dumped into the med, just so it could form an ecological disaster for current flora and fauna.And I believe this works as a very powerful poison for ID as the mutation did occur in just one plant. If DNA is a program for each "kind" with instructions on how to mutate for an end goal, wouldn't the DNA program be running in all plants of that same kind? Did the rest of them hit "snooze" or something?Perhaps the Caulerpa Taxifolia x mediteranean might provide some benefits after all, if it manages to kill off another noxious weed that is trying to take over the US.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-21-2003]

Wells, Dembski, and Johnson make these claims quite vociferously. They of course are fighting against what they call "macroevolution." And they are leaders of the ID movement.Read Wells' "Icons of Evolution" if you don't believe me. He has a whole chapter "debunking" the icon of mutations being anything other than debilitating (unless it is mere pigment related) for an organism.Behe seems willing to admit evolution could be real, and his claims may only address abiogenesis. However, in that case the individual evolutionary steps would then have been programmed for later "release" inside the DNA.This is why I mentioned the fact that it was a singular specimen which had the mutation. By chance it had not had the opportunity to reproduce, just to keep growing (this plant can "clone" itself when chopped). That means we can "know" that the mutation was not some species wide program within the DNA.I suppose ID theorists like Behe can then say God plays an active but unseen role in pushing each individual organism to mutate. But what good would that theory be? And what does that say when God intentionally mutates an aquarium specimen which then moves on to wipe out so much mediteranean wildlife? What did they do to him?------------------
holmes

It became a hardier species, capable of surviving in an environment it previously was incapable of surviving in. In fact, it is more adaptable to any environment, which is why it is now a worldwide threat (not just the mediteranean).Personally I don't believe in such things as "total information" inside the genetic code (using the equivocation between "code" and code). But it would seem from the general statements regarding what constitutes "increasing information" in a system, this was certainly an increase.Now what?------------------
holmes

That is correct. And all it takes is one beneficial mutation every once in a while that happens to be in an environment for which it is an advantage to keep evolution moving along.Which is why ID theory must debunk the idea that ALL mutations (besides superficial changes) are beneficial. Otherwise evolution is possible.You seem to be using Behe's ID arguments which as I said in my first post is NOT the one that this directly addresses (except for the "preprogrammed DNA" theory he mentions and you redefine as "theistic evolution").Perhaps you can tell me where I am wrong (maybe I am), but a change in DNA that results in a change in organism integrity (ability to survive greater temperature ranges) requires the creation of a new "protein family" for that specific organism.And if it is merely an alteration of a current protein family, how long until subsequent changes produce such a family?Wells and Johnson certainly do not restrict their attacks to evolution at the protein level, and that is who I am primarily offering this plant to.------------------
holmes

Since DNA facilitates the production of proteins, and groups of proteins are what build the various systems organisms, I am assuming by "family of proteins" that he means a group of proteins necessary to produce a system.It is easy enough to change a system into something else by simply removing or introducing the production of certain proteins into an already existing "protein family."A "NEW" "family of proteins" would then (and again I was running with an assumption) be a wholly new group of proteins that results in the production of a brand new system or observable phenotype not existing in the organism before that time.------------------
holmes

You sure are talking a lot Gemster, but saying nothing...My opening post and the entire subject of this thread was a natural and random mutation leading to a new species. Despite the fact that no engineers created this life nor probably could have, nature managed to so all on its own.Yet you come up with this:"So we can't do with intelligence what nature can do by accident, even if we invoke nature to help us. Sorry my friend, not a good theory."Please outline your most excellent theory for the origin of the plant mentioned in the opening post. If you can do this without resorting to evolutionary mechanisms send your theory to the French scientists researching the plant as well. If you can't then explain why we are supposed to believe evolutionary theory is so bad?Scientists used evolutionary theory to track the progress of this plant and pinpoint its source. ID theorists were curiously absent, and apparently want to stay that way.------------------
holmes

First of all, please reply to specific posts by hitting the reply button at the button of the specific post. When you use the general reply button at the end of the whole page, a person may not know their post has a reply waiting to be answered.I'll answer both of your replies in this single post.As far as ID theorists trying to replace evolution, well I... I'm almost dumbfounded. The whole point of ID theory is to replace evolutionary theory. While most of them accept "micro" evolutions, they wholly reject "macro" evolutions.Behe is the only ID author that explicitly says that "macro" evolution may be possible, agreeing that his charges may apply only to abiogenesis.My recommendation is that you go to discovery.org and check out their website. That should start you on your way. Or go to the library and pick up Wells' Icons of Evolution, or anything by Dembski.If you do not believe the point of ID is to replace evolutionary theory, I would like to know what you think ID is and how the two are supposed to fit together side by side?As far as your randomness not qualifying as a scientific hypothesis, I wonder what that has to do with the taxiflora and its powerful refutation against hardcore ID theory?I suppose I could easily replace "natural and random" with "naturally occuring". The point is that no scientist went in an fiddled with the DNA to create a new species. Through natural DNA transmission and reproduction mechanisms, the DNA of a single male plant contained an error (or miscopy) which gave it new properties and thereby formed a new species.------------------
holmes

You can tell me I don't know what ID is all you like, but that will not change the fact that I understand it quite well. Not only that, it cannot reverse the fact that I presented a real challenge to ID with my original post.If in fact this poses no problem for ID theory, then by all means address the taxiflora instead of lobbing ad hominem attacks on me.We have had several threads devoted to the tenets and nature of ID theory itself and you have declined to particpate in them or dropped out when you were proven wrong. That and the fact that you pop up here and did not address the topic of how ID theorists handle x mediterranean from its "epistemological" perspective leaves me less than interested in responding, but sometimes I can't tell when to leave good enough alone. I have discussed this pretty much in depth in the threads you appear to enjoy avoiding. You apparently do not understand what ID is about if you believe that it is purely an epistemological replacement.There are two levels of ID. One level is certainly to address (ie criticize) the methodological naturalism which underlies science as a whole (evolution just one of many scientific theories).The other is to replace evolutionary theory (the theory that speciation was the result of evolutionary processes) with the theory that different species were the result of intelligent design.If I am incorrect, please explain how the mousetrap-flagellum analogy relates to epistemology and not explanations of speciation. On that subject, please explain the entirety of Behe's "Darwin's Blackbox" as well as the entirety of Wells' "Icons of Evolution." Neither are focused on philosophical targets. The question is of explanatory power of evolutionary theory, and proposes that design is the logical replacement.It is true that some ID theorists, perhaps many, have focused on the first level of attack. Most notably Dembski and Johnson. That does not remove the FACT that evolutionary theory is the target of replacement.If not then we'd be talking about "Hume's black box" and the "Icons of methodological naturalism". This simply shows you have no understanding of either archeology or SETI. Both are firmly rooted in methodological naturalism.If they were based in teleological epistemology then SETI would not be trying to discern possible intelligently created radio signals from natural ones, by matching similarities to human communications. What it would be doing is trying to figure out who created all of those radio waves and what each one meant.Likewise archeology would not be asking was this item manmade or not, and if so for what purpose, it would be asking for all items: who made this and why.Actually trying to use two sciences, grounded in methodological naturalism, which attempt to determine whether something was designed, as an argument for shifting the grounding of science to a teleological based epistemology is absurd.Find some science which is firmly based in epistemic teleology that has been successful as a tool for understanding the world around us, and maybe ID arguments along that line would make more sense.Unfortunately for ID theorists it's not like such telic sciences have never existed. They were once prominent... and they all crapped out. Dembski's horrific attempts to revive them from the dead make me wonder how necromancy squares with his Xtian beliefs.Your first quote from Gordon exhibited a hallmark of ID discussion: building strawmen.Methodological naturalism in no way states that things may not, or do not, have teleological natures. The only thing that methodological naturalism precludes is stating that they have such natures or assuming that they do, before there is any evidence along those lines. Making such presumptions will more often (in fact "always has" is a better description) thrown scientific investigations off course.Thus one can easily grant that "teleology might be an objective part of nature", but one cannot use teleology as an explanatory force for phenomoena, until it has some explanatory force for that phenomena. Otherwise one is jumping the gun.Like we could start every chemical investigation with the assumption that ionic bonding somehow plays a part. We could even grant that ionic bonding is the principle force behind all chemical reactions. But we'd end up ill served by such an assumption.Likewise while teleology may exist in nature, it is pretty clearly not necessary in all natural events, so starting with that assumption in every case (even with biology) would seem equally ill-served.The second quote shows the other hallmark of ID: lying to make it appear ID isn't doing or saying what it quite evidently is doing and saying. This is heightened by the ever present mantra "we're not saying evolution is wrong, just that evolutionists are such deceitful ideologues you can't believe what they say." Explain very carefully what this statement means. How does the presupposition that life was designed, or may have been designed, fit alongside basic research into biological structures, and more importantly the nature of speciation?Then square it with the anti-neo-darwinist rhetoric through most ID literature.You know I could pull up many ID quotes regarding how it has nothing to do with Xtianity. Nevermind that the title of one of Dembski's book is bridging science and religion (specifically Xtianity). Nevermind that the discovery institute talks about how replacing evolution with teleology will have some sort of moral consequences which they can tell you about as Xtians. Nevermind that they punk on any evolutionist who declares themselves as an atheist (as proof that evolution leads to atheism... ID can't?).Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. You just have to look at how it logically fits together. ID is not a part or partner of neo-Darwinism, otherwise it would simply be neo-Darwinism. This just goes to show you don't know what I think ID is about. I am not going to repeat all of my posts in other threads which you have ditched. Go to the myriad of ID threads that I have either started or responded to you--- and you disappeared--- to piece together what I think of ID.What really galls me is I even started a thread to explore real evidence of design in biological organisms. In that thread I stated there could be objective evidence along the lines of what archeo or SETI uses to make such a determination.While ID theory makes the epistemic and methodological mistake of presuming design, there are certainly reasons to believe criteria of some kind could be developed to detect "design" and perhaps reasons we will need to develop such criteria as genetic engineering becomes more prevalent.Where were YOU to stick up for me, or to develop credible ID methodology along these lines?------------------
holmes

Mammuthus says:"But since you are back can you now1. propose a testable hypothesis of ID
2. show how it can be falsified
3. show the supporting evidence
4. show how it explains the observations better than competing hypotheses or theories?"Design theorist Mike Gene says:"One out of four ain't bad"Warren, you do realize that nowhere in that quote does Mr Gene say he did anything other than number 1 or 2. Hahahahaha. That's a joke in and of itself.Anyone can make hypotheses, the point is they have to be good hypotheses.How about you give it a try, because Mr Gene needs some help.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-29-2003]

My original post states what the problem posed by taxiflora is for certain proponents of ID theory. I think I made quite clear that it does not damage all flavors of ID theory.Maybe the mistake being made is that you are taking the title of ID theory to mean just your own version, or that of a minority of ID theorists.Let me ask you to address this issue. Is it not true that there are at this time several different strains of ID theory? There are some which mandate what you put forward in another post: "side by side" research theories. There are others which throw barbs at evolutionary theory to counter that it is factual. There are others which allow for the possibility of evolution and but not for abiogenesis.My post did not address the first at all because this is not the typical hardcore ID theory lobbied before congress, nor written about at the Discovery Center, nor published in books.My post addressed the latter two camps.Taxiflora presents a solid case against the ID theorists like Wells, Dembski, and Johnson who quite clearly state in their own literature that evolutionary theory is problematic and cannot explain speciation. Dembski and Wells spend quite a bit of time arguing that mutations like the one seen in taxiflora are "improbable".It makes a weaker case against the second camp, but more because the second has not fully fleshed out their theories. Behe suggests that changed in DNA (since they are by design) could have been front loaded to change later. If that is the position being held then there is a problem in that more than one plant should have "gone off".I did not invoke the idea that ID states every species is specially created by the intervention of a designing intelligence, but will point out that ID requires that some aspects of life (if not all life) were designed by some intelligence. It neither had to intervene (if it was frontloaded), nor did it have to be for all species (ala panspermia).Do you grant me that taxiflora causes problems for Wells, Demski, and to some extent Behe? If not, why not? And don't say because they never said what I described above. And if so, why are you acting as if they are not the main voices of ID theory?I can totally grant that the milder version you outline in your other post, is a real flavor of ID theory, but it is not the main one being pushed by the Johnson crusade.Heck, I just watched a Science Channel documentary on evolution, and they included an interview with Wells and he talked about how there are problems with Darwinism, and that ID theory is a competing theory whose only problem at this point is that it is the "new kid on the block." If you have cable, look it up.------------------
holmes

Ah, correct. Let me rephrase what I said. Once your arguments were challenged, you disappeared. Unfortunately that is similar in appearance and suggestion to a criminal defendant running out of the courtroom once the evidence against him has been presented. Well yes and no. It is subtly different than the purely ad hominem attack you made toward me.I am saying IF you think ID is purely an epistemological replacement THEN you do not understand what ID is about. You did make that statement, and since ID is more than just an epistemology, then I am right and you do not understand what ID is all about.I also presented and argument to support my claim that ID is more than just epistemology.If you did not really believe that ID is purely epistemology, then I would be wrong and it would not only be a strawman fallacy, it would pretty much be ad hominem.Your accusation toward me was either a complete strawman, or straight out ad hominem attack because it had nothing to do with what I said at all.Either way, you or me, bad form. I'll use less emotional language. This is a very good example of ad hominem. You tell me I don't know what I am talking about, then make pure assertions to back it up. Other than saying it is compatible (which Wells, Dembski, Johnson, and Behe say it's not), and that you are not aware of some other thing, I see no reason for your first claim at all.First let me disabuse you of the notion it is compatible. If ID is an epistemology, then research methodology based off of it must by logical requirements be different than methodology based on a wholly different epistemology. Behe, Wells, Dembski, and Johnson argue this very point.According to them naturalist methodologies by their very nature preclude ID mechanisms, or at the very least put an inordinate amount of evidentiary constraints on the ID scientist. It is not just the epistemology, but the methods based on the epistemology which hinder ID as a theory which is why they must be rejected.Second, evolution as the process responsible for speciation is clearly criticized by the same 4 I continue to mention over and over again. If you are saying that ID theory has no issue with macroevolution (a term used by said 4, and without issues about evolution would not exist) then I would like you to explain what the book "Icons of Evolution" was about. In specific, the chapters relating to development of the eye, the horse, and humans.You also failed to address the mousetrap-flagellum issue raised by Dembski and Behe as an Icon of ID theory. How does this relate to purely epistemology matters, and how does it not imply Design (not evolution) is the driving force of speciation? Perhaps you should read the addresses by Johnson and company to congress on the matter of how if evolution is discredited and ID put in place, then there will be a moral component to biology.If in fact, it is a parallel, alternative approach how can there be statements on the Discovery site regarding how evolution has led to so many problems for mankind and ID theory presents a solution?But this is an interesting idea, that research should be carried out in unison with the same naturalist methodology, with the only difference being a simple epistemological difference that one assume an intelligent designer MAY have been around.I certainly have no problem with that. In fact scientists can do that for free. So why does the Discovery institute need federal money specifically for ID research alone (that is exactly what all 4 state in their literature... that it MUST be separate), complain that too much money goes to evolutionary research (all it would take is a change of opinion of the researcher), and changes in legal definitions of science to undermine naturalist methodology?But let's forget them for a second and think about what this means. Scientists would operate allowing for the possibility of evolutionary mechanisms, or that an intelligent designer was involved. While a scientist may go in with an open mind, in each case evidence will start rolling in one direction or the other for which has the best explanatory power.As one gains in explanatory power it would naturally be held as the better general theory. At the very least it will tend to reign within a range of natural phenomena being discussed.You are with me on this, right? While research may be in tandem, the conclusions cannot be. It is an either or proposition.Now this is where the big question comes in. Since evolutionary theory presents a very solid set of explanations (including predictors of future observations), and to date there has been no coherent ID explanation for the speciation we observe, why do we need to bring ID up at all? Currently methodological naturalism is doing fine, especially if ID theory (as you say) agrees with evo.What is the reason to switch to a dual mode research program?And let's say we do. Please present what ID has to say about the taxiflora presented in the opening post. If the only thing ID has to say is that its speciation event was due to evolutionary processes, then that is a score for evolution and at the very least a big fat 0 for ID theory. That makes ID a superfluous theory that does nothing but expend good mental energy for 0 gain.Or if ID has nothing to do with speciation at all, what are the tenets of this theory, besides that it ought to be considered along with evolution? I mean what is it that we are supposed to be considering?For convenience you can outline ID theory in response to the taxiflora mentioned above. How did the speciation event occur according to ID? How does it differ from evo?------------------
holmes

Please respond to the issues I raised in posts 47 and 48. You have now mentioned the flagellum without ever having dealt with my points.Also, please explain what impact the lack of utility ID has in explaining taxiflora has on reasons to use it rather than or in tandem with evolutionary theory, until such time as evolutionary processes are unable to account for phenomenon.------------------
holmes

Warren, please answer the questions I raised in my replies. I answered yours, the least you can be is courteous.------------------
holmes

You make grand claims about what ID is and is not, and that I have no idea what ID is. The socio-political apects may not be of interest to you, but the wording--- and the ramifications of their wording--- clearly presents challenges to your vision of what ID is and is not. Wells, Demsbki, and Johnson clearly state that while it is not LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for evolution to be the mechanism of speciation, it is PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.I posit to you that while evolution and ID can be pursued simultaneously, they cannot be equal as conclusions of research. The flagellum is used as an argument that evolution is not the best mechanism (which by the way you still have not admitted has nothing to do with epistemology). There is no getting away from what this means, if the argument and evidence were valid.Moreso than this, taxiflora stands as a rebuttal of ID. There is simply no separate or valid "intelligent design" scenario. At least none that is testable. While the reverse is not only true, but what actually happened. Scientists used tests based on evolutionary mechanisms to make real scientific discoveries about a new plant.If evolution consistently is the better explanatory theory for speciation, and that is all evolution deals with, what reason is there for tandem research using methodology which has given us nothing at all and in the case of taxiflora would have been an impediment? Explain how it has helped. Explain how it helps you when in the case if taxiflora it would have said nothing at all?If a theory is at best hit and miss, isn't it better to go with the one that keeps hitting?I have yet to see you provide any evidence for value added to scientific research. 1) The scientific method does not reject teleology in any a priori way. It simply does not assume teleology in an a priori way. Evolutionary theory rejects biological teleology, but that is not a methodology. It is constructed from a methodology, which could have identified teleological mechanisms if there was some sort of evidence for it.2) What does this have to do with this thread's topic at all? Why not start posting in another thread where this line of argument is the topic? Most notably the thread I opened to seriously discuss evidence for ID and practical needs for investigating ID in biological organisms. I can equally construct alternative views, capable of interpreting data, which can also generate hypotheses and predictions. This does not make such constructs valuable to science."Different angles" is not an answer. When stuck with a major problem, where current methods have been exhausted... maybe "different angles" are the best option. But we have not reached that point regarding speciation or other biological events.And I am still unclear, if ID has nothing to do with speciation (other than another way of thinking), what is its explanatory focus?------------------
holmes

Pot calls kettle black. You want to ever get around to addressing my response to your response to my original post?If you want to go on about falsifiability, why don't you open up a new thread?If you want to address the implications of Taxiflora on (at the very least) the utility of a dual mode ID/evo research methodology, then be my guest to keep posting here.There is a reason I created my own thread on this topic. And I think it is the very reason you have refused to address anything I've said, despite posting here.Let's say for sake of argument that you can create a falsifiable theory. BFD. It also must be useful. ID has thus far proven unnecessary to understand earlier life, and taxiflora shows its uselessness (or at least the unquestionable utility of sticking with evo) to understand life as it continues to change.------------------
holmes