Foundations of ID

The trouble for your claim is that we do see:Species A --> Species C --> species F --> species ITo make it even more damaging occasionally fossils representing species D and G spring up as predicted by the ToE!!But of course any creationist worth his/her salt then points out that we now have a gap between C and D without a transitional. Except of course, that's not what you would predict is it? If selective pressures remain constant, why would anything change to any large degree? This is either deliberate misrepresentation of the ToE or a deep ignorance of it. OK here's a challenge:Point to a specific jump in the fossil record that you think could not have arisen by random mutation and natural selection. No imaginary bacteria-man steps please; an actual suggested transition in the fossil record between two species that requires a designer to intervene.

Well Howdy to you too Alrightyou’re quote mining.As they stand, the quotes speak for themselves but only if you know the context of Gould’s theories about punctuated equilibrium i.e. that evolution is not a straight, linear progression, and that changes are often not caught in the fossil record. Like it or not Gould doesn’t support your position at all. Find me a quote that shows an evolutionary biologist denying common descent or claiming that RM and NS are not the mechanisms for change and I will be surprised. Scrap that, I’ll be astounded!!While you’re looking, here are a couple of less helpful quotes from Gould: Doesn’t look like I do stand quite so alone now, does it? It really would be good for ID (or the other creeds of creationism) if this statement were true, and no wonder you are trying to make this charge stick. Unfortunately, there are numerous falsifiable predictions that have been made. Just off the top of my head:

When Darwin wrote Origin there were few (if any) true transitional fossils and yet he predicted there would be examples found which shared the characteristics of two separate groups. Lo and behold, we now do have many examples of such fossils.

​

If the modern synthesis of Theory of Evolution was right, molecular phylogenies would mirror those based on taxonomy. Well blow me down with a feather if that wasn’t what was found.

​

Developmental pathways should be conserved within the pattern of common descent. This is indeed what we see.

​

Now while no doubt you disagree with these examples — and each of them is probably worth a topic on it’s own — they are all scientific predictions. They can (and have been) tested scientifically, by scientists and verified by other scientists.

​

Sure sounds like a scientific theory to me!

​

Let’s compare this to ID shall we?

​

It’s got calculations using numbers seemingly plucked out of thin air.

​

It’s got obscure definitions of ‘complexity’ and ‘information’ which can’t be applied to the real world.

​

It’s Choc-a-bloc with useless analogies

​

..and it’s even got a strangely unscientific idea that people shouldn’t try to discover the nature and the methods of the designer.

​

What it doesn’t have is a single testable, falsifiable prediction!

​

Can you think of an example of ID leading to 1) a testable hypothesis and 2) the testing of that hypothesis?

​

Because that’s what science does. If you want ID to be accepted as science then that’s what you have to do, and no amount of pleading to let a ‘young field’ grow will change that fact.

​

OK, onto my challenge:

​

quote:

---

OK here's a challenge:
Point to a specific jump in the fossil record that you think could not have arisen by random mutation and natural selection. No imaginary bacteria-man steps please; an actual suggested transition in the fossil record between two species that requires a designer to intervene

---

.

​

The Cambrian Explosion.

​

Drat, should have known you’d have pointed to the largest gap there was and inserted a *cough* ‘designer’ into it. And yet the ‘leap’ from early fossil cells to the variety in the Cambrian period is not quite so sudden as it first appeared. New finds suggest that the ‘explosion’ was not quite as explosive as first thought, lengthening the amount of time these fossils were formed in. On top of that, delicate pre-Cambian fossils have been found that look like they were the ancestors of some of the Cambrian organisms. One of the explanations for the perceived ‘jump’ is that it was due to a lack of fossils, not a lack of organisms — 3 billion years is a lot of time to evolve in. Why wouldn’t that be possible by RM and NS?

​

Let me ask the question in a different way:
You have (I think) stated earlier that you think the fossil record shows evidence for micro-evolution. Using the well documented evolution of horses as an example, which of those proposed steps represent ‘micro’ changes and which are ‘macro’, and therefore require a designer?

Jerry,Just thought I'd warn you that it might be a couple of days before I can reply properly. I'm a little shattered at the moment, and work and other 'stuff' is likely to get in the way tomorrow.There's lots of things I want to pick up on though; I'll try not to let the next post turn into too much of a monster

---

"Anything that is true of E. coli must be true of elephants, except more so." -Jacques Monod

Hello again,Because the thread is about the validity of ID, and not the perceived failings of ‘Darwinism’, I’m going to try and focus on the second part of your last post. There were, however, a few things that I just can’t leave hanging: either because you’ve asked me a question or because you’re just plain wrong . Apologies in advance if I go on a bit of a ramble.If I miss anything you consider important, point it out. Equally, if you would like to expand on anything, give us a shout and I’ll see if I can open a new topic (or point you in the direction of an existing one).Predictions from Darwin:(Specifically those relating to common descent).The first thing to remember is that these are real predictions. Darwin obviously didn’t know about DNA, - he wasn’t even aware of Mendalian genetics - but once these things were discovered then predictions could be made directly from Darwin’s theory. Once the tools were there, they were tested and they could have been shown to be wrong.Phylogenic trees constructed using DNA sequences would have to mirror those suggested by the fossil record. A separate origin for mammals, reptiles and birds would have been an almighty falsification, but the ToE stood firm. I’ve just done a Pubmed search with the words "molecular" and "phylogeny" and got over 13,000 hits, with the first ones dated to the mid 1970’s. That’s an awful lot of mileage out of something that’s not meant to be a prediction.Similarly, if Darwin was right about evolution working by modifying structural elements already present then you would expect the patterning mechanisms during development to be conserved in the same way. Wings and other forelimbs would be modified versions of the same body plan, using the same genes, with similar expression patterns. Signalling events early on in development would be conserved throughout the tree-of-life. Some of these predictions have been tested, and some are being examined as I type (watch this space).The classical example of this is the expression pattern of Hox genes. The pattern of expression of these master control genes is strikingly conserved.Falsification in science: It would be nice and easy if life (and science) was a case of black and white, wouldn’t it?Somebody thinks there’s a problem with one aspect of a theory: some people agree, some people disagree, and some try to develop new ideas. Everybody discusses their point of view in relation to the evidence available.This sounds to me like a healthy, lively area of science. It would definitely be symptomatic of a sick and dogmatic system if one high profile person could declare a judgement and expect everyone to follow them.I find it odd that you state that Punk Eeek has no scientific basis, and yet you use it to justify your position. If it is a valid argument then you have to take the other parts of it into consideration (RM+NS, common descent). If it is scientifically unsound then why should you include it in your argument?Pre-Cambian Fossils: I’m at home at the moment so I don’t have full access to journals. Here’s a review of the pre-Cambian evidence covering actual fossils, molecular evidence, and the fossilisation of worm tracts, some of which may date back to 1,000mya.Oooops! That first bit lasted for a little longer than I expected. On to ID:This is one of my bug-bears. So far on this thread you have questioned common ancestry, used the classic ‘micro’ versus ‘micro’ argument and have failed to address the pattern in the fossil record.If it quacks like a duckIn addition to this, you’ve still got to tackle the hurdle that all IDists fall at. If you are saying that ‘something’ designed life, then what did it do after that? Surely it would have to have designed it? Or did it just carelessly leave the blueprints lying around for someone to pick up? I’m not saying that the equations themselves are not proper maths. I don’t doubt that all of the adding up, taking away and various other squiggly bits have been applied correctly. It’s the assumptions on which they are based that seem to have a thinnish and airy quality.Take the infamous ‘protein probability’ equations for example. I’ve never seen one of these providing the probability of a process starting in a proto-cell which has a genetic code of 3-4 amino acids, which then changes a protein over millions of years (via an unknown number of useful intermediate steps) to it’s present form. You couldn’t possibly do that kind of calculation because of the amount of unknown parameters, but that’s what the evidence suggests happens.The evidence doesn’t bother ID though because it plucks the assumption that proteins just appear de novoout of thin air!! Again, I’m sure the pure maths etc is OK, but the application to the real biological world is lacking. If I gave you two organisms would you be able to calculate which one was the more complex? If I gave you two DNA sequences, would you be able to declare which contained the most information? I’ll accept that you are trying to tie the physical world to your designer. But in addition to the number of problems that have been already been pointed out, it still boils down to The designer did it with Quantum Stuff!. This is a small step forward from the classic ID position - which states that the sole purpose of ID is simply to detect design — but it leaves a number of uncomfortable questions unanswered.When (precisely) is the presence of a designer detectable in the history of life on earth, and when can natural processes be said to be enough? When (and how) did the designer step in, in the past? Why do so many of the ‘Intelligent’ designs point to a botched job? Why do you reject common ancestry? These aren’t proper predictions.1)If you want to say that the ‘universal’ code couldn’t have arrived on its own then that gets you to the first proteinatious replicator and no further.If you are suggesting that DNA in general can’t be produced without intelligence then I will point you towards your friendly neighbourhood E. Coli.2)If your prediction that an initial human population was ‘perfect’ and then started to degrade is correct then you’re going to have to show that the first humans were perfect. The data from great apes seems to contradict this, how would show this was the case? Mousetraps, tornadoes in junkyards, computer programs, Cadillacs and speed guns , take your pick. None of these has any connection with the real worldor can you explain how making a mousetrap is anyway similar to making a protein? And finallyPhew!But you see pigs giving birth to slightly different pigs don’t you? What is natural barrier stopping them changing to something completely different over time? This is why I gave you the horse example: surely there are examples in the fossil record of horses turning into other horses?!?I’m sure there is plenty for you to chew on here, but this last challenge is the one I would really like to see you attempt. If you do nothing else, answer this question.Aplogies for the length of the postThis message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-05-2005 12:00 AM

Hello again, Right let’s try and nip this one in the bud. My argument is not that molecular phylogenies extrapolate those made by other methods, I’m saying that they confirm them. You can predict common descent using physiological comparisons and then test that phylogenic tree using DNA sequences. If examining the physical features of various features of reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish and mammals suggests that they shared a common ancestor and then diverged from each other at different points in the past then you’d expect to see a similar phylogenic tree when you compared DNA sequences. Where’s the circular argument there?If you’re worried about bias, then why not do the tests yourself, or point out why they are scientifically unsound? Oodles of sequences from different organisms have been published and the programs are widely available (along with the statistical assumptions used to make them), so why don’t IDists (or YECs for that matter) show that birds and man came from separate origins?If you want to discuss this further then I’m sure there’s an old thread we can resurrect. I posted these papers as a sort of aside. You requested papers discussing pre-Cambrian fossils; I’ve suggested a couple. They are (I think) freely accessible to anyone so if you have any questions about their content, I’ll be happy to discuss them with you (along with half the forum members I suspect). So much for POTM, eh? The correct text should have read: IOW creation and design are practically the same thing. By saying things like

quote:

---

I just look at the fossil record. There I see organisms coming into the record fully formed.

---

you are effectively advocating an unspecified number of creation events. Why are you so afraid of being labelled creationist? I don’t know how I confused you here. I’ll try and make it clearer:

You’ve failed to explain the clear progression seen in the fossil record — like a creationist

​

You’ve flat out denied common ancestry — a classical creationist stance

​

You’ve indicated that ‘micro’ changes are possible, and that ‘macro’ ones are not — straight out of the creationist handbook^*

​

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duckit probably is a duck!
What’s your take on the age of the earth?

​

But these points are just a bit of a diversion really — me going on a bit of a pet rant — so I’ll get back to your points on ID:

​

They're not useless unless you can refute the logic behind them. Can you?

​

Well, the logic is flawed if they bare no resemblance to the situation they are meant to represent. This is error is amplified if people then go on to argue from the analogy rather than use it as a tool. A mousetrap, for example, is used as an analogy of complicated (IC) protein complexes, and the implication always is When was the last time you saw a mousetrap evolve?

​

When was the last time you saw a mousetrap made up of components which were all made up of the same basic material which could have a variety of properties (from structural stability to dynamic flexibility), and which look suspiciously like other things that are lying around the factory? Similarly, what intrinsic properties of a Cadillac mimic those of a sub-atomic particle? How can a computer reproduce itself?

​

But if I were the designer I would do this the same way when designing organisms. Why come up with a helicopter design for bats when the wings I designed for birds do the job perfectly well? Why not similar legs in both horses and dogs? Why not homologous hox genes in several different organisms?

​

I think I may have confused the thread a bit here, since it was me who brought this subject up. The important thing about the conservation of structures and the signalling events controlling them is the pattern of conservation. Tetrapod limbs are obviously modified fins, bird wings are modified reptile limbs, and bat wings are modified mammal limbs.

​

If you want to use human designers as an example of how a good designer works then I would submit that good designers do re-use and modify old designs, but they also know when to go back the drawing board. If you are told to make something that flew, would you try and modify the front doors of a car into a pair of wings, or would you go and design an aeroplane? Evolution doesn’t have a choice; it has to work with what is already there.

​

Of course, providing you provide the information I need and define your view of complexity.

​

Wait a minute. It’s you that is making the claim that an increase in complexity cannot happen without a designer. Isn’t it up to you to define what complexity is for living things and then to test it? This is what I was saying: ID is missing a workable definition.

​

Yes, that one is easy as with protein coding sequences, the biggest one will contain the most information, of course.

​

Aha! A definition! So an increase in gene size absolutely requires a designer, right?

​

But hang on, can’t duplication events, frame-shift mutations, and insertions all increase the size of genes? Where is the designer required?

​

Many do not understand why we use that math. The reason we do is we are calculating the way things ARE not the way they got there. This math doesn't care what particular path a protein takes to get to be the way it is, all that matters is the way it is.

​

But the whole point is that the route taken, and the rules applied do affect the calculations.

​

Using your coin example: I’m not arguing that the probability of throwing twelve heads with twelve coins will change if I throw them three at a time or all at once — that would be silly. But what if I could throw all the coins, keep all of those that came up heads, and then throw the ones that came up tails again, keep the ones that came up heads.rinse and repeat until I had a row of heads in front of me? The odds would change wouldn’t they?

​

The main thing that calculations like these don’t take into account is the idea that proteins are meant to evolve from other proteins. Proteins are naturally modular in structure, and you see the same basic structures being repeated again and again, across the board. How can you possibly factor this kind of thing into your equations? You need to know about the intermediates.

​

For example, I’m sure you could plug this protein sequence:

​

msprsclrsl rllvfavfsa aasnwlylak lssvgsisee etceklkgli qrqvqmckrn msprsclrsl rllvfavfsa aasnwlylak lssvgsisee etceklkgli qrqvqmckrn

into your equations and come up with a suitably ludicrous number. But what if you already had this one:

msprsclrsl rllvfavfsa aasnwlylak lssvgsisee etceklkgli qrqvqmckrn

to play with?

​

I’ve just noticed what a whopper of a post this is, so for now I’ll leave your predictions about designer DNA and genome degradation (they are probably more suited to your new thread anyway). But I would like to tackle one more thing:

​

There are no uncomfortable questions, have you seen me shy from any?

​

Well yeswhen I’ve asked you to support this kind of statement:

​

Just look at the fossil record to find the when and the quantum mechanics I presented to find the how.

​

The fossil record of horse evolution is a wonderful chance for you to show everyone where the designer intervened. So, no assertions about pigs not giving birth to elephants or something similar. Where did the quantum stuff happen?

​

^* Similar to the Atheist/Agnostic Agenda you get handed once you start researching evolutionary biology .

I've been away for a few days and see what happens. It's a shame you're going Jerry, I've quite enjoyed our exchanges. If you change your mind and want to continue the discussion then give us a shout.I would like to point out one thing though: This is out of context. I had my tongue firmly in my cheek when I made that comment. It was not an honest 'admission', as would be made clear by including the full quote (note the smiley): I would like to make it crystal clear that there is no such agenda. I was trying (perhaps a little inadvisably) to make a joke about creationism's attempt to equate science to religion. This is something we can debate if you decide to come back to EvC.See you around, hope you enjoyed the debate.Ooook!

---

"Anything that is true of E. coli must be true of elephants, except more so." -Jacques Monod

Sure thing! There's no way I want things like that getting out into the world. I've just finished paying pennance for my last transgression, and that was just a minor slip about radioactive dating.Any more mistakes like that and I'm never going to be promoted to the Agnostic High Command The what-now?