Does ID predict genetic similarity?

I was having a discussion with someone about using genetic similarity as evidence for relatedness and this issue came up. It was suggested that genetic similarity is also compatible with ID as well as common descent so it is ambiguous as to relatedness. I agreed that it is indeed compatible with both ideas. However, I suggested that common descent predicted similarity while ID did not. Here is the logic I used:

If you compared two species with the following genes (letters represent individual genes):

A B C D E F G H I J K L - house mouse
A B C D E F G M I J K L - white rat

You could conclude that the two species are probably related since they only differ by one gene and this conclusion would indeed be compatible with either common descent or ID.

However, if the 2 species had the following genetic codes:

A B C D E F G H I J K L - house mouse
B D G M J L C A E I F K - white rat

Based on common descent you could conclude the two species were not related because common descent requires that the genetic sequence be similar. This is the very thing that is happening in the plant kingdom right now. Researchers are finding that plants that were once thought to be closely related cannot possibly be because there is too much difference in the genetic *sequence*. They are more similar to species in other genera.

You could not draw this conclusion with ID since the designer could have made these similar looking creatures with different genetic sequences (note that the same genes are all there, only the sequence is different). There is no requirement of ID that sequences be conserved. It would seem logical that a designer would make similar creatures with similar genetic codes, and if I were the designer, I would use modular components. But there is nothing that constrains the designer to do so. In fact, modular construction is really a very recent idea - within the last 100 or so years. Before that everything was made one at a time and each piece was unique.

So, genetic similarity may be compatible with both ID and common descent, but only common descent predicts genetic similarity.

Is this a “logical fallacy?” Do you agree there is a difference between evidence being “compatible” and evidence being “predicted” in the way I described above? Why or why not?

A follow up question is this: What other predictions does ID make or at least claim to make and how do they compare to the predictions that common descent makes?

HBD

(Intelligent Design please)

Edited by herebedragons, : used the term genetic code when I should have used genetic sequences

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the Does ID predict genetic similarity? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

ID includes everything from full-on Young Earth Creationism to Behe's idea of God as occasionally throwing a little genetic engineering into the evolutionary process and the front-loaded evolution described in this forum by Genomicus. Although it is fair to mention that the YECs seem more acceptable to the ID mainstream than the other views which appear to be no more than tolerated fringe elements in the ID movement.

I would say that mainstream ID (Old Earth Creationism) does not make such predictions but the fringe views in ID which include common descent do.

I was having a discussion with someone about using genetic similarity as evidence for relatedness and this issue came up. It was suggested that genetic similarity is also compatible with ID as well as common descent so it is ambiguous as to relatedness. I agreed that it is indeed compatible with both ideas. However, I suggested that common descent predicted similarity while ID did not.

Talkorigins has a well written paragraph on this topic which echoes my own thoughts:

quote:

---

The nested hierarchical organization of species contrasts sharply with other possible biological patterns, such as the continuum of "the great chain of being" and the continuums predicted by Lamarck's theory of organic progression (Darwin 1872, pp. 552-553; Futuyma 1998, pp. 88-92). Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies are the elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc.
http://www.talkorigins.org/...section1.html#nested_hierarchy

---

It goes further than similarity. It is the PATTERN of similarity that matters. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. There is simply no reason that an intelligent designer would separately create species so that they fall into a nested hierarchy. Even humans do not obey this pattern of similarity when we design organisms. For example, we have no problem taking the GFP gene from jellyfish and putting it in bony fish to produce Glofish. Our own designs for cars and furniture do not fall into a nested hierarchy even though these designs borrow from other designs.

So why would a designer limit itself in order to produce a pattern of similarity that evolution would produce?

The problem grows for ID supporters if we assume an omnipotent designer. ID supporters will often claim that it "makes sense" to copy other designs. But does that hold true for an omniscient, omnipotent designer who has unlimited resources? NO. A designer with these attributes would expend as much energy starting from scratch as it would copying previous designs. Reusing designs only makes sense for designers like us who are limited in ability, knowledge, time, and resources.

It goes further than similarity. It is the PATTERN of similarity that matters. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

Good point. I was trying to keep my illustration as simple as possible and I was trying to limit my discussion to that which was not controversial (arguing for macro-evolution is against that forum's rules). But that pattern applies to the species within a genus, so I could have expanded my example to include a group of organisms within a genus.

There is simply no reason that an intelligent designer would separately create species so that they fall into a nested hierarchy.

The point I made was although nothing prevents a designer from doing that, there is nothing that requires it either. So it is a matter of falsification, is it not? Anyway the designer wants to do it is acceptable, so how would you determine if it was not due to a designer?

After I made this point I was accused of automatically rejecting any possibility of a designer. I feel my position did not exclude the possibility of a designer, but it says that genetic similarities or nested hierarchies do not predict a designer. Your position does seem to go further and reject the possibility of a designer. Is there anything that would prevent an intelligent designer from designing organisms in the way we observe them? I would say NO, nothing prevents that, but it doesn't require it.

The problem grows for ID supporters if we assume an omnipotent designer. ID supporters will often claim that it "makes sense" to copy other designs. But does that hold true for an omniscient, omnipotent designer who has unlimited resources? NO. A designer with these attributes would expend as much energy starting from scratch as it would copying previous designs. Reusing designs only makes sense for designers like us who are limited in ability, knowledge, time, and resources.

I made this point too. The idea of mass production is a very recent development. Components are made in a modular fashion to save costs, reduce inventory, make assembly easier, ect. What benefit would this system have for an intelligent designer.

On the other hand, nested hierarchies are not unknown from nature outside of biological systems. The universe is ordered as such:
planet --> solar system --> interstellar neighborhood --> galaxy --> supercluster --> observed universe

also in ecology
biotype --> ecosystem --> ecoregion --> biome --> ecozone --> biosphere

Perhaps this would suggest that the designer prefers this type of organization. Also, even before modern manufacturing processes humans organized things into hierarchies, like:
peasant --> freeman --> local lord --> king

It could be argued that humans have been given that trait by the designer.

But I still don't see that ID predicts that organisms be organized in a nested hierarchy but it also doesn't exclude the possibility of a designer.

(since there aren't too many ID supporters on here anymore, I have to arguing both sides )

HBD

Yea, I guess I kinda lumped them all into one category, which is not really accurate. It would be easier to sort out if there was one cohesive theory that described the ID position. But everyone seems to have there own little twist on what intelligent design means and how it is supported.

So I guess I would take any prediction that those in the ID camp feel that the ID argument makes.

but the fringe views in ID which include common descent do.

How do they justify this prediction, in your opinion?

I thought of another prediction that is often made: there will be biological systems such that their origin cannot be explained by naturalistic means. The reason it would make this prediction is that as a feature or process is brought into existence by the intervention of an intelligent agent the path of naturalistic process would come to an end at that intervention point.

Would you agree that ID actually does make this prediction?

HBD

quote:

---

How do they justify this prediction, in your opinion?

---

Based on their belief in common descent.

quote:

---

I thought of another prediction that is often made: there will be biological systems such that their origin cannot be explained by naturalistic means. The reason it would make this prediction is that as a feature or process is brought into existence by the intervention of an intelligent agent the path of naturalistic process would come to an end at that intervention point.

---

I don't like confusing the natural/supernatural with natural/artificial, and it's a particular problem with ID. The mainstream do claim it as a prediction based on their supernaturalism. Behe, I think, still tries to claim it. I don't think that Genomicus does.

So I'd say that most ID supporters would agree and mean that a supernatural cause would be needed (although they might not say so) but some on the fringes might only mean that evolution involved some artifice, and some wouldn't agree at all.

So I'd say that most ID supporters would agree and mean that a supernatural cause would be needed (although they might not say so) but some on the fringes might only mean that evolution involved some artifice, and some wouldn't agree at all.

Well that's about as vague as it gets

I guess it boils down to everyone has there own opinion as to what ID predicts and what it doesn't and I would have to ask just about every individual what it means. Kind of an anything goes category regarding origins.

Thanks

HBD

Anyway the designer wants to do it is acceptable, so how would you determine if it was not due to a designer?

One important factor to point out is that any potential observation can be explained by ID, therefore none are. The fact remains that evolution predicts a specific pattern, and we observe that pattern. That is one leg up for evolution.

After I made this point I was accused of automatically rejecting any possibility of a designer. I feel my position did not exclude the possibility of a designer, but it says that genetic similarities or nested hierarchies do not predict a designer. Your position does seem to go further and reject the possibility of a designer.

I am merely pointing to the absurdity of a designer limiting itself to a nested hierarchy just to make life look like it evolved when in fact it didn't. I see no logical reason why a designer would do that, other than to be a deceiver.

We could extend this same logic to other theories. For example, we could say that there is some magical force that causes diseases and that the correlation between microorganisms and disease is just happenstance. It makes no sense.

The reasonable conclusion is that we see a pattern of shared features that matches the predictions made by the theory of evolution because species evolved.

On the other hand, nested hierarchies are not unknown from nature outside of biological systems. The universe is ordered as such: planet --> solar system --> interstellar neighborhood --> galaxy --> supercluster --> observed universe also in ecology biotype --> ecosystem --> ecoregion --> biome --> ecozone --> biosphere

Those are not based on shared and derived physical characteristics. Rather, they are based on scale.

But I still don't see that ID predicts that organisms be organized in a nested hierarchy but it also doesn't exclude the possibility of a designer.

It is impossible to exclude magic. The world could be 2 minutes old with an embedded history and embedded memories and we would never know it. However, there is no compelling reason to believe that a 2 minute universe is true. In the same way, there is no compelling reason to think that a designer created life on Earth. However, there are compelling reasons to think that evolution did occur. That is the difference.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I'm pretty sure I agree with your reasoning over all, but a quick question:

When you say "genetic code" do you really mean "genetic similarity"? E.g., "Researchers are finding that plants that were once thought to be closely related cannot possibly be because there is too much difference in the genetic code" - does this mean that the actual genetic code is different or that the DNA sequences are substantially different?

Sorry, I will get round to this eventually.

Hi Genomicus, glad you found this thread. I was going to bump you but couldn't figure out how to.

Yes, that was a typo. I mean't genetic similarity. Although there are some anomalies, the genetic code is quite universal. I have already corrected my OP.

I looked over your 'Front loading predicts deep homology' topic, and I understand your position, but I was unable to come to a solid conclusion about whether it is an appropriate prediction or a post hoc conclusion.

Do you have any other ideas as to what predictions ID makes (in particular as compared to common descent)?

HBD

One important factor to point out is that any potential observation can be explained by ID, therefore none are. The fact remains that evolution predicts a specific pattern, and we observe that pattern. That is one leg up for evolution.

I understand your comment about any observation being explained by ID and for the most part agree, and that is the very problem I have with it. It goes back to being unfalsifiable.

But does common descent actually predict aspects like parallel evolution or convergent evolution or is this an explanation of an observation? If a common ancestor was designed or "pre-programmed" with certain genetic traits it would be predictable that the trait would arise in separate lineages. To be honest, I haven't given this idea much serious thought. I am just trying to think through things and considering both sides.

On the other hand, nested hierarchies are not unknown from nature outside of biological systems. The universe is ordered as such: planet --> solar system --> interstellar neighborhood --> galaxy --> supercluster --> observed universe also in ecology biotype --> ecosystem --> ecoregion --> biome --> ecozone --> biosphere Those are not based on shared and derived physical characteristics. Rather, they are based on scale.

Ok, good point. But there is no claim of common descent in these examples, only order and systematic organization. This could support the concept of a designer that appreciates these qualities and uses them into the designs. I would also suggest that they are indeed organized based on shared characteristics as well as scale. However, I didn't mean it to be a direct comparison with common ancestry, only to suggest that a case could be made that a designer would design in a very orderly, structured, systematic way.

It is impossible to exclude magic. The world could be 2 minutes old with an embedded history and embedded memories and we would never know it. However, there is no compelling reason to believe that a 2 minute universe is true.

I appreciate a good reductio ad absurdum argument as much as the next guy , but this is really not the point at all. There is a difference between magic and a supernatural force that is responsible for the formation of the universe.

quote:

---

magic:
The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

---

quote:

---

supernatural:
n. Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
adj. Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

---

Magic implies human attempts to influence events by spells, incantations, etc. And while I am sure there are some that treat the supernatural as magic, there is a distinction. If you merely mean that supernatural events are outside of scientific understanding or detection, then I totally agree.

In the same way, there is no compelling reason to think that a designer created life on Earth. However, there are compelling reasons to think that evolution did occur. That is the difference.

Sure there are compelling reasons to believe that evolution occurred, but I don't think that evolution answers all questions about our existence. Perhaps you do, but I sure don't. That doesn't mean that I think we need to appeal to the supernatural to explain something in the natural world we don't understand, but how can we dismiss the possibility outright?

My question is not so much "Did a designer create life on earth?" but "If a designer did create life on earth, what would we expect?" And I making the distinction between post hoc observation with predictions that we should be able to make if that were true.

HBD

Since I'm one of the few ID proponents left around here, I'll offer my thoughts on this post soon, herebedragons.

Nice thread by the way.

Ok, good point. But there is no claim of common descent in these examples, only order and systematic organization. This could support the concept of a designer that appreciates these qualities and uses them into the designs. I would also suggest that they are indeed organized based on shared characteristics as well as scale

This logic is not correct. The hierarchical organization of matter into planets, solar systems, galaxies, clusters and superclusters, observed universe [interstellar neighborhood deliberately omitted] is consistent with a designer who appreciates that particular organization, but it is not supportive of any such thing because it is not unique to a universe without a designer. In fact, for it to be supportive of the idea, you would need some significant hypotheses that are ruled out by such an order. While you may be able to artificial construct a counter example, I would submit that such a counter example is not an actual theory about which there is any debate.

However, I didn't mean it to be a direct comparison with common ancestry, only to suggest that a case could be made that a designer would design in a very orderly, structured, systematic way

And yet no ID proponent or creationist would ever accept the argument that examples of unorder and unsystematic, or seemingly illogical choices, that might be indicated as consistent with evolution, are counter examples to a designer or creator.

If a designer did create life on earth, what would we expect?"

This question cannot be answered without making assumption that we can know the purpose, motivation, and limitations of the designer. By manipulating our assumptions, and by including an opportunity for the designer to deviate from any assumption at a whim, ANY state of existence can be accommodated as consistent with a designer.

Given the unknowable nature of the designer, it seems unlikely that we could ever find a construction or quality that would strongly support detecting the designer through the designs. We wont find any tool marks that we might find on an arrow head.