Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design

Let's discuss this in more depth. We can tell these antenna structures aren't natural because of the way they are constructed. The fact that their design was trial-and-error doesn't prevent that. What level of technology do we have to get to, where we can no longer tell so easily? What methods might we use then?When humans create a liposome or a PNA chain for some specific purpose, it might look natural at first glance. But I think we can tell the difference when we start looking at functionality and purpose and simplicity overall. From this viewpoint, it seems like the huge amount of noise in the genome is a good argument against design. When you make an antenna or a medicine or retrovirus to introduce some factor, do you use a big randomized version that might have numerous untold effects? Or do you make something that does the specific job you want done in as simple a manner as possible?

Then I guess we can scratch off an additional designer suspect from the list: a designer whose actions are discernible by investigating the evidence. I wasn't planning on reading "Darwin's Black Box" anyway. Now I have a good excuse not to.

Hi, Taq. Most IDists accept that some amount of Darwinian evolution happens, so atavisms, vestiges and nested hierarchies can still happen naturally under most ID models.Extensive nested hierarchies that include all life could go a long way to disproving most ID models, but, if the Designer only shows up here and there to tweak the system toward a certain goal, and simply lets it go otherwise, we wouldn't see much deviating from naturalistic expectations. But, this also isn't an omphalos hypothesis, because it's not design made to look like non-design: it's non-design with a few alterations along the way.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I think Percy made a very good point way back in Message 21: This grabs it in a nutshell for me, with the caveat that I would use a different word than the loaded believed. I might suggest hypothesized or even theorized, or maybe just suspected. The procedure to measure this would also measure the other ID views in a simple 1, 0 manner. In other words, if experiments to test this out found evidence one way or the other, it would either rule out or rule in ID of any stripe you want, except RAZD's dude. Later on in the thread (sorry to be late to the fun) we finally get to the concept of randomness versus directed (non-random) changes.SO:
I would propose that the body of evidence would have its randomness** measured. By appropriately measuring the myriad of variables, dropping data points into histogram bins of tiny size, but not too tiny, we can examine the results and compare them against a pure random system. If there is no difference of even faint consequence, then all we have is the RAZD dude at the beginning that set everything into motion - untestable, unfalsifiable and unusable for this thread purpose.Now, I profess ignorance of the actual data analysis going on - however, I am certain that if a significant departure from randomness had ever been observed repeatedly, we would know about it by now. So I have to assume that currently nothing has given evidence of a departure from the Random Model. To use Rrhain's terminology, the Model works. And using another branch of statistics that's often used to predict the Mean Time Between Failure of various complex systems and the current sample size of the data in question, I currently arrive at my positive evidence against Intelligent Design of the kind Percy describes with a Confidence Factor that is acceptable for me at the moment.**Note: Complex systems in constant agitated, perturbed, repeated motion tend to sort things, but in a predictable way most of the time. They can be evaluated in a way that would reveal randomness/non-randomness.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

No, the point is that because you can't prove it, you should not assume it is true. true, but (and here's the rub) I can spend my time conjuring phantasms and contemplating the colour of the invisible unicorns (pink is the current trend), the noodlyness of invisible appendages, the precise orbit for optimum invisibility of orbiting teapots - OR I can consider these ideas and give them the brief airing they require (no proof FOR or AGAINST? okay - possible but has zero impact) and then go back to studying the facts.You really ARE saying that "because it can't be disproved, it must be true"? REALLY?

Fair enough. Not Omphalos, just undetectable.However, if this is the type of ID that is put forward then this is a tacit admission that ID is not detectable. So while evidence consistent with evolution does not rule out all possibility of design it does run counter to the descriptions of ID put forward by such people as Dembski and Behe.On a human level there is a strange dichotomy. Given the historical underpinnings of ID there is a hope that ID will demonstrate that there is a god, one who interacts with nature and is concerned for our well being. This requires a foundation of sorts, a set of expectations of what one should and should not see if this designer god exists. Once something is erected it quickly draws fire. So what is the other option? Make ID so ethereal and solipsistic as to dodge any criticism, but in doing so you lose any hope of saying "god did this" which was the whole point to begin with.Quite the choice, eh?

No. Since biogenesis wasn't talking about the 'ultimate' origins of life, but about the more immediate origins of certain present forms of life. Trying to argue it is a fatal blow against abiogenesis therefore is just equivocation.However, when an argument says 'this biological entity must be designed because of its complexity.' when Darwin et al comes along and says "Here is how complexity can arise in biology without a pre-planned design or designer' - that's a direct problem for teleology. Teleology had a good point when it says that certain flavours of complicated things can only come about by design from intelligent beings. When this was shown false - that which teleology's argument relied on was taken out back and shot. As I said - if you want to wield an unfalsifiable version of teleology then go right ahead. But don't be surprised when I don't think it very interesting that there is 'no evidence against' it. There is plenty of evidence against Intelligent Design, of course - but as I explained, that's a different kettle of fish. I was specifically talking about the people that retort 'How do we know the designer didn't design the universe to naturally evolve?' and not IDists.
Intelligent Designists get all tied in knots about these things - but Intelligent Design is a religio-political movement not an argument. Nope. ID can be said to be disproven, the 'facts' its proponents prattle on about shown to be false. What you are talking about is again, teleology. And yes - you could manufacture an unfalsifiable version of it, and yes - I reserve the right to mock anyone who thinks it is any more than imaginative fun to consider the idea.

Hi, Mod. My point was that you can't prove a universal negative.No amount of observations of life coming from other life will prove that life never came from nonlife.No amount of observations of complicated things coming from natural processes will ever prove that complicated things never came from non-natural processes.----- Agreed. But, the concept of this thread wasn't "evidence against this certain biological entity being designed because of its complexity," it was, "flaws in the modern human body that prove that it wasn't designed."My point is that flaws in the human body do not prove that it wasn't designed according to ID, so the thread amounts to beating on a strawman.----- If you find beating on a strawman to be more interesting, then, by all means, let's continue this thread, but not under the pretenses of it having any sort of logical merit to it.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

What do you mean? You're the one who brought up 'a very non-random end plan for the forms of life'... But it doesn't matter. We agree that some specific designers can be ruled out. But this doesn't rule out a designer, just a subset of that category. I don't think we're teaching unevidenced philosophy nor should we go into all possibilities. Just let the evidence speak for itself. With unevidenced possibilities that have not been ruled out.But don't get me wrong, any random thing you imagine is going to be met with doubt from me too, especially without any evidence or other reason to think it. I don't think you can actually form that likelyhood.We have a category of 'a designer'. Some subsets of it can be ruled out and some cannot. You're saying that because of the infinite amount of specific subsets, any one in particular would have near zero likleyhood. But we still don't have a likleyhood of the category of 'a designer'. I don't think the supernatural is being invoked as an explanation, its being left as a possibility that hasn't been ruled out.I don't know if its been designed or not... it could be.

I'm not suggesting that such an observation is necessary to be able to say that teleology was dealt a fatal blow. Sure - you can create a zombie teleological concept that is unfalsifiable and unverifiable but I don't think it's anymore interesting than any other such concept.Once upon a time teleology could point at the world and say - "look at the eye! That isn't the kind of thing that just 'happens' that is one of a large class of entities that can only be reasonably explained with the design argument" - and this was a very strong and serious argument. Darwinism showed that the 'only' was not true which seriously undermined what was once a strong argument and is now a weak 'you can't prove it didn't' kind of argument. Indeed - so I thought I'd put forward actual biological evidence against the design argument. Which strawman? I proposed that evolution is actual biological evidence that seriously undermined the design argument. I appreciate this wasn't what the OP was hoping for.

Well if we accept evolution by natural selection and random mutation what active role does this designer play in designing biological life? Well amen to that. Are you saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case? Are you a pseudoskeptic with regard to a designer continualy and actively guiding evolution? Can you prove that there isn't a designer continualy and actively guiding evolution? Aren't these the things you accuse me of when I say exactly what you are saying here when people start invoking undetectable entities to explain other aspects of nature? Then on what basis did you just say you would meet any such claim with doubt? Do you consider a supernatural undetectable designer continually guiding evolution to be more or less likely than the naturalistic, evidenced and mutually exclusive alternative? Namely natural selection and random mutation.Is it rational to consider both equally probable? Or is one evidentially superior and thus to be considered more likely to be true? I am saying that any designer actively interfering or directing evolution has been refuted to all practical intents and purposes. Regrdless of the fact that we cannot disprove this claim. Effectively refuted by the acceptance of evolution by natural selection and random mutation. A mutually exclusive evidenced alternative.The scientific conclusion remains tentative. Not proven. As is always the case with regard to evidence based conclusions.
The un-evidenced supernatural conclusion has not been disproven. Thus it remains a logical possibility. As do all other irrefutable possibilities.On this basis I would say that the scientifically evidenced conclusion should rationally be regarded as considerably more probable. And that the unevidenced supernatural conclusion has been refuted to all practical intents and purposes. Thus rationally we would be defacto atheists with regard to the evolutionary process being continually guided by the supernatural agent in question.Do you agree? Or not? Which is exactly what I am doing. But are all possibilities equally likely? Well I don't KNOW either. But are you seriously suggesting that the scientificaly evidenced possibility is no more or less likely to be true than any other?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Biological evidence by definition cannot disprove irrefutable forms of ID. But since when did disproving the undisprovable become a requirement of science? Biological evidence can constitute evidence against the role of an Intelligent Designer in biological processes.Based on the evidence we have concluded evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation. This conclusion is mutually exclusive to the claim that evolution occurs by means of non-random purposeful interference acted out by an undetectable supernatural agent. Or any other similar such inherently irrefutable claim.The scientific conclusion remains tentative. Not proven. As is always the case with regard to evidence based conclusions.
The un-evidenced supernatural conclusion has not been disproven. Thus it remains a logical possibility. As do all other irrefutable possibilities.On this basis I would say that the scientifically evidenced conclusion should rationally be regarded as considerably more probable. And that the unevidenced supernatural conclusion has been refuted to all practical intents and purposes. Thus rationally we would be defacto atheists with regard to the evolutionary process being guided by the supernatural agent in question. No biological evidence against intelligent design? How can evidence in favour of a mutually exclusive alternative not be considered evidence against intelligent design? Are you not conflating disproof with scientific forms of refutation? Scientific refutation in the sense of being effectively disregarded in favour of mutually exclusive and evidentially superior alternative theory.

Hi, Modulous. I don't see how this is the case, though. If the design argument was that things were designed exactly as they are and cannot change over time, you would have a point. But, that is not the model that most IDists support. Perhaps IDists used to think that that was the case, but virtually none do anymore. You can hardly blame them for adapting their model in the face of new evidence.You can call it an uninteresting zombie, if you want, and I don't disagree that it's lost its explanatory power... but, ultimately, the only evidence here is evidence that supports evolution, not evidence that refutes ID. We can only really refute ID by heuristic. I don't really have a problem with this: what I have a problem with is trying to make a heuristic out to be evidence.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler. How are evolution and ID mutually exclusive?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Who knows... It could have set up the process, itself. It could control the environment to drive selection. It could cause a particular mutation (thereby making it non-random but we wouldn't know and our random theory would still hold). It could be actively controlling everything whilst maintaining the evolution appearance. Or Omphalism. How ridiculous do you want to take this? No, its absence isn't evidenced. If I took the position that it didn't exists, then yes. But doubt isn't disbelief. And remember that some of them can be ruled out so I wouldn't be pseudoskeptical of those. Not really. Although from what we understand about how mutations arise, I think we can say that the guidance wouldn't be actively continual. Take the nylon eating bacteria for example; can't we make the mutation rise and fall with the selective pressure and doesn't that mean that the designer would have to be there causing the mutation every time the experiment is performed, and wouldn't that be ridiculous enough to disbelieve? You go a step further into disbelief and try to rationalize it with a likelihood that can't be determined. The lack of evidence combined with the random and imaginary aspects of it for one. Plus it'd depend on whether or not certain aspects of could be ruled out. I'm not sure they're totally mutually exclusive so I don't know how I'd determine the likelihood. But yes, a mutually exclusive alternative to an evidenced explanation could be taken to disbelief without pseudoskepticism, i.e. ruling it out. I don't see what probabilities and likelihoods have to do with it. Yes, when they are mutually exclusive. But I don't think its a matter of probability. I think we've actually ruled the alternative out.The reason I questioned the randomness earlier is because a designer that did actively cause some particular mutation wouldn't be noticed as being non-random, so our scientific explanation would remain accurate but no longer mutually exclusive. Well, it'd be inaccurate in that the mutation wasn't actually random, but we wouldn't have a clue and would maintain that it's accurate. So I don't think a designer has been ruled out in that regard, because we've lost our mutual exclusivity. Maybe its a terminology issue, but I think that you are ruling them out. Not comparing actual likelihoods. I meant non-bold, no-caps 'know' I'm saying we don't know the likelihood so we can't say, unless we do have mutual exclusivity, then we can rule it out, but still not use a likelihood.We know the nylon eating bacteria's mutation arises randomly so we can rule out a designer actively controlling it, its not a matter of it being less likely to be true. It doesn't rule out a designer being there for every experiment, and we'll never know about that, but I think its too ridiculous to be seriously considered as a possibility. Not because of the evidence for the alternative though. And I might be properly called a pseudoskeptic against it.