Intelligent Design in Universities

ID is a field now, rather then a largely undefined opinion? Well, color me stunned.What degree do you hold and where did you get it? Is it in "Intelligent Design"?

So you think the reasonable solution tothis is to say that god (or some unidentified entity you won't name because you don't want to say "god") did it? Wouldn't it be better to keep doing science till we find an answer rather than attributing it to the supernatural and calling it a day?There are still questions waiting for you in my previous post.

quote:

---

How would inorganic chemistry of the transition metals using ID differ from inorganic chemistry of the transition metals using methodological naturealism?

---

Not one iota by any stretch of the imagination. That's not ID, it's chemistry.

---

Design Dynamics

So from your response to paisano one can deduce that ID consists of methodological naturalism determining the best theory to explain natural phenomenon and IDists doing a little dance and saying "thanks god ahem..I mean intelligent designer..for doing it?" And how is this in any way a useful addition to science? How about trying it the other way...show how anything has been discovered or explained starting from the premise of ID..but firstHow about this,
1. propose a testable hypothesis of intelligent design
2. demonstrate how it can be falsified
3. at this point and only at this point should you consider providing data that supports your working hypothesis
4. and then demonstrate how it better explains observations from nature than competing hypotheses and theories.If you cannot get past 1 and 2 (which to date no creationist or IDist ever has) then ID is about as useful as claiming that a sentient invisible goat in your left shoe is responsible for biodiversity and for reruns of the Simpsons.So far your entire argument has been that since Newton and others were religious, all of their theories support ID which is merely claiming that the results of methodological naturalism support ID without showing why.

quote:

---

So from your response to paisano one can deduce that ID consists of methodological naturalism determining the best theory to explain natural phenomenon and IDists doing a little dance and saying "thanks god ahem..I mean intelligent designer..for doing it?" And how is this in any way a useful addition to science? How about trying it the other way...show how anything has been discovered or explained starting from the premise of ID..but first

---

A very provocative post which I choose not to answer in kind, although I am happy to say that I'm quite well versed in that particular area.Read the two top threads in here and we will invite you to a Sunday morning service to praise....ahem....QUANTUM MECHANICS! Strike up the choir and pass the plate..........Oh Bertha, that candle is touching the hem of thy garment.......

---

Design Dynamics

Let's try again sans all other issues1. propose a testable hypothesis of intelligent design
2. demonstrate how it can be falsified
3. at this point and only at this point should you consider providing data that supports your working hypothesis
4. and then demonstrate how it better explains observations from nature than competing hypotheses and theories.

Ahh...this is better.

quote:

---

1. propose a testable hypothesis of intelligent design

---

Since ID is no more a theory of science in itself than is anesthesiology, I assume you want me to provide a testable hypothesis that lies WITHIN the field of ID? I am glad to do this.In fact, let's do a game. Do you like games? Here is one that will entertain the entire forum. I will throw out a testable hypothesis that lies exclusively within the field of ID, then you will throw out one that lies exclusively within the field of Darwinism, we will discuss them until both of us are satisfied and then we will move onto the next one. Agree? Good. I'll go first.1) ID predicts that genomes are at their best when they are just designed and the second law of thermodynamics takes it from there to DEVOLVE genomes in direct opposition to the musings of Darwin. This has been shown to be true in vertebrates in this study. Let me know what you think. If you want the paper to wade through the biology, I got it.

quote:

---

2. demonstrate how it can be falsified

---

This could have been falsified by the listed paper in itself, at least primarily. It can easily be falsified by doing other studies that show vertebrate genomes INCREASING in information over a long period of time as Darwin suggests can happen in violation of the laws of nature.

quote:

---

3. at this point and only at this point should you consider providing data that supports your working hypothesis

---

I think I just did. Sorry.

quote:

---

4. and then demonstrate how it better explains observations from nature than competing hypotheses and theories.

---

It better explains observations because it explains what we actually observe. We observe that 98% of the species in the fossil record are now extinct rather than growing ever more complex as Neo-Darwinism suggests happens.Your turn. My experience says I will never hear from the Molecular Biologist again. Let's do a friendly debate and invite your students to participate. What say you?Thanks for the post. JerryThis message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-04-2005 04:38 AM

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

1) ID predicts that genomes are at their best when they are just designed and the second law of thermodynamics takes it from there to DEVOLVE genomes in direct opposition to the musings of Darwin. This has been shown to be true in vertebrates in this study. Let me know what you think. If you want the paper to wade through the biology, I got it.

---

This part of your sentence is absolute nonsense "ID predicts that genomes are at their best..." What is "best"? The human genome is a mess. By your definition of best, viruses and bacteria should be considered vastly superior as they are much more streamlined..even the mitochondrial genome is "better". And what does 2LOT have to do with the evolution of genomes? It is clear you do not understand evolution, 2LOT or the paper you cited which has no bearing on genomes being at their "best" and letting thermodynamics take over...but if you want to see evolving complexity even within hominids then here you go.Belshaw R, Katzourakis A, Paces J, Burt A, Tristem M. High Copy Number in Human Endogenous Retrovirus Families is Associated with Copying Mechanisms in Addition to Reinfection.
Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Apr;22(4):814-817. Epub 2005 Jan 19.Belshaw R, Pereira V, Katzourakis A, Talbot G, Paces J, Burt A, Tristem M. Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 6;101(14):4894-9. Epub 2004 Mar 25.Yohn CT, Jiang Z, McGrath SD, Hayden KE, Khaitovich P, Johnson ME, Eichler MY, McPherson JD, Zhao S, Paabo S, Eichler EE. Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes but not humans and orangutans.
PLoS Biol. 2005 Apr;3(4):e110. Epub 2005 Mar 1.You have still not proposed a testable hypothesis since you claim that genomes are at there best when designed without defining what makes one genome better relative to another or why design should be inferred...and then made a false connection to 2LOT. Please try again.

quote:

---

This could have been falsified by the listed paper in itself, at least primarily. It can easily be falsified by doing other studies that show vertebrate genomes INCREASING in information over a long period of time as Darwin suggests can happen in violation of the laws of nature.

---

The listed paper does not address your proposal that genomes are best when just designed. In fact, the paper claims that there is an relatively high number of deleterious mutations in most hominids and that it suggests that the fitness effects do not interact in a multiplicative way...this does not say the genome is devolving. From the paper itself "Our results instead indicate that synergistic epistasis may occur between deleterious mutations, in hominids at least." i.e. that the cumulative effects can be positive via epistasis and thus, slightly deleterious mutations persist which is an advantage..not "devolving" whatever the hell that should mean.Getting back to your "hypothesis" There is no way to falsify a proposal that is a nonspecific relative statement embedded in the a priori assumption that the system is designed. You are stating a belief and have not shown how that belief can be falsified. Please try again...Oh and by the way, do you understand what a deleterious mutation actually is? The paper does not say that the human genome is devolving...try wading through the biology as you put it.

quote:

---

I think I just did. Sorry.

---

Sorry, you failed. Please try again.

quote:

---

It better explains observations because it explains what we actually observe. We observe that 98% of the species in the fossil record are now extinct rather than growing ever more complex as Neo-Darwinism suggests happens.

---

How does extinction correlate with complexity? Is a trilobite more complex than an elephant...are all cambrian fossils more complex than modern species?..yet another relative term like "best" that you have left undefined.The fossil record demonstrates trends that we see even today...the vast majority of species and even individuals within species leave no offspring...here is a clue...what do you think the effective population size of Homo sapiens is? Hint, they even mention the subject in the paper you linked to....

quote:

---

Your turn. My experience says I will never hear from the Molecular Biologist again. Let's do a friendly debate and invite your students to participate. What say you?

---

My experience is that the IDist will show a complete lack of understanding of evolution, biology and science in general, will quote studies as evidence for their position that either refute their position or have nothing to do with the subject, will flail away in vain in trying to propose a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID and will eventually give up and engage in a flame war or will just ignore the challenge and continue to reassert their original assertions. Let's hope you provide a different experience.

My goodness! Isn't it blatantly obvious what should be the research subject? Could that be why Mick doesn't bother to mention it?You call ID a paradigm. Don't you think that the first thing a scientist must do when starting to operate under a new paradigm, is to check whether the paradigm holds water?What did physicists do when Einstein overthrew their existing paradigm, Newtonian physics, with a completely new one - relativity? Did they say: "OK Einstein, new paradigm? Fine, we'll accept it", and left it at that? Business as usual?They didn't. They started to devise experiments that could show that the paradigm Einstein presented actually worked. They concentrated on the essence of the paradigm, namely that time and space weren't absolute, as Newton would have it, but relative to motion, as Einstein had figured out. Their research concentrated on the central tenets of the new paradigm.Now, the essence of ID is that the design we see in biological nature necessitates a designer, and an intelligent one at that. If you want to work under that assumption, then the least you must do is show that the assumption can stand up to criticism. You must try to think of ways to falsify it, carry out the necessary tests and observations, and subject the results to peer-review.If someone were to propose that we do science under the assumption that the centre of the universe is located in a basement just three blocks away from his own house, would you take that seriously? Even if he would say that it doesn't change anything in the way science must be done? That it's just a new epistemological paradigm, carry on?Sounds cranky, doesn't it? Cranky and familiar, even?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

If ever there was one!

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

This part of your sentence is absolute nonsense "ID predicts that genomes are at their best..." What is "best"? The human genome is a mess. By your definition of best, viruses and bacteria should be considered vastly superior as they are much more streamlined..even the mitochondrial genome is "better".

---

Viruses and prokaryotes are irrelevant to the overall scenario. I think the term "best" should be quite obvious. A genome works at its "best" when geneA translates ProteinA consisting of the right amino acids in the right sequence where it will fold with the right conformational entropy to be a cause of the effects that govern the organism at its maximum effiency. Is biology absolute nonsense to you? Deleterious mutations encode for different proteins than the original gene and the genome deteriorates when this happens because the new translated protein may not be able to do what the old translated protein did--HINT: mutational meltdown as the upper probability barrier, anyone??This is simply logic and common sense. Do you think your car is at its best when you buy it off the show-room floor, or 25 years later after it has devolved and it's sitting in the junk-yard with rust going back into the ground from where it came?

quote:

---

And what does 2LOT have to do with the evolution of genomes? It is clear you do not understand evolution, 2LOT or the paper you cited which has no bearing on genomes being at their "best" and letting thermodynamics take over...but if you want to see evolving complexity even within hominids then here you go.

---

The paper was not on thermodynamics but evolutionary biology. This doesn't mean that 2LOT doesn't apply here. 2LOT is a universal law that governs everything in the universe. It states that with any chemically spontaneous reaction or event, entropy will tend to increase.Mathematically, S represents entropy and 2LOT states as a tendency that spontaneous events yield S2 > S1.But you see, Darwin was a science flunk-out and he was so silly as to assert that with spontaneous speciations the tendency is bass ackwards: S2 < S1. Boy wasn't this guy a genius of science. And I'll give you fair warning that if you get further into the mathematics of this with me, you won't exactly be overjoyed at the outcome.

quote:

---

Belshaw R, Katzourakis A, Paces J, Burt A, Tristem M. High Copy Number in Human Endogenous Retrovirus Families is Associated with Copying Mechanisms in Addition to Reinfection.
Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Apr;22(4):814-817. Epub 2005 Jan 19.
Belshaw R, Pereira V, Katzourakis A, Talbot G, Paces J, Burt A, Tristem M. Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 6;101(14):4894-9. Epub 2004 Mar 25.
Yohn CT, Jiang Z, McGrath SD, Hayden KE, Khaitovich P, Johnson ME, Eichler MY, McPherson JD, Zhao S, Paabo S, Eichler EE. Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes but not humans and orangutans.
PLoS Biol. 2005 Apr;3(4):e110. Epub 2005 Mar 1.

---

LOL....You are just going to throw out a slurry of papers and proclaim your argument as superior? Nah...I think that we will observe Internet debate etiquette. Bring your argument in your own words, cut and paste the relevant sections of the papers that support your argument. And supply a link to those papers just as I do to you. You're doing games, not debate. Is this because you think you are defeated before you even begin?

quote:

---

You have still not proposed a testable hypothesis since you claim that genomes are at there best when designed without defining what makes one genome better relative to another or why design should be inferred...and then made a false connection to 2LOT. Please try again.

---

I defined it above. You cannot honestly state I didn't.

quote:

---

The listed paper does not address your proposal that genomes are best when just designed. In fact, the paper claims that there is an relatively high number of deleterious mutations in most hominids and that it suggests that the fitness effects do not interact in a multiplicative way...this does not say the genome is devolving. From the paper itself "Our results instead indicate that synergistic epistasis may occur between deleterious mutations, in hominids at least." i.e. that the cumulative effects can be positive via epistasis and thus, slightly deleterious mutations persist which is an advantage..not "devolving" whatever the hell that should mean.

---

Your words in that paragraph are not supported by anything you present. The paper was not presented to show that genomes are the best when they are first designed. The paper was presented to show that human genomes have DEVOLVED over the past 5 million years or so since man supposedly evolved from Chimp. Do you dispute the discovered science in that paper showing that deleterious mutations are accumulating in the genome at the rate of 1.6 mutations per generation? You need to refute this up front because if you do not, you are agreeing that the macroevolution via increased complexity inherent in Darwinism is a load of crap.

quote:

---

Getting back to your "hypothesis" There is no way to falsify a proposal that is a nonspecific relative statement embedded in the a priori assumption that the system is designed. You are stating a belief and have not shown how that belief can be falsified. Please try again...

---

The system was designed. It exists, doesn't it? Then either nature or intelligence designed it. Or do you think it just magically "poofed" into existence by little green fairies?

quote:

---

Oh and by the way, do you understand what a deleterious mutation actually is? The paper does not say that the human genome is devolving...try wading through the biology as you put it.

---

Look. I'm not necessarily quoting the paper verbatim every time a speak of it. I am digesting the results of it. Can you refute my interpretation of those results or is your comeback always going to be, "the paper doesn't say exactly that." That could not be anymore ludicrous.

quote:

---

How does extinction correlate with complexity? Is a trilobite more complex than an elephant...are all cambrian fossils more complex than modern species?..yet another relative term like "best" that you have left undefined.

​

The fossil record demonstrates trends that we see even today...the vast majority of species and even individuals within species leave no offspring...here is a clue...what do you think the effective population size of Homo sapiens is? Hint, they even mention the subject in the paper you linked to....

---

You don't see any trends today except for the ones you make up and imagine as science. And the population size of homo sapiens is irrelevant to anything we are discussing. Look at the diversity of the population if you want to get into synch with the discussion. There have been populations reproductively isolated since the dawn of history such as certain tribes in the Amazon, etc., who have never interbred with, say Icelanders. But gee these people are still the same species, go figure.

quote:

---

My experience is that the IDist will show a complete lack of understanding of evolution, biology and science in general, will quote studies as evidence for their position that either refute their position or have nothing to do with the subject, will flail away in vain in trying to propose a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID and will eventually give up and engage in a flame war or will just ignore the challenge and continue to reassert their original assertions. Let's hope you provide a different experience.

---

Yeah, we shall see. Invite your students in here to personally witness an ID theorist kick your intellectual butt-hole up between your evolved shoulder blades. Your turn, Doc. Now remember, we debate aggressively but we don't take this personally. Are we on the same page? Because I'm going to start calling stuff exactly the way it is and throwing some major science your direction.Have a great day.

---

Design Dynamics

sorry - forget that i POSTED THAT.This message has been edited by Tusko, 05-04-2005 07:55 AM

quote:

---

Viruses and prokaryotes are irrelevant to the overall scenario. I think the term "best" should be quite obvious. A genome works at its "best" when geneA translates ProteinA consisting of the right amino acids in the right sequence where it will fold with the right conformational entropy to be a cause of the effects that govern the organism at its maximum effiency. Is biology absolute nonsense to you? Deleterious mutations encode for different proteins than the original gene and the genome deteriorates when this happens because the new translated protein may not be able to do what the old translated protein did--HINT: mutational meltdown as the upper probability barrier, anyone??

​

This is simply logic and common sense. Do you think your car is at its best when you buy it off the show-room floor, or 25 years later after it has devolved and it's sitting in the junk-yard with rust going back into the ground from where it came?

---

It is clear that you are in need of remedial biology Mr. Bauer...so don't presume to lecture me on biology. You should read the references you post...Where in any the reference did they state that the deleterious mutations lead to non-functioning proteins? Hint, nowhere. As to mutational meltdown, that is called extinction...and there is no evidence that the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations in hominids is leading in that direction considering the expansion of the species and increase in effective population size. Instead of claiming logic and common sense you should try brushing up on the subject you want to debate. Your ignorance of biology, genetics, and mutation research does not contribute to the validating your claims...note this claim"I think the term "best" should be quite obvious. A genome works at its "best" when geneA translates ProteinA consisting of the right amino acids in the right sequence where it will fold with the right conformational entropy to be a cause of the effects that govern the organism at its maximum effiency"The genome does does not do this but many GENES do...and every living creature on this planet exhibits the trait of genes which are transcribed NOT translated and the transcripts translated into proteins. Now you have substituted "maximum efficiency" for "best" introducing two non-defined terms into an already muddled attempt at showing that you read a snippet of a genetics textbook years ago.I note that you still have not proposed a testable hypothesis for ID.

quote:

---

And I'll give you fair warning that if you get further into the mathematics of this with me, you won't exactly be overjoyed at the outcome.

---

Please then show how 2LOT inhibits heredity...this should be good...and as for your warning..if your grasp of math is as good as your biology, the outcome should be a real laugher at your expense

quote:

---

LOL....You are just going to throw out a slurry of papers and proclaim your argument as superior? Nah...I think that we will observe Internet debate etiquette. Bring your argument in your own words, cut and paste the relevant sections of the papers that support your argument. And supply a link to those papers just as I do to you. You're doing games, not debate. Is this because you think you are defeated before you even begin?

---

In another thread you whined because PaulK did not supply you with references...now I do and you get upset about it. Are you really so poorly informed that you were unaware of these papers? And from someone claiming to know so much about biology and evolution. You are rather unimpressive.In any case, each paper shows that specific retroelements have accumulated in large numbers within the hominid genome. In some cases, there are novel elements among different humans i.e. an increase in the genetic content not decrease...and of course you know what these elements can do? No, I did not think so..so I will give you an example, in my own words since you clearly are too lazy to go into the literature yourself (or would not understand it if you did like the reference you posted). Syncytin is one such element...it controls the formation of the human placenta i.e. has taken on a novel function i.e. positive effect, beneficial mutation. It is unique to primates. 10% of the genome is made up of such elements...genes make up about 1.5-3%And posting references is not a game..you posted one and I read it..I post 3 and you cry like a baby. Either you do your homework or admit that you don't know what you are talking about...scratch that, you don't have to bother.

quote:

---

I defined it above. You cannot honestly state I didn't.

---

both honestly and easily...there is no definition in site.

quote:

---

The paper was presented to show that human genomes have DEVOLVED over the past 5 million years or so since man supposedly evolved from Chimp. Do you dispute the discovered science in that paper showing that deleterious mutations are accumulating in the genome at the rate of 1.6 mutations per generation? You need to refute this up front because if you do not, you are agreeing that the macroevolution via increased complexity inherent in Darwinism is a load of crap.

---

I will admit that your grasp of the paper is a complete load of crap. I dispute that they claim that the genome has devolved since our lineage separated from that of the chimp lineage..note, chimps also have a high deleterious mutation rate...but clearly you did not understand the conclusions of the paper...please actually read it...and by the way, how can nothing I said about the paper be supported by the paper when I quoted from it?..oh yeah, I quoted from the text and not the abstract..guess you did not get past the first paragraph?

quote:

---

The system was designed. It exists, doesn't it? Then either nature or intelligence designed it. Or do you think it just magically "poofed" into existence by little green fairies?

---

So the evidence for design is that things exist? And how is this either testable or falsifiable?...seems you are the one relying on poof bang ex nihilo fairies.

quote:

---

Look. I'm not necessarily quoting the paper verbatim every time a speak of it. I am digesting the results of it. Can you refute my interpretation of those results or is your comeback always going to be, "the paper doesn't say exactly that." That could not be anymore ludicrous.

---

What is ludicrous is that the paper niether supports the claims you make or even generally resemble your conclusions. This is not about nitpicking or quoting verbatim...from your statements it is hard to conclude anything other than that you either did not read the paper or did not understand a word of it.

quote:

---

You don't see any trends today except for the ones you make up and imagine as science. And the population size of homo sapiens is irrelev Because I'm going to start calling stuff exactly the way it is and throwing some major science your direction.ant to anything we are discussing.

---

I see, so population genetics is irrelevant to the study of...populations Ok, I see that you really don't know what you are talking about...a pity..I am still waiting for someone to seriously take up the challenge of proposing a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID.

quote:

---

Because I'm going to start calling stuff exactly the way it is and throwing some major science your direction.

---

I wish you would throw and science in my direction. So far you have only demonstrated your complete ignorance in a variety of scientific disciplines...even the basics.Have a nice day yourself...actually have a nice day catching up on several years of biological study that you are missing to be equipped for this debate.

If I could "show" how my belief could be falsified, I would be elevating human wisdom to a higher status than it belongs. Human wisdom is not the be-all and end-all of the process. I.D. begins with "a priori" and describes a theory that fits.You can also begin your theory with "purple unicorns" if you want.
Where you go wrong is when you begin your theory with "human wisdom created belief". Human wisdom is not the origin! That is the beginning of the theory. Can we prove the theory wrong? Sure...by claiming human wisdom as the "assumed" arbitrator...and then building on that assumption with many theories.My question, stemming out of general scientific ignorance---is to ask whether I.D. students are open minded enough to study traditional disciplines along with I.D. theories.The study of Psychology suggests that some humans are downright hostle towards a "God" belief for no more of a reason than that they cling to their own reasoning process as the final arbitrator in all matters. Perhaps I.D. should be more of a philosophy and less of a strict "science" per say.

What is an "upper probability barrier"?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins