Does ID predict genetic similarity?

genomicus writes: But if flawed design is evidence against ID, then rational design is evidence for ID. Would Avise accept the argument that since the core structure of the bacterial flagellum - or the ATP synthase, for instance - displays properties of rational design, then these systems show signs of intelligent design?

Loads of problems with this argument, the obvious one being why a godly designer would have ANY bad design at all? Was this deliberate bad workmanship to fool us into thinking that his designs aren't designed or just a Friday afternoon job?

Genomicus writes: Given that it is not my position that a god designed features of life, your objection is not particularly relevant for me.

I'm afraid you are always going to be pushed back into philosophy because saying that the design for life was not divine begs the question of how the non-divine creator came about.

That apart, a point based system based on good and bad design features in nature inorder to provide evidence for a designer isn't going to get you anywhere either, simply because with evolution, better design wins over poorer design - so the result is the same.

Genomicus writes: For example, I never argued that evolution predicts that biological systems will be optimally designed, contrary to what you imply. What I did argue is that if we accept Tangle's argument that "better design wins over poorer design - so the result is the same," then it seems as if evolution would predict that biological systems will be optimally designed. However, since Tangle's argument is not correct (and assuming I'm interpreting in the right way), evolution makes no predictions regarding optimality or lack thereof.

In a straight fight, better design will always win over poorer design. Of course it will.

But nature is rarely a straight fight and evolution is not remotely interested in optimising - it's very happy with good enough and make do and mend. And when some feature is no longer under survival pressure, practically anything will do. We have stacks of evidence for this from junk DNA to vestigial organs and the inverted retina (above).

The point is that where there are design deficiencies seen in nature they can only be a negative for the argument from design; for self-evident reasons. Whilst evolution has no problem with bad design and we can show where, how and why it happens.

So you need to explain why a designer would design badly and why it would do it in such a way to make it look identical to how evolution actually does it.

gernomics writes: The argument that "saying that the design for life was not divine begs the question of how the non-divine creator came about" is therefore deeply flawed IMHO. There is an easy solution to this question, as explained above

The 'easy' answer is to imagine another form of life that can wish itself into existence. This life form is non-biological but can make something biological and trasfer it to another planet for no obvious reason. And your evidence is a science fiction novel?

You seem to be determined to find the absolutely hardest route through these problems -you've given yourself a triple or quadruple Ockham to explain away.

Genomicus writes: For some odd reason you completely ignored the parts that I bolded, where I emphasized that it is possible that non-biological intelligence can exist and evolve.

That is indeed true. And you have ignored the small problem that this imagined non-biological intelligence has to create a biological organism and transport it here some 4bn years ago. Given that the universe is around 14bn years old this menas that your imagined intelligence has to evolve itself in a primordal universe, build it's experiment from parts it has no obvious knowledge of, build a transport mechanism we cannot as yet conceive of, identify a likely home a few million light years away(?) and get it here at exactly the right time for it to be able to survive on our cooling planet.

Then you might attempt to answer why it would feel this necessary to do, given that they apparently have taken no further interest in us.

All this against the much easier hypotheses that we already have.

Given that this possibility is no more outlandish than the existence of a god, there is no reason to assume that if biological life requires design, then the intelligence behind our biological life likewise requires design, forcing us to backtrack up to a deity.

On what grounds do you say that your hypothesis is no more outlandish' than a deity? I find it barking mad and I don't believe in a god. We have better local solutions, why search for the absurd?

1. You argued that intelligent design, philosophically, will always lead us back to a god.

Given that I'm an atheist, that is hardly likely to be my argument. It is however, the usual argument of infinite regress. I have to say that the idea of pushing abiogenesis back another stage and claiming that that stage could start itself is new to me. And it's totally unecessary when we have mechanisms that don't require your added improbability.

ID does not necessarily require the existence of a deity.

No, it requires something far, far, far more unlikely.

Yes, I know you have stacks of evidence for flawed design, but at the same time there are stacks of biological systems that, at their core, clearly display rational design and show no signs of flawed design.

Exactly. when necessary, evolution creates great survival designs. Good design will win over bad - when there is a need. There's nothing at all surprising about that, in fact it's a core principal of the ToE.

The ToE predicts both good and bad design. You have to explain the bad.

Alternatively, I could take the approach that poor design counts against the design inference, which means that design probably wasn't involved in the origin of that system.

I suggest you take this route.

Genomicus writes: Your statement that my little idea (which, incidentally, I don't believe in - I'm simply pointing out that your argument isn't valid) is far, far, far more unlikely than a god is entirely a subjective one. There are plenty of atheists who will say that the idea of a god existing is much more barking mad than the idea I have outlined.

This is pure Alice in Wonderland stuff. Inorder to argue for ID without a deity, you have to present an idea that you don't even believe yourself - presumably because you know it to be as daft as I do.

The argument is also totally redundant, given that we already have a stronger hypothesis for how life started here and a fully confirmed theory for how it went on from that point.

I'm afraid that the craziness of an idea is not, in itself, an argument against it.

I can see that you think that as you posit an argument that you don't believe to be true yourself. In my world, being a crazy idea is a very good argument against it. If you want to dream up imaginary and arbitrary scenarios and claim them to be proper arguments, I guess nothing is going to stop you, but you can expect a little push-back from the real world.

Your main concern with the idea is not based on logic but on personal incredulity.

Yes, I tend to need an argument to be remotely credible before I accept it; does that seem odd to you?

The logical argument says that the ID views you've put forward all fail Ockham's tests so now you have to have to come up with some proper evidence to show why your more complex - and so far incredible ideas - are better than the current understanding.

Why don't I believe in the idea? Precisely because I have no beliefs regarding who the designer might be. I find the answer "I don't know" perfectly satisfactory when the question "who designed the designer?" is asked.

And yet you didn't say I don't know - you came up with a whole cock-and-bull story about electric aliens.

As soon as you step into the question of a why a divine designer would have any bad designs, you have left the realm of science and entered that of theology. Given that it is not my position that a god designed features of life, your objection is not particularly relevant for me.

Ok, we can kill this one. I read form this that your position was the usual one of panspermia; the obvious response to which is that if life didn't start here it still had to start somewhere; which leaves the philosophical problem of regress.

Most people jam the divine in somewhere back along that path. Sadly the ID movement is no exception - they are just more dishonest about it claiming to be disinterested and only searching after truth. It's a lie that they've been caught out on several times.

If you don't fall into this camp, then you are unique and I congratulate you on it. But you still have to support your claims with more than just thought puzzles.

herebedragons writes: Good point RAZD. It does seem that some think that because ID doesn't make a particular prediction that it means the reverse is true, ie. there is no designer, which is not actually a valid conclusion based on the evidence.

I think the issue is more that because we already have a perfectly adequate theory, we just don't need a designer. The designer is superfluous - it fails Ockham.

Of course that doesn't mean that there wasn't a designer, just that science so far says that we don't need one. So in order to make any progress at all, our OP has to provide some actual hard evidence of front loading.