a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

Did you explain this? Why is the mousetrap-flagellum example whipped ( ) to death? And why would the teleological explanations be added? Since there is no reason (as yet ) to do so?

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

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

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]

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

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]

Warren, Now that depends on what the subject is.You can go back as far as you like until there is no data, other than the observation that something actually is, of course, & then claim that methodological naturalism & science are equally ignorant. But so what? ID doesn't become a better explanation because science has no data with which to infer.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

YOur essential point seems to be that we dn't knwo enough about the flagellum to directly identify whether it was designed or jsut evolved.I agree.But this is a MAJOR problem for the ID supporters.You see, ID rests - or used to rest - on attempting to prove that certain systems were designed. But the problem is that we don't have any direct evidence for that - ID relies on trying to refute other hypotheses.So, why pick on systems where we *don't* have a lot of direct evidence that lets us work out how they appeared ? ID's eliminative approach is - as your post recognises - at its weakest in that case. Remember that it was the ID supporters who chose to focus on "the" (or rather *a*) flagellum.The nonteleological explanation has the advantage. It does not require assuming a designer. Without evidence for a designer it has to be preferred.Which leads to another odd thing about ID. EVERY other design hypothesis I know of makes some assumptions about the nature and capabilities of the designer. SETI does, archaeologists do, forensic investigators do. ID doesn't. Why ? Again it weakens any argument for ID by limiting it to an eliminative approach, as Behe and Dembski do.Mike Gene tries to do better but without much success and his hypotheses don't seem to offer anything very different from panselectionism. Both predict function almost everywhere. But he is still limited by avoiding hypotheses about potential designers.

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

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

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?

Why do I misunderstand this? 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.

I have never seen ANYWHERE in biodiscourse a Einstein's discrimination of a "clock" VS a "rod" and yet if there is a consistent and persistent epistemological exchange of space and time in the cause of any correlation suppposed AS SEEN then when it comes to answering questions (Dyson Origins of Life p2 "What is the physical strucutre of the molecules that are duplicated when chromosomes divide? How is the process of duplication to be understood? How do the molecules retain their individuality from generation to generation?" may fail for anglosaxon philosophical heritage the continental bias of Poincare against Cantor that only ? applies to the ROD and NOT the CLock ONTOLOGICALLY in the same confidence or motivation. That's only a guess. I have my own preference for Boscovich. Newton proposed against conspiring motions but since statistical physics we have not made these questions simply material remonstrations (because of an EXTRA symbol in Macrothermodynamcis). I doubt they should be but that does not mean we should not try.NN-the second to last senetence here should have been rather suggestive than declartive as there are likely outside my own thought other possibilites. Sorry, if my lazyness may have misdirected you if such was the case.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-08-2003]