a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

Holmes<< 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. >>Please site examples of ID theorists that are trying to replace evolutionary theory.

Crashfrog<< Our consistent failure to create life through intelligent design is pretty much a clear indication to me that life isn't the result of intelligent design. >>Two things. First, on what basis do you conclude that scientists of the future won't be able to create life? Second, based on your logic why doesn't the failure to create life via simulating natural processes thought to be at work on the primordial earth indicate to you that life didn't originate via a materialistic process?

Holmes<< My opening post and the entire subject of this thread was a natural and random mutation leading to a new species.>>Warren<< Randomness doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis. In order to qualify as a stochastic hypothesis, it necessary to define specifically what type of probability to distribution is being proposed and it is necessary to demonstrate that the distribution assumed is in fact valid. Unless the probability distribution being used is defined and validated, random mutation simply means ‘we don’t know what type of mutation will occur". It is not possible to generate testable predictions with a ‘I don’t know’ distribution assumption. Since there is no testable predictions there is no scientific hypothesis.>>[This message has been edited by Warren, 09-28-2003][This message has been edited by Warren, 09-28-2003]

Holmes<< 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.>>You obviously don't understand what ID is all about. ID is not truly theory, nor hypothesis. ID is a distinct epistemology. ID, like methodological naturalism, is a framework for theories and hypotheses, an epistemological underpinning for theories and hypotheses.ID removes the assumption of non-teleology from the epistemology of origins research and the evolutionary sciences, putting them on epistemological par with archaeology and SETI. It adds potential alternatives to the spectrum of possibilities to be considered. It allows a broader range of hypothesis.Bruce Gordon, director of The Baylor Science and Religion Project
at Baylor University describes ID research thusly:"What has come to be called 'design theory' is at best a means for mathematically describing, empirically detecting, and then quantifying teleology (goal-directedness) in nature, without prejudging where or whether it will be found. Secondly, if it is granted that teleology might be an objective part of nature, then it also has to be acknowledged that design research can be carried out in a manner that does not violate methodological naturalism as a philosophical constraint on science. I have no attachment one way or the other to methodological naturalism as a metascientific principle, but honesty demands the recognition that design-theoretic research does not logically entail its denial."As far as ID replacing evolutionary theory, Gordon has this to say:"Design theory is at best a supplementary consideration introduced along- side (or perhaps into, by way of modification) neo-Darwinian biology and self-organizational complexity theory. It does not mandate the replacement of these highly fruitful research paradigms, and to suggest that it does is just so much overblown, unwarranted, and ideologically driven rhetoric."Holmes<< 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.>>That you think this is a problem for the design perspective demonstrates that you are clueless as to what ID is. Perhaps you could explain to me what you think ID is. You seem to equate ID with the proposition that every species is specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence.[This message has been edited by Warren, 09-29-2003][This message has been edited by Warren, 09-29-2003]

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:I have provided many testable ID hypotheses on various forums. All I need is a specific topic and a suspicion that I am dealing with design. Proofreading mechanism in transcription? I used ID to offer a testable hypothesis. Chaperone distribution among Archaea? I used ID to offer a testable hypothesis. The information state entailed by cellular life? I used ID to offer a testable hypothesis. The role of diffusion in cellular life? I used ID to offer a testable hypothesis. Degradosome function? I used ID to offer a testable hypothesis. The origin of viruses? I used ID to offer a testable hypothesis. In fact, just recently I analyzed tubulin/ftsZ and used ID to come up with no less than four testable hypothesis (see TeleoLogic No.1 at Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.com )[This message has been edited by Warren, 09-29-2003]

REI<< Pick one of Mike Gene's claims, so that we can pick it apart.>>Scientists "pick apart" each others hypotheses all the time. That's how science works. That's part of the testing process. The challenge from the ID critics on this forum was for me to present testable ID hypotheses. If you can falsify them that will only prove they are indeed testable.[This message has been edited by Warren, 09-29-2003]

Rei: "If a hypothesis is picked apart and cannot be defended, then it is likely a false hypothesis."Warren<< The challenge to me was to present testable ID hypotheses not pick-proof hypotheses. If I presented pick-proof hypotheses then you would be complaning they were unfalsifiable. Heads you win, tails I lose. >>Rei<< So, please, pick one, so that we can attempt to prove that it is a false hypothesis. If you choose not to defend it, then why did you bring up the quote in the first place?>>Warren<< I already did my job by presenting testable ID hypotheses. If it is your contention that these hypotheses are actually untestable then the burden is on you. You pick one and demonstrate it's untestable. >>[This message has been edited by Warren, 09-29-2003]

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. >>I repeat. If you think this example of yours poses any problem whatsoever for the ID perspective then you don't understand ID. If you are not invoking ID as the proposition that every species is specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence then I fail to see why you think your example is a problem for ID. I can't very well address the so-called taxiflora problem if I don't know what the problem is suppose to be. I have no reason to believe that any ID scientist researching taxiflora would have come to any other conclusion for it's origin than what you presented.[This message has been edited by Warren, 09-29-2003]

Mammuthus<< You will notice that I asked for a testable hypothesis that is falsifiable. Where in all of this do you see that any of this can be falsified? The IDists rely on the outcomes of the testable hypothesis of evolution and then say "goddidit" ahem I mean " it was designed".>>I don't know what you are talking about. The testable hypothesis that Mike Gene is presenting is this:"Enolase functions in the degradosome as a prong that plugs the degradosome into the glycolytic pathway so that ATP generated by pyruvate kinase is then quickly channeled to the helicase to fuel its unwinding activity. That is, the degradosome is a dynamic modular machine that literally is plugged in to turn it on. But it can also easily be unplugged to turn it off, which is why scientists don't pull out other glycolytic enzymes attached to enolase. The reversible nature of degradosome function makes it possible to regulate its activity. The nice thing about this hypothesis is that it explains why enolase is still functioning as a glycolytic enzyme. But it also means enolase is not an example of an alternative function."I don't see any "goddidit" claim here, nor do I see anything that is unfalsifiable.

Holmes: 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.Warren<< Nonsense. I haven't been proven wrong about anything.>>>Holmes<< You apparently do not understand what ID is about if you believe that it is purely an epistemological replacement.>>Warren<< Should I consider this an ad hominem attack or does this only apply when I assert you don't understand something?>>Holmes<< 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.>>Warren<< You just don't know what you are talking about. First of all, ID is perfectly compatible with methodological naturalism. Secondly, I'm not aware of any ID theorist that maintains that speciation isn't a natural process. >>Holmes: 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.Warren<< All the ID theorists I'm aware of think of ID as a parallel, alternative approach and not as a replacement.The debate about ID often revolves around either/or thinking - either ID is true and should serve as the basis of science or it is not true and should continue to be excluded. But why can't we take a both/and approach? It's not a question of the teleological view replacing the mechanistic view, it's a question of using both perspectives in parallel (such a both/and perspective could be used by individuals and/or a community). That is, just as light is best understood when viewed as both wave and particle, might not the origin of biological complexity involve both teleological and non-teleological explanations?>>[This message has been edited by Warren, 09-30-2003]

Mammuthus<< I think this is a major failing of the IDists in that they take an structure like the flagellum or the eye in an individual species and claim because it is complex in that species it must have been designed. The same with looking at enolase or any other part of an enyzmatic pathway. Without comparing the structure, the genes, the secondary and tertiary structure of the proteins among among many different organisms you will of course never be able to comprehend how the complexity evolved. But it is still a logical fallacy to assert that it is therefore designed. Not knowing the precise trajectory the mutations that lead to a trait took during evolution is not equivalent to saying that this is evidence that the trait was designed.>>We are having a problem communicating. Perhaps part of this is my fault for failing to make my points as clear as they could be but I also think part of the problem is that you are stereotyping me. You need to listen to exactly what I'm saying and not interprete my words in light of what you have heard others say. For instance, I have stated over and over again that I don't make any "must have been designed" claims. Yet, this keeps coming up in these discussions. So let me try once again to lay this canard to rest. If there was a clear-cut way to distinguish design from non-design, ID research would not be needed. That is, one simple unequivocal test that distinguishes design from non-design would be sufficient. But there is no such test and keep in mind that science has no such test when excluding design to explain the origin of a biological feature. So the issue to me isn't about proving that something in nature is designed anymore than biological research is about disproving design. The issue I'm interested in exploring is this:How can a teleological perspective guide biological research?You will notice that in the Mike Gene example I provided, nothing is claimed to be designed. Instead, what you have is a testable / falsifiable hypothesis that was generated from a teleological perspective. That's all ID has to do. Afterall, that's how the non-teleological approach has worked for the past century, right? Like ID, the non-teleological approach has no test to distinguish design from non-design. Instead, they have been focused on the utility of the non-teleological approach, where at some point, a successful track record becomes an argument for validity. This is what ID theorists like Mike Gene are attempting to do, flesh out a teleological approach that seeks to understand biotic reality and its history.[This message has been edited by Warren, 10-01-2003]

Mammuthus: Ok, I understand what you are saying however, Mike Gene does not provide a falsifiable hypothesis.Warren: Mike isn't attempting to prove that something is designed. He is endeavoring to demonstrate how a teleological perspective can guide biological research. He used teleological reasoning to come to the conclusion that:"Enolase functions in the degradosome as a prong that plugs the degradosome into the glycolytic pathway so that ATP generated by pyruvate kinase is then quickly channeled to the helicase to fuel its unwinding activity."I fail to see why you think this hypothesis is unfalsifiable. To falsify it all you have to do is show that enolase DOESN'T function as a prong that plugs the degradosome into the glycolytic pathway so that ATP generated by pyruvate kinase is then quickly channeled to the helicase to fuel its unwinding activity.Mammuthus: For example, I can look at organisms with everything from the most primitive phototaxic systems to the most complex, compare the proteins, genes, and then compare other features they have in common to posutlate identity by descent. If no homology in any system in any organism existed then identity by descent would be falsified.Warren: Identity by descent would be falsified but not descent via a non-teleological process. You see, we are back to the fact that science has no test to distinguish design from non-design. The way I see it this is no more a problem for the teleological approach than it is for the non-teleological approach. Evidently when you talk about falsifying an ID hypothesis what you have in mind is falsifying a "must have been designed claim". I agree that can't be done. But Mike Gene doesn't make any "must have been designed claims." And even in those cases where ID is inferred, if it's possible to empirically thwart the design inference that should be sufficient to assure the critics we aren't dealing with magic.This problem of strict falsifiability cuts both ways. For example, I once asked an ID critic what would falsify Darwinian evolution. He replied that finding a fossil rabbit in the pre-cambrian strata would do nicely. I aked him if such a finding would challenge the idea that humans and other primates share a relatively recent ancestor? Would it contradict the concept that the relative proportions of different traits within a breeding population change by a process of mutation of genetic material and selective pressure?I don't think single experiments have the capability to really falsify any claim about such ancient history. Whether we are talking about ID or the blind watchmaker, the most we can hope to do is to construct a scenario and determine if the data fits it well. That is, such experiments generate only circumstantial evidence that either weakens or supports the hypothesis.Take the flagellum. How can we falsify the claim that the flagellum evolved by adopting parts with different functions? How can we falsify the claim that that the flagellum evolved by elimination of functional redundancy? ID critics propose these as scientific explanations for the origin of IC systems like the flagellum. So what experiments would falsify these proposals?As for ID, let's say someone thinks the antifreeze glycoproteins were the product of ID. Yet we do some experiments and find out that the AFGP function is not IC, it is not part of an IC machine, and neither does the protein's function entail a high information state (it has low CSI). To this we can add some rather convincing circumstantial evidence of its gradual evolution from a prescursor trypsinogen gene. Thus, in this case, the ID inference is effectively falsified. Or, at the very least, a design inference is no longer triggered.[This message has been edited by Warren, 10-02-2003]

Mammuthus: Hi Warren, the above is not a teleological based hypothesis..it is a descriptive analogy. What would be the point of falsifying an analogy?Warren: I don't know what you are talking about. Mike Gene is the first (as far as I know) to propose a hypothesis for the function of enolase as part of the bacterial degradosome, a machine that degrades RNA inside a bacterial cell. The hypothesis, in a nutshell, is that enolase helps to channel ATP specifically to a helicase (an RNA-unwinding enzyme) that is also part of the degradosome. This is a perfectly testable and falsifiable hypothesis.[This message has been edited by Warren, 10-07-2003]

Mammuthus: But this is the problem, if you falsify an evolutionary mechanism this does not support and ID hypothesis.Warren: Never said it did.Mammuthus: The ID hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable in order to be considered regardless of the status of naturalistic theories.Warren: I agree. I just gave you one. The problem is you don't seem to be able to recognize a testable and falsifiable hypothesis when it's right in front of you.Mammuthus: You have as much as admitted that it is non falsifiable so critics will not be assured that you are not talking about magic since from the perspective of science the fact that there is no way to empirically test or falsfiy ID makes it as useless as magical explanations.Warren: You misunderstand. What I said was that a "must be designed" claim is unfalsifiable. I might add that a "must have orginated via a non-teleological process" claim is also unfalsifiable. In the example of enolase that I provided you will note that no "must be designed" claim is being made. Instead what we have is a demonstration that a teleological approach CAN be used to guide lab research and, along the way, generate insight into the living world. No magic here.Mammuthus: This is why falsifiability is crucial. If you cannot falsify it, you cannot test it, you have nothing to work with, no progress can be made...thus ID has not advanced an inch in its history.Warren: Here's a hypothesis:Enolase helps to channel ATP specifically to a helicase that is also part of the degradosome.Now show this hypothesis is unfalsifiable.Warren: :Take the flagellum. How can we falsify the claim that the flagellum evolved by adopting parts with different functions? How can we falsify the claim that that the flagellum evolved by elimination of functional redundancy? ID critics propose these as scientific explanations for the origin of IC systems like the flagellum. So what experiments would falsify these proposals?Mammuthus: You could falsify it by showing that none of the proteins in the flagellum or their genes were shared among any organisms. That the genes and proteins were completely non homologous to any other genes an/or proteins in other organisms where they are used for different functions. i.e. if a gradual natural process occurred there should be some evidence left behind of the incremental steps. ...and how exactly do you falsify the idea that it was designed intelligently?Warren: I don't think you can falsify the claim that the flagellum was intelligently designed but neither can the claim that the flagellum arose via non-teleological processes be falsified. On the other hand, there are possible data that could thwart a design inference but can you suggest any data that would cause you to doubt the flagellum was the product of blind watchmaking?

Mammuthus: if a gradual natural process occurred there should be some evidence left behind of the incremental steps. ...NosyNed: Mammuthus seems to have given you exactly what you asked for. If he didn't why isn't it? You'll have to use pretty simple words for me. Since I read the above 3 times and can't see what is missing.Warren: Yes, it is possible to falsify the hypothesis that the flagellum arose via incremental selective steps and this has been done. That's why the Darwinists are now speculating about "adoption from a different function" and "elimination of functional redundancy". That is why I specifically asked mammuthus:"How can we falsify the claim that the flagellum evolved by adopting parts with different functions? How can we falsify the claim that that the flagellum evolved by elimination of functional redundancy?"He didn't really answer the question because the primary way many real biologists attempt to explain the origin of IC systems is through coincidental cooption and fortuitous events. There is simply no way to falsify coincidence/chance. Random accident is untestable. Science can only test regularity, law, order, design, etc. Accident followed by coincidental correspondence is not science, but speculation. It can never be confirmed nor denied in any specific instance.[This message has been edited by Warren, 10-08-2003][This message has been edited by Warren, 10-08-2003]