a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

quote:

---

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.>>

---

Then you have a problem since mutation distributions follow a normal distribution and mutation rate per site is both something that can be calculated AND tested for accuracy....and we do know what type of mutation will occur, a transition or a transversion...alternatively and insertion or deletion.But since you are back can you now
1. 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?Thanks in advance

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"Ok, your and Greenes hypothesis is that it is designed. Let's continue with the degradation pathways...what is the test for design? What will falsify the hypothesis that degradation enzymatic pathways are designed?for example, Gene claims

quote:

---

proteins with similar conformations, but differing properties, are expected to be found through a process of rational protein design

---

How is this falsifiable? What is rational protein design? The entire homology debate was based on circular reasoning and argumentation based on indredulity.I am not interested in this. I want to know if there is a testable hypothesis which so far I have not seen. The null hypothesis of the test is that it was not designed but niether you nor Gene have shown how you would ever be show that the null hypothesis is indeed correct. For this reason, ID is not science.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 09-30-2003]

Hi Warren,
First off, I would like to thank you for your willingness to debate the issue of testable and falsfiable hyptheses and ID. Very few people have been willing so I always appreciate when someone makes the effort. Now on to the example.There is nothing particularly testable or falsifiable in the quote you cited. However, there is really nothing there that has to do with either evolution or intelligent design either. It is a purely descriptive text on enolases..or more accurately, an analogy for how enolases are involved in glycolysis. This does not suggest a testable and falsifiable hypothesis to distinguish how enolases evolved or whether intelligent design was involved.Let's say you look in bacteria and find a gene that has some homology or some structural similarity to hemogolobin. You look in yeast and find a related group of proteins. You continue to mutlicellular organsims up to animals that use hemoglobin in oxygen transport. What would be the testable and falsifiable hypothesis that it hemoglobin originated via intelligent design versus naturalistic evolution?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.cheers,
M

quote:

---

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

---

My apologise Warren. I am not intentionally trying to stereotype you or misinterpret what you are saying. Thanks for your further clarification.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ok, I understand what you are saying however, Mike Gene does not provide a falsifiable hypothesis. 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. That does not mean independent evolution of a trait cannot occur i.e. convergence but if all traits were merely superficially similar then both genetics and evolution would be simultaneously falsified. How would you falsify the hypothesis that sight was designed? Once the evidence supports evolution by a naturalistic mechanism one can still fall back on teleological explanations saying things like "we just cannot observe the intelligence" or the "intelligence makes it look like random mutation and natural selection" But such an argument is not logical or scientific. That is my key problem with ID.As has been pointed out by holmes in this forum, why is it when we find a human artifact like a Clovis point, or a Mayan ruin, it is so clearly something that was manipulated and designed by humans but when we look at biological systems such a clear cut is impossible to find?It is not that science it trying to purposely exclude ID from being studied. However, unless there is a testable AND falsifiable hypothesis to work with then it is considered supernatural i.e. outside of nature and science does not study the supernatural.I have no problem with people like you and Mike Gene making attempts to come up with a testable hypothesis and contemplate how it could be falsified. I actively encourage it. Behe and other prominent pro-IDists have avoided this crucial step and that is why they have not been taken seriously.cheers,
M

quote:

---

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.

---

Hi Warren, the above is not a teleological based hypothesis..it is a descriptive analogy. What would be the point of falsifying an analogy?

quote:

---

: 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.

---

But this is the problem, if you falsify an evolutionary mechanism this does not support and ID hypothesis. The ID hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable in order to be considered regardless of the status of naturalistic theories. 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

No serious researcher relies on single experiments. In any case, you are overly critical of the kind of experiemtns that are undertaken in scientific research. Not only can one find or test for evidence that supports a given hypothesis/thoery, one can attempt to falsify an entire theory or components of the theory. This is what science does constantly. This is how discoveries are made. 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.

quote:

---

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?

---

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?

quote:

---

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

---

...ok Warren, stop right there...how do you do this? What experiments would show you that the function is NOT IC?cheers,
M

since a number of people already addressed some of the points I was going to make I will focus on one thing from this message

quote:

---

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.

---

How is this a teleological hypothesis?Ok one more thing, I explained how to falsify that a naturalistic process produced the flagellum and you ignored it, claimed I did not make the attempt, and then did not answer the question yourself. How do you falsify an intelligent design hypothesis for the development of the flagellum?

quote:

---

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.

---

I am a real biologist and I gave you a way to falsfiy the evolution of the flagellum by naturalistic process. You then proceded to claim "real biologists" claim something else and completely avoided what I said. You have not shown how I am wrong and you have not shown how to falsify ID..you are using a false "well there methodology sucks so ours can suck to" attitude. Is this the sum total of your argument or will you proceed to address the points I make and desist with the evasive tactics? Sorry, but I find what you just attempted to do rather annoying given you were debating very reasonably prior to this.

quote:

---

Mammuthus: How is this a teleological hypothesis?

​

Warren: I already explained this. What are you expecting a teleological hypothesis to be?

---

Then explain it again. Is the following a teleological "hypothesis" in your mind: The second largest key in my pocket opens the trunk of my car?You are claiming that an enzyme catalzying a reaction is a teleological hypothesis and it is not. It is not even a hypothesis but a description of a function.

quote:

---

Warren: Pay careful attention to the fact that while my critics almost universally demand that I prove evolution is impossible, I have never built my position by demanding they prove design is impossible.

---

You apparently do not realize that science (all science) works with falsifiable hypotheses? I am not asking you to prove that evolution is impossible. I am asking you to show how ID is falsifiable which you have not done.

quote:

---

Not only can't you falsify it you can't even tell me what data would cause you to suspect the eubacterial flagellum didn't evolved through coincidental cooption. And I find it annoying that you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent what I'm saying. I'm not being evasive at all.

---

I find it annoying that you tell me evolution of the flagellum is not falsifiable and I show you an easy way to do it and then you berate me for not providing positive evidence for the evolution of flagellum. Make up your mind which you want...ok forget it I will just give you both so that in you next post you can double your hypocricy by claiming that I did niether.falsification: Here are a couple, no protein or gene for the flagellum in unrelated species, even closely related species, bear any homology at all. The genes for the flagellum are not passed on from one generation to the next i.e. not heritable.support:Curr Biol. 2001 Apr 3;11(7):529-33. Related Articles, LinksAxoneme-specific beta-tubulin specialization: a conserved C-terminal motif specifies the central pair.Nielsen MG, Turner FR, Hutchens JA, Raff EC.Indiana Molecular Biology Institute and Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.Axonemes are ancient organelles that mediate motility of cilia and flagella in animals, plants, and protists. The long evolutionary conservation of axoneme architecture, a cylinder of nine doublet microtubules surrounding a central pair of singlet microtubules, suggests all motile axonemes may share common assembly mechanisms. Consistent with this, alpha- and beta-tubulins utilized in motile axonemes fall among the most conserved tubulin sequences [1, 2], and the beta-tubulins contain a sequence motif at the same position in the carboxyl terminus [3]. Axoneme doublet microtubules are initiated from the corresponding triplet microtubules of the basal body [4], but the large macromolecular "central apparatus" that includes the central pair microtubules and associated structures [5] is a specialization unique to motile axonemes. In Drosophila spermatogenesis, basal bodies and axonemes utilize the same alpha-tubulin but different beta-tubulins [6--13]. beta 1 is utilized for the centriole/basal body, and beta 2 is utilized for the motile sperm tail axoneme. beta 2 contains the motile axoneme-specific sequence motif, but beta 1 does not [3]. Here, we show that the "axoneme motif" specifies the central pair. beta 1 can provide partial function for axoneme assembly but cannot make the central microtubules [14]. Introducing the axoneme motif into the beta 1 carboxyl terminus, a two amino acid change, conferred upon beta 1 the ability to assemble 9 + 2 axonemes. This finding explains the conservation of the axoneme-specific sequence motif through 1.5 billion years of evolution.Anat Rec. 2002 Nov 1;268(3):290-301. Related Articles, LinksMotility proteins and the origin of the nucleus.Dolan MF, Melnitsky H, Margulis L, Kolnicki R.Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Morrill Science Center, Amherst 01003, USA. mdolan@geo.umass.eduHypotheses on the origin of eukaryotic cells must account for the origin of the microtubular cytoskeletal structures (including the mitotic spindle, undulipodium/cilium (so-called flagellum) and other structures underlain by the 9(2)+2 microtubular axoneme) in addition to the membrane-bounded nucleus. Whereas bacteria with membrane-bounded nucleoids have been described, no precedent for mitotic, cytoskeletal, or axonemal microtubular structures are known in prokaryotes. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate that the cells of the earliest-branching lineages of eukaryotes contain the karyomastigont cytoskeletal system. These protist cells divide via an extranuclear spindle and a persistent nuclear membrane. We suggest that this association between the centriole/kinetosome axoneme (undulipodium) and the nucleus existed from the earliest stage of eukaryotic cell evolution. We interpret the karyomastigont to be a legacy of the symbiosis between thermoacidophilic archaebacteria and motile eubacteria from which the first eukaryote evolved. Mutually inconsistent hypotheses for the origin of the nucleus are reviewed and sequenced proteins of cell motility are discussed because of their potential value in resolving this problem. A correlation of fossil evidence with modern cell and microbiological studies leads us to the karyomastigont theory of the origin of the nucleus. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.And here is a website full of references supporting the evolution of the flagellum and taking apart ID at the same time
Evolution of the Flagellum - MetaNow I place the ball back in your court, give a testable falsifiable hypothesis for ID and not a description of enzymatic function and we can move from there.

quote:

---

I still have not heard of a single instance of a non-naturalistic explanation contributing to scientific inquiry.

---

I disagree. ID and creationism are ideal examples for young science students of what science is not. Thus, they can be used to contribute to scientific inquiry by showing students the danger of poor reasoning which they will then hopefully avoid.but in practice you are correct..at least until my Teleological-Thermal-Cycler from CreatoGen arrives allowing me to generate the results I want to see without actually having to do any work, have a hypothesis, or any evidence....the patent holder will be rich.

If you are going to advocate "intelligent" design then how about actually "intelligently" reading what I freaking write?Once again for Warren,Falsification of flagellum evolving by adopting parts with different functions: Each protein in the flagellum of each species bears no homology to any other protein. They are all novel genes with no homologues in other species, even closely related species. This falsifies an evolutionary development of the function (and heredity for that matter). The closest phenomenon observed to something like this is horizontal transfer. However, the evolution of the genes is clear from the organism from which the transfer occurred and is therefore not a falsification.Expected response from Warren..."But you did not prove that the flagellum evolved"..Mammuthus then supplies the same evidence..response from Warren" But you did not even address falsifying an evolutionary hypothesis for the flagellum" and so on and so on in circles

quote:

---

Warren: I have already provided you with a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis and you refuse to recognize it.

---

You have provided a hypothesis about an enyzmes function that in no way has any bearing on testing ID! It is like doing random PCR and saying it is evidence for ID because you got a nice observable band even though it has nothing to do with gathering information on ID.

quote:

---

All that's necesssary to form a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis is to have a suspicion that something in nature may have been designed and then follow up this suspicion with an investigation.

---

That is a crock. You have a suspicion of ID involvment and have absolutely no way to distinguish your suspicion from refutation of your suspicion. Thus you do not have a falsifiable hypothesis merely by having a suspicion. Cytochrome b, did it evolve or was it designed? Evolution: I can compare cytb in any organism that has mitochondria that I want. I can find related sequences in organsisms that do not have mitochondria. I can gather evidence about its rate of change, its transmission, its population genetics etc. I can falsify that it evolved by showing that it is not heritable. ID...cytb was created by intelligence...supporting info? That it is there? Falsification...how?

quote:

---

If in the course of this investigation one uses teleological reasoning to make a prediction/hypothesis concerning some phenomena and this prediction/hypothesis could be proven false by new data then what you have here is a testable falsifiable ID hypothesis.

---

And what new data exaclty would be required since the old data already falsifies ID yet you don't accept it? What is the data then that falsifies ID?

quote:

---

This is the course of action Mike Gene followed that led to his making a prediction about degradosomal enolase function which could turn out to be false.

---

Then it is rather a pity that his prediction about the degradation pathway has nothing to do with a teleological hypothesis....what is teleological about the catalysis of a chemical reaction?

quote:

---

This example demonstrates a teleological approach CAN be used to guide lab research and, along the way, generate insight into the living world. I therefore agree with Mike Gene when he says:

---

this shows that ID adherents truly lack any grounding in scientific reasoning...you go into the "living world" with a suspicion that everything around you has been designed....end of story, no progress, no way to move further...or ID movement according to you is that enzyme X catalyzes reaction Y...behold ID! Because if enzyme X had catalyzed reaction Z then it clearly could not have been ID...

quote:

---

Thus, I would even go as far as to maintain the notion that ID is a "science stopper" or nothing more than a "god-of-the gaps" approach has been effectively refuted.

---

Nice quote...I would maintain that Mr. Gene should try a science-starter kit to learn how it actually works and how one formulates a hypothesis.