Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Unguided Evolution – Can it be falsified?

January 19, 2006
Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Steve Reuland over on Panda’s Thumb is babbling about whether some ID strawman du jour can be falsified. Let’s examine the real issue.

First of all, we’ll use this definition of evolution given to the Kansas Board of Education in a letter from 38 (count ’em) Nobel laureates better known as the Weisel 38.

“Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”

an unguided, unplanned process

As all of us who don’t cling to strawman versions of ID know, the only bone we have to pick with that definition is the unguided, unplanned part. We are of the position that evolution, in part or in whole, was a guided or planned process.

So how does one go about falsifying unguided evolution? By demonstrating that the process was guided, of course.

ID is the means by which this theory of unguided evolution can be falsified. If ID cannot be falsified and is itself just religion disguised as science, where does that leave unguided evolution? Why it leaves unguided evolution as unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

Sorry Steve Reuland, but you don’t get to have your cake and eat it to. Either ID is science or unguided evolution is pseudo-science. Takes yo pick and let me know when you have a final answer.

Comments
Dave, I asked you a while ago if I could become a permanent blogger, but you never responded back. What's up with that? We have no suitable open positions at this time for you. -ds Usurper
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Thanks, Dave, that's quite a compliment. If you have any use that you are able to put it to, you are welcome to do so. I know it says copyright, but I only wrote it to get information out.RyanLarsen
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
"We weren’t discussing common sense either but that didn’t stop you from bringing it up. I sense you’re about finished in this thread now. You had your say and it’s been duly noted. Let some others get theirs." Hmmm, right. Well, so much for a reasonable discussion.Hamilton
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
"Don’t make me mention again that genetic drift in small populations, as well as founder effect, already causes descent with modification against the selection gradient. I’m losing patience. -ds" We've already covered this. Genetic drift occurs orthogonally to the selection gradient, not against it. Contrary to the selection gradient (I was careful to choose the term 'contrary') means detrimental to the population. I hope you'll correct your change to my comment to avoid unintentionally misleading others.Hamilton
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Bombadill, "If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely." This is incorrect. Occam's razor is a heuristic, not a law. Showing that guidance is not necessary for evolution to occur does not falsify guidance, because guidance may still be occurring. That is why the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. As I said, no matter what the evidence, guidance can still be said to be taking place. It is not just unfeasible or difficult to falsify it, it is impossible in the literal, mathematical sense. On the other hand, unguided evolution is falsifiable with evidence that shows it happening contrary to the natural selection gradient. That may be difficult to establish, but it's possible (again, in the literal, mathematical sense). Don't make me mention again that genetic drift in small populations, as well as founder effect, already causes descent with modification against the selection gradient. I'm losing patience. -dsHamilton
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Well I guess this is as good a place as any to throw this in. I've written a paper about ID and would be interested in comments and criticism. I may not respond to the criticism but I will take it into account. My livejournal page is usually used as a response to AL Franken but I threw the ID paper in at the top. http://www.livejournal.com/users/ryguyjay A good thoughtful opinion, Ryan. If I could somehow get a permalink to that I'd put it in a headline article here for more exposure. -ds RyanLarsen
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
"Well Hamilton, what’s overwhelming evidence of unguided evolution to you is not overwhelming evidence of unguided evolution to me. Where does that now leave us? -ds" I didn't say anything about overwhelming evidence. We were discussing the nature of a scientific hypothesis. That's the original topic, as posted by you. We weren't discussing common sense either but that didn't stop you from bringing it up. I sense you're about finished in this thread now. You had your say and it's been duly noted. Let some others get theirs. If you feel that there is overwhelming evidence against unguided evolution, that's great. Now you need to come up with a competing (falsifiable) scientific hypothesis. With that in hand, it will be possible to find out whose view is closer to an accurate representation of reality. Without that, your view is interesting from a philosophical standpoint, but it's not science.Hamilton
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Stephen, You wrote: “Gravity claims to be scientific. To disprove gravity I propose that Demons hold things onto Earth. If my claim is rebutted a pseudo-science, then gravity is also pseudo-science.” This does not accurately reflect the nature of the debate. That the origin of biological organisms is due to some form of intelligent causation is an old and venerable view. It is the "common sense" view, if common sense is understood as widespread and historically enduring. It's not merely an arbitrary, ad-hoc claim lately made up to put a roadblock in front of evolution. Darwin himself and most of the early evolutionists saw themselves in direct competition with claims of intelligent design. They granted the common sense intuition of design, but said it was overcome by the scientific evidence for evolution. Well, what if the scientific evidence for evolution isn't really what it is cracked up to be? Then we are back to the common sense case for design. What has changed lately is that the argument is no longer made directly against design. Instead of arguing against the evidence of design, as did Darwin, evidence for design is simply ruled out a priori as unscientific by nature. So then we have an allegedly scientific case for evolution with no conceivable scientific alternative, even though the historical origin of evolution was as a direct alternative to design. This seems more like sleight of hand than the triumph of the scientific method. Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Sorry Steve. If I can't comment on Panda's Thumb you can't comment here. What goes around comes around. -ds Steve Reuland
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
You don't have just a positive case for a designer or designers. You have no other choice. Stop pussyfooting around and read the riot act to these Darwinian mystics. There are millions of them. What a deserving target! That is what I am doing and have been doing for years. It is great sport. I am developing a callous on my right thigh from slapping myself silly everytime I read another idiotic Darwinian pronouncement about "Natural Selection," the biggest joke in all of science.John Davison
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
The difference is we have a positive case for designers. We do not have a positive case for what demons can or cannot do or even how they behave. Also, unless I've been missing something in the field of physics we obviously know gravity exists but the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question and gravity remains an important topic of scientific research. So even in your example, gravity and this demonic hold do not necessarily oppose each other but might be a combination...kind of like what Dave said earlier: "It’s unguided evolution, guided evolution, or a combination thereof. It’s only 100% unguided evolution as claimed by the Wiesel 38 that I have a problem with." And yes, I do heavily doubt that the demons are the ultimate source of gravity.Patrick
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Selection of the most intensive sort not only cannot transform species but, when contiued, results in their loss of fitness and ultimate extinction. I believe it was the Spanish Pointer that would hold a point for 8 hours. It is now extinct for reasons that require no further explanation. The English bulldog bitch can no longer deliver her pups which can only be saved by Cesarean section. Dobzhansky's failure to transmute Drosophila has been conveniently ignored by the Darwinian establishment which goes right on assuming that Nature can do what the experimentalist cannot. It is a damn disgrace and a scandal perpetuated only by devout mindless devotees convinced that there is no purpose in the universe. These people (I don't know how else to describe them) have even had to disown their own, notably Alfred Russel Wallace, Theodosius Dobzhansky and Julian Huxley the man wwho coined the term "Modern Synthesis" and then in his book - "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis" - destroyed neoDarwinism in a single paragraph 7 pages from the end. Don't take my word for it. Turn to page 571, read it and weep. Of course you won't because it is not available on the internet. How much longer must this madness persist? How many more years, how many more decades, how many more centuries? You tell me. I really want to know. It is hard to believe isn't it?John Davison
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Well John, I've said it before and I'll say it again... I'm HIGHLY skeptical of Darwin's mechanism's ability produce change beyond adaptation within an existing species. To claim it can do more is an extrapolation and I just don't buy it. But that's just me.Bombadill
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
What is to discuss? Darwinism is dead as a hammer. That there still could be Darwinians escapes me entirely. Somebody pinch me please.John Davison
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Dave Scot said. "So how does one go about falsifying unguided evolution? By demonstrating that the process was guided, of course. ID is the means by which this theory of unguided evolution can be falsified. If ID cannot be falsified and is itself just religion disguised as science, where does that leave unguided evolution? Why it leaves unguided evolution as unfalsifiable pseudo-science. Sorry Steve Reuland, but you don’t get to have your cake and eat it to. Either ID is science or unguided evolution is pseudo-science. Takes yo pick and let me know when you have a final answer. " I had to read that several times to grasp the twisted logic. Supposing I stated: "Gravity claims to be scientific. To disprove gravity I propose that Demons hold things onto Earth. If my claim is rebutted a pseudo-science, then gravity is also pseudo-science." Does that sound daft? Of course it does. How is your claim any different? You can falsify gravity by finding something that falls away from the center of the earth with no outside force acting on it. No demons required. If the only way to falsify gravity is by postulating demons pushing things around then gravity fails to be a scientific theory. How can unguided evolution be falsified if not by demonstrating guidance? -ds Stephen Elliott
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
DaveScot, "Are you saying that common sense and science are mutually exclusive?" I am saying that one is not sufficient to be the other. What is common sense to you is not what is common sense to me. Because of this, science has rules which are more rigid than those of common sense, designed to bring a concensus to accepted hypothesese, and to allow these accepted ideas to change as they are found to be wrong or refined. Well Hamilton, what's overwhelming evidence of unguided evolution to you is not overwhelming evidence of unguided evolution to me. Where does that now leave us? -ds I appreciate that to you, unguided evolution seems implausible, and that's not a bad thing. In fact, that kind of dissent is absolutely necessary to scientific progress. However, in order for guided evolution to be a scientific hypothesis, it has to do more than dissent, it has to offer its own position, and that position must be falsifiable. If it is not (and you seem to be agreeing that it isn't), then it closes the door to other, more refined or more accurate positions later on, which defeats the purpose of the scientific process.Hamilton
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Regarding testability…with ID all you have to do is find ONE instance of non-intelligence producing IC or CSI by means of the modern synthesis in order to invalidate ID (I’m not going to get into the technicalities of falsification ala Popper). The problem with testing the modern synthesis is that there are so many possible indirect Darwinian pathways. We might be able to test some to our satisfaction but then people could just say “well, it must have occurred by another pathway”.Patrick
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
bombadill, davescot my understanding of bill dembski's work is that if you can write dwon the appropriate P(T|H) for the postulated RM+NS evolution of a particular organism and hence compute its SC, then the claim is: if this SC is extremely large, then RM+NS is correspondingly extremely unlikely to have produced the organism. of course, one of the key things is deriving the appropriate P(T|H). why is this not a putative falsification of darwinian RM+NS? It is but only in the specific case under consideration. It is not a blanket falsfication of RM+NS everywhere. That ID is in total opposition to RM+NS is a strawman. RM+NS is operative in some cases. Just not all cases. -dsphysicist
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Bombadill I was surprised to see "plasma" used that way. I immediately think of hot ionized gases when I see the term. So I looked it up and it does indeed have a biological definition as well as one from physics. Darwin did say blobs of protoplasm though. At any rate, upon further contemplation, I think plasma, the hot gas, IS a good term to use in connection with Darwinian evolution. :-)DaveScot
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
physicist "perhaps i am misinterpreting it here but my understanding is that it is aiming to falsify darwinism" Only to the extent that Darwinian evolution claims the sole source of variability is random mutation. ID doesn't make a claim that every bit of variation is due to design.DaveScot
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Joseph "4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations." This is questionable as a true statement regarding standard theory of evolution. Genetic drift and founder effect become predominant in small populations. Chiefly thus applies only to large population. However, as a commonly held definition of "evolution" it appears to be accurate as most people don't know drift from drano.DaveScot
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
...and a narrative which was founded on the presupposition that molecular life was terribly simple. Now, as we peer deeper into living systems, we know that the opposite is true. Darwin's plasma blob of a cell, is truly a liliputian wonderland of insanely complex machinery. Which would explain why biochemists are employing mechanical engineers in their attempts to understand such machinery.Bombadill
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Hamilton "This is a very persuasive common sense argument. However, it is not a scientific argument" Are you saying that common sense and science are mutually exclusive? Maybe when it comes to the Darwinian narrative you have a point. But I'd argue that rather than condemn science to senselessness we admit that the Darwinian narrative isn't really science. It's a historical narrative without witnesses. A just-so story. That's really the bottom line in all this. A bedtime story that comforts atheists is being labeled as science when it's really just a story.DaveScot
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Since no one pays any attention to my characterization of Natural Selection as being entirely anti-evolutionary, let me quote my sources for this distasteful but now well established reality. "The struggle for existence and and natural selection are nor progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard. Leo Berg, Nomogenesis page 406 "Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an already existing likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed." Reginald C. Punnett, Mimicry in Butterflies, page 152 "In all the research since 1869 on the transformations observed in closely successive phylogenetic series no evidence whatever, to my knowledge, has been brought forward by any paleontologist, either of the vertebrated or invertebrated animals, that the fit originates by selection from the fortuitous." Henry Fairfield Osborn, Darwin and Paleontology, page 223 "A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian, allelomorphic mutation plays no role in creative evolution. It is, as it were, a more or less pathological fluctuation in the genetic code. It is an accident on the 'magnetic tape' on which the primary information for the species is recorded." Pierre Grasse. Evolution of Living Organisms, page 243 In 1924 shortly before his death, William Bateson, the father of modern genetics, confided to his son Gregory, "that it was a mistake to have commited my life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throuw any light on the differentiation of species nor on evolution in general." John A. Davison, Is Evolution Finished? Rivista di Biologia, 97: 111-116, 2004 How do you like them sausages impaled on green sticks cooking over an open campfire? I hope they give the Darwinians indigestion.John Davison
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
bombadil isn't the idea is to calculate whether the specified complexity of organisms we observe is compatible with darwinian evolution? perhaps i am misinterpreting it here but my understanding is that it is aiming to falsify darwinism. imagine a situation where it takes an extremely large number of random mutations to go from organism A to organism B. but for some reason you `knew' that the changes had occurred over one reproductive cycle. it would make it extremely unlikely that random mutation had been responsible. AFAI understand it, Dembski's law is an attempt to make a more refined version of this statement. (I should add that I'm not convinced about how to calculate the P(T|H), but in principle it is a test of Darwinism, surely?) But you really don't think the idea is to try to falsify Darwinism?physicist
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
I think the use of the words "unguided" and "random" as descriptions of evolutionary processes are misleading. Biological systems are governed by the laws of physics & chemistry; mutations occur through known causal mechanisms; species live or die due to a definite series of causal events - nothing "just happens". Sure, evolution says that the process is not goal oriented, but in what sense exactly is it supposed to be random? The laws of physics etc... impose guiding (but impersonal and unintelligent) conditions and mechanisms on biological (and all other systems).Space_Monkey
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Jack states: "The ID Minority’s argument is that the theory of evolution as taught in science implies that mankind is a purposeless accident." I would bet that over 90% of biology classes in the USA don't imply that, they out-right state it as fact. And when someone in a scientifically important position as is Richard Dawkins states exactly that, people do listen. “Biological evolution postulates an unpredictable and unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal.” Dennett tells us in "Darwin's Great Idea" that "there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time." (repeated in the PBS series "Evolution") Dawkins tells us that natural selection is "blind and purpose-less". Now we get to the "random variations/ random mutations" part. IOW the sentence is very correct and any objection to it would expose an agenda of deception. Is that how science is taught in Kansas? Leave out the relevant in the hope that no one will notice? Why not include the following and state that #6 is the source of the controversy? The meanings of "evolution", from "Darwinism, Design and Public Education": 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.Joseph
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
I'm not so sure that the goal of Dembski's pursuit of CSI is to falsify Darwinism as much as it is to make a positive case for observable hallmarks of intelligence in biological systems.Bombadill
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
bombadil---surely bill dembski's work on specified complexity is trying to falsify darwinism? so why is it not falsifiable?physicist
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
See: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=584 "Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam’s razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely. On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What’s more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe’s work shortly after Darwin’s Black Box appeared remarked, “We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway.” What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, “But even if we can’t, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution.”"Bombadill
January 20, 2006
January
01
Jan
20
20
2006
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply