How is it that we view IC and ID?

Hi TC. You pose some interesting questions (if I'm understanding your post). To wit, why do scientists accept ToE (and/or abiogenesis), but not ID? After all, both can be said to rest on a speculative foundation, right?However, there are substantial differences between current scientific thought and research, and ID. My biggest problem with ID in all it's manifestations is that no one has been able to describe the basic observations from nature that led to ID as the default hypothesis. I don't mean "prove ID". I mean the fundamental observations that make ID at least as, if not more, reasonable an explanation than ToE.Here are a couple of very generic examples of why scientists think that the ToE is a pretty good theory:1. As an example of coevolution, a scientist observes the existence of an orchid with an extraordinary 30cm-long nectary (Angraecum sesquipedale). His default explanation for the depth of the nectary is evolution. He predicts that, if evolution is true, an insect will be found that specializes on this plant - and only this plant. Twenty+ years after his death, entomologists discover a moth that does in fact specialize on the orchid (Xanthopan morgani praedicta), with a 30cm-long tongue.2. If natural selection is true, specific environmental niches should require similar adaptations, even if the organisms are radically different. Selection pressures are going to be similar and the problems these organisms face are going to be analogous, therefore phenotype will be similar. This is precisely what is observed. Just a few examples: marsupial thylacines (e.g., Thylacinus cynocephalus) and placental grey wolves (Canis lupus) who are predators on small and medium herbivores; marsupial bandicoots (Macrotis lagotis) and placental desert hares (e.g., Lepus townsendii) who are grass-eaters with similar desert (long ears) and saltatory adaptations; there are innumerable other examples.3. If natural selection is true, there should be significant variation even within genera in response to differential selection pressures. One example is the golden fer-de-lance (Bothrops insularis) of Quemada Grande (off the coast of Brazil). Although all Bothrops spp. are highly toxic, the golden lancehead is one of the most poisonous snakes in the world. Why? Because on Quemada Grande there are no mammals, so the golden lancehead is forced to subsist on birds. Normally, a lancehead (an ambush predator) will strike its prey and then follow the doomed animal by scent. Since birds - even mortally wounded birds - fly away, the normal tactic isn't effective. Therefore the toxicity of the golden lancehead has, through NS operating over time, increased to enable the species to kill its avian prey almost immediately.4. If life evolves by descent with modification, the evidence should be recognizable in inherited genetic material - including errors. Retrogenes are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Retroviruses, such as HIV and HTLV1 (which causes a form of leukaemia), make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ-line cell the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species strongly indicates common ancestry. There are three different instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans. Within the Felidae (cats), the standard phylogenetic tree (based on the usual morphological, biochemical etc features) has small cats diverging later than large cats, with the blackfooted cat (Felis nigripes) being the first of the small cats to diverge. All small cats, from the jungle cat (F. chaus), European wildcat (F. silvestris), sand cat (F. margarita), to the common house cat (Felis cattus) etc. share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, the cat lineages that diverged before the small cat lineage (lion, cheetah, and leopard) and all other carnivores lack this retrogene.These are all the "type" of observations (among multitudes) that lead scientists to think that ToE is a good working theory. These aren't even the best examples - just a couple I came up with off the top of my head. I would say that ID needs to come up with something as good to be taken seriously.As far as OOL and ID, my take is that since everything else in nature follows predictable natural laws, there is no reason to drag in the unverifiable and untestable assumptions demanded by ID theory. Sure, life hasn't yet been produced in a lab. And yeah, it turns out that the process is a bit more complicated than was first thought, and is going to take more time to tease out. But there's a huge number of very sharp scientists working on the issue, and a lot of the basic chemistry has been verified. The "gap" that a putative "designer" can squeeze into is getting smaller and smaller practically every day.The same goes for IC structures. Several of the so-called "irreducible" complexes proposed by Behe turn out not to be so irreducible. He's basically "reduced" (sorry, couldn't resist) to one type of bacterial flagella as the only remaining place for his designer to have designed. Now that a number of prominent scientists are starting to tackle that one (and with new gene sequencing techniques, they're really moving forward with teasing out homologies in living organisms that almost - but not quite - have similar, more "primitive" versions of the same thing), irreducible complexity is rapidly becoming irredeemably deconstructed.The conclusion TC, is that while ID shares superficial similarities with some of the more frontier sciences (like OOL), there is one significant difference: OOL has a solid foundation in organic chemistry (and the fact that all observable nature follows predictable laws), ToE has a solid foundation in direct observations of the natural world, but ID rests on sheer, unfounded speculation. ID is compounded of equal parts "argument from incredulity", "god/designer-of-the-gaps", and "false dilemma fallacy". Until and unless ID can come up with some REAL observations, it will remain in the "outer darkness" of scientific thought - right up there next to the flat earth and geocentric theories.

Gerhard: I totally agree with everything you posted in your first paragraph concerning information. How's that for 100% concordance? I am especially gratified by your statement:

quote:

---

But the complexity of DNA does not say anything about its information content. Someday someone will undoubtedly figure out how to get a DNA molecule to form artificially (funny thing is even that will take guidance by an intelligent source) but the DNA does not, and will not, have to contain any information whatsoever. The only significance of DNA so far is that it provides the information for life. THE DNA IS NOT THE INFORMATION. It never was and it never will be. (emphasis added because I REALLY like this statement. This is precisely the point I have been belaboring with ChaseNelson, among others, on this very board. Thank you!)

---

I also appreciate your succinct elaboration of what ID is proposing. If all ID proponents were as clear and straightforward as your post indicated, I would have absolutely no problem with research involved in determining whether or not such a mechanism exists. You might find it surprising, given some of my other posts, but I honestly don't reject ID a priori as a philosophical basis for possible scientific research (although I do think that bringing a deity into the equation unnecessarily complicates the problem).My biggest heartburn with ID stems from the fact that a majority of its proponents have placed the "cart before the horse". They have gone from a philosophical basis directly to demanding that ID be taught in schools alongside (or in some cases instead of) evolution. There is literally NO basis for this stance. ID, whatever its merits as a potential research area, has yet to generate any valid data. Beyond "Designer of the gaps" and "argument from incredulity", NONE of the major ID proponents and organizations have developed any empirical information in support of their theory. That being the case, there is no justification for teaching ID in any public school. Develop the basic information, make the basic observations, identify the mechanisms, and THEN ID proponents may have a valid argument. Until then, the entire field is tainted with the politico-religious agendas of its major writers. This is my fundamental problem with the likes of Sen. Santorum - to which you apparently (if for me not very coherently) took exception on the other thread - he is attempting to use his political authority to impose his particular philosophical stance on publicly-funded science education. ID proponents should be shunning people like Santorum like the plague - every time a scientist sees shenanigans like this, it reduces even further the perceived legitimacy of ID as a science.If you would reread my post to which you responded, you'll find the basic question I asked is not "Prove ID", but rather "What are/were the fundamental observations in nature that form the basis of ID?" I even provided four "type" observations that tend to support a more conventional evolutionary theory. Arguing the negative ("evolution hasn't proven that eubacterial flagella could evolve naturally") doesn't provide positive evidence for ID. This is a straight "Designer of the gaps" fallacy. Absence of evidence doesn't necessarily imply evidence of absence. Science's "I don't know - yet", isn't the equivalent of "ID is true".I'd be greatly appreciative if you could provide one or two observations, such as I provided, from nature that would substantiate the basic theory of ID you've laid out. Thanks.Does this constitute "getting it"?It is transcendent in a sense. And yet, it is not amazing or miraculous, for we encounter it daily. We encounter something above and beyond nature everyday; it is regularity, not possibility that changes one’s outlook on a miraculous event.[/QUOTE]There's nothing transcendant about genetics, except in the narrow sense that an argument can be made in favor of a cell, for instance, showing evidence of emergent properties - and you'll get a lot of disagreement on THAT assertion as well, from a lot of scientists. Also, it's possible to look at every level (from the organic chemistry level to ecosystem) as a complex adaptive system - CAS can be a useful perceptual tool. However, I would argue that there is nothing "above and beyond nature" in anything we observe in nature, nor that there is anything resembling an objective "miraculous event". Other than that, no argument from me...

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-10-2002]

Damn, go away for a week and the discussant has abandoned the field. Unlike Mr. P, I don't particularly see the point in arguing with a non-existent person. Gerhard, if you're still around, please make your presence known. We have unresolved issues concerning speciation. Thanks.On a related note: anyone seen ChaseNelson or Cobra_snake around recently?