Will the real testable theory please stand up?

_{William Dembski

October 20, 2005

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A test nobody wants to take
Neither side is interested in trying to prove intelligent design.
By MICHELLE STARR
Daily Record/Sunday News
Thursday, October 20, 2005

HARRISBURG Ã¢â‚¬â€ Intelligent design and evolution proponents agree that a test on bacterial flagellum could show if it was or wasn’t able to evolve, which could provide evidence to support intelligent design. MORE

Comments

If you wait longer than a minute to respond to me you won't seem so desperate for attention. Now go ahead get in the last word. It's all yours.DaveScot_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

At this point, I don't expect you to read your own name.neurode_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Do you really expect me to read that rant? Take a hike.DaveScot_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

DaveScot: "Huh? YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re making up these definitions as you go along." That's right. See, Dave, it's like this. I made an assumption that Dr. Dembski's list isn't merely for parrots. Now, I could be wrong about that. But if I am - if these lists are really just for show, or arbitrarily confined to the exact concepts included in somebody's book(s) or papers - then they really don't matter, do they? I mean, we already know that the researchers who came up with those concepts in the first place are capable of doing that all by themselves, because we've already seen them doing it. (Or at least some of us have.) I gather that you and your sidekick-du-jour "sharpguy" - or is it the other way around? - don't like my terminology. So let me make something that's already transparent even more transparent just for you. Consider the overall function of a system with respect to some larger system which incorporates it, e.g. a machine. "Irreducible complexity" means that taking away a single part disables that function. The system is componentwise-nonredundant with respect to its overall function. Bill Dembski, in addition to adding "specificity" to "irreducibility" as a characteristic attribute of true organic complexity, then generalized the concept to systems with IC "cores". Michael Behe, who more or less owns the IC concept as it pertains to biology (but not elsewhere), stipulates that such systems are unlikely to evolve gradually because as they form, they are not exposed to natural selection for their overall functions. That's what made the concept useful to ID. But obviously, this stipulation only applies where the system cannot be decomposed into utile, fully functional subsystems whose individual functions may or may not have anything to do with the overall function of the system, but nevertheless have adaptive value. Now, as it happens, some IC systems are decomposable to systems with other useful functions than that of the IC system as a whole. Take Behe's mousetrap, which functionally decomposes to things like paperweights and tieclips. "Strong IC" describes hypothetical IC systems in which this is not the case, and which therefore must spring into existence fully formed, while "IFC" describes the more general case, with an extra letter thrown in so that people with ADD don't get confused because both concepts are represented by the same two letters. But the extra letter isn't just a mnemonic device. That letter stands for the term "functional", which directs attention to the fact that an IC system can be functionally irreducible without necessarily being irreducible in an evolutionary sense, i.e. isolated from natural selection as it arises. By making this distinction, we can still use IC as a relevant concept in IDT without being constantly regaled by just-so stories involving paperweights and tieclips, and then accused of dishonestly relying on a discredited concept. For example, we can say "it may not be strong IC, but it's still I(F)C," and we can still argue from the improbability of I(F)C systems. Now, you may not like this at all. Lord knows our tastes in argumentation don't run in the same direction - I wouldn't touch most of your output with a barge pole. But if you object to my choice of concepts, then why don't you go chug a bottle of the Imodium you were trying to peddle on that other thread up there? If you can hawk it, you can gobble it.neurode_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

I read BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s day one testimony. The plaintiffs are in big trouble. Where?avocationist_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Mario, "Indeed, but only if you assume that the devolution of the BF is a result of entropy, which means that the BF has lost information, and thus less complex than its evolutionary precursor. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fine argument, if you could reproduce it in a lab." Well, here's a link to an informal short paper about just that: http://www.idthink.net/biot/ext/index.html As you can see from the paper, it need not be entropy, just the expedient thing to do when deciding to stremline oneself to become a parasite, for example. "Natural selection need not fiddle with a fully functional system, except to cripple it." Well, that's odd. How does natural selection know when to stop? I mean, the BF must have had many steps along the way, and each one fully functional and better than the last... "First, to assume a devolution of the bacterial flagellum is to assume that it had, either no evolutionary precursors," What?? "or it evolved only to return to its less complex state. " Well, I tend not to think IC systems can evolve, but that isn't relevant here. The Type III system isn't a precursor to the flagellum. And the flagellum didn't devolve since it is still here, but it could be that in certain branches information got lost and it devolved, or that certain branches streamlined and lost information, but kept a piece of it. Here's a link to why the Type III system is not a likely precursor: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm You needn't read the whole thing, just scroll down about 1/3rd way to: Connecting the Type III Secretory System to Bacterial Flagellum: "So, how did the BF attain its structural complexity and functional complexity (physiological adaptations) in the first place?" Isn't that the question!avocationist_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

"Huh? YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re making up these definitions as you go along." I agree. I don't remember reading about "strong IC" in any of Dembski's or Behe's books! "Behe makes absolutely no suppositions about slow or sudden change." True. Refer to line 19 on page 8 of the following transcript: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdfmtgcsharpguy_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

"Strong IC is the notion that an instance of IFC (irreducible functional complexity) can only happen suddenly" Huh? You're making up these definitions as you go along. Behe makes absolutely no suppositions about slow or sudden change. Either fits within the confines of his definition of ID. In fact he explicitely said just that on the witness stand in Dover this week.DaveScot_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

jaredl: "If I understood NeurodeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s point now, heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s claiming the intelligent design of the selection pressures which hypothetically produce, due to rm/ns, the bacterial flagellum, does not establish either position definitively. I disagree." Aside from the point I've tried to make - that as long as the RM&NS causal narrative includes a probabilistic element, which it does by nature, the ID narrative, which is also probabilistic, can be inserted in that probabilistic gap - we have the following pair of complementary problems, both coming to rest on the impossibility of determining the proper boundaries of the experiment. (1) If the outcome is positive (a flagellum appears), ID proponents can say "The fact that ID doesn't seem to be active in this experimental context doesn't say anything about other contexts, in which ID may indeed be active; after all, who is the experimenter to tell the designer, whoever that may be, when to operate? We're talking about a decision-making entity here, not a set of simple natural forces that have to be operative in all contexts." (In other words, the ID camp can demand that the RM&NS camp replicate the experiment in an arbitrary number of distinct contexts. Let's call this "the problem of infinite replicability".) (2) If the outcome is negative, NS proponents can say: "RM&NS will be confirmed if we merely prolong or enlarge the experiment, adding time and stressors until RM&NS produces the desired outcome." (In other words, the RM&NS camp can demand that the experiment be indefinitely prolonged and/or complicated. Call this "the problem of undefined extent".) Regarding Michael Behe's statement that IC can be falsified, that only applies to "strong IC", and this is not equivalent to ID. Strong IC is the notion that an instance of IFC (irreducible functional complexity) can only happen suddenly, i.e. non-gradualistically, something on which neither specified IFC nor ID is contingent.neurode_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

If I understood Neurode's point now, he's claiming the intelligent design of the selection pressures which hypothetically produce, due to rm/ns, the bacterial flagellum, does not establish either position definitively. I disagree. So long as mobility were the sole deciding factor to selection (no selecting for non-mobility producing precursors to the flagellum), no intelligent genetic tampering occurs, and a flagellum pops into existence, darwinism would, in fact, be confirmed, and ID rendered superfluous. As an aside, here's a hypothetical experimental setup (semi-facetious). Place a culture with known diameter in a petrie dish. Once a generation has occured, destroy the original culture area (zap 'em with a laser or use a magnifying lens and sunlight). Take the survivors. Put them into an area with known diameter. After a generation, destroy the original culture. And so forth. At the end, we might just have gotten bacteria who know how to get outta Dodge, so to speak.jaredl_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, Indeed, but only if you assume that the devolution of the BF is a result of entropy, which means that the BF has lost information, and thus less complex than its evolutionary precursor. It's a fine argument, if you could reproduce it in a lab. Finally, the degradation of a system must be carefully defined without harm to the system's motility, cause once it is lost, it is never recovered.Mario A. Lopez_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Mario Devolution is a whole lot easier than evolution. If you believe the latter is possible you must logically assume that the former is even more possible. In fact the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics demands the former while arguably denying the latter.DaveScot_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

avocationist, Natural selection need not fiddle with a fully functional system, except to cripple it. Deletions are almost always harmful or have no effect; to propose an evolutionary scenerio where biological systems evolve or devolve, or even oscillate between forms is not only absurd, but also non-falsifiable. First, to assume a devolution of the bacterial flagellum is to assume that it had, either no evolutionary precursors, or it evolved only to return to its less complex state. So, how did the BF attain its structural complexity and functional complexity (physiological adaptations) in the first place?Mario A. Lopez_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

jaredl: You've let the Darwinists brainwash you for too long. Don't worry, it happened to me, too. Even as a creationist, I had thought, due to bad education, that all genetic change must necessarily be Darwinian. You should read Shapiro's work, as well as the book Evolution in Four Dimensions. http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Cent_View_Evol.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262101076/freeeducation-20/ In fact, young-earth creationists are actuallly proposing a specific mechanism of genomic change: http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf (my personal thoughts is that this is still way too gene-centered as an approach, though I think it does reflect well the use of transposons as a mechanism for the cell to induce change) Likewise, I have discussed the emergence of the gene for digesting nylon here: http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/06/evolution-chance-and-design-to-cb940.html Our genes are not fixed, they are being changed by our cells. New genes can be created to overcome new problems. Darwinism states that these genes came about by a _randomized_ change process, which was unrandomized only by differential death (natural selection). Cells seem to indicate otherwise -- that genomic change is a process guided by the cells themselves. I argue here why this still doesn't lead to universal change: http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2005/08/genetic-algorithms.html (ultimately, for change to be sensible, it must have a stable semantic base to rest on) Dembski argues why such guided evolutions as mentioned above could not be generated by Darwinian mechanisms: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.03.Searching_Large_Spaces.pdf (basically, hitting a working combination with Darwinism is mathematically impossible. Hitting a stable, self-modifying machine is impossible by several orders of magnitude more.) The interesting thing is, Darwinism can actually be calculated to some degree. But the genomic change that we have seen does not follow Darwinistic expectations. However, the directed genomic changes require that the change processes be purposed by something. The reason why Darwinism is held on to so tightly for a change process, is that it is basically required for atelic change. The other mechanisms, if they are not themselves the result of a Darwinistic process, must have some sort of telic origin.johnnyb_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

I read Behe's day one testimony. The plaintiffs are in big trouble.DaveScot_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

There are no armchair scientists. True scientific progress is made only via experimentation. This much we know (or at least we think we know, that is if "we" even exist :) ): that the bacterial flagellum is a well-established empirical phenomenon. All one has to do is look at an E. coli bacterium under a microscope, and there it is! Taking this into consideration, and presuming that all states of affairs that exist do so via prior states of affairs, we must ask ourselves, "How did this bacterial flagellum come to exist?". As best I can tell, all phenomena and/or states of affairs that can possibly exist are the product of either intelligent causation (at least as far as we are capable of understanding it) or its antithesis, non-intelligent causation. To date, the best non-intelligent causal mechanism (and the only one I know of that can be subjected to experimentation that could disconfirm it) that has been proposed for the origin of the flagellum and all other biological phenomena is RM+NS. If this mechanism is rendered implausible by rigorous direct and indirect experimentation and no viable and testable alternative mechanism can be proposed, then we are left with intelligent design standing alone as the most plausible explanation. This is not to say that ID has been *proven*. Other hypotheses and theories might pop up (Even now, there are those who entertain the possibility of physical regularities which caused life to originate and develope.), and some of them may be testable. However, at this time, RM+NS sits at its rightful position as the cornerstone of unguided evolutionary theory. It is testable and, if our knowledge of biological origins is to progress, should be tested. Neurode is correct in saying that experimentation will never "prove" anything, but at least we might learn something. Davidcrandaddy_{October 21, 2005
October
10
Oct
21
21
2005
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT}

The Type III secretory system is no longer considered a possible precursor to the flagellum. It may be the other way around - a reduced flagellum, with a loss of complexity.avocationist_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

The whole article seems silly. There are plenty of bacteria in the world without flagella, and they are much older than two years. Who supposes that two years of reproduction is enough to produce something as complex as the flagellum, and who supposes that we can set a bunch of bacteria in a test tube and decide, beforehand, what is going to evolve?avocationist_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

Some non-motile Shigella (bacteria) strains have all flagellar genes intact but one (FliD). This would be quite a head-start for this experiment. Why not test starting here? A real-time experiment has already been done. Shigella have been around for quite some time (well over 2 years), why hasn't the cap re-evolved naturally?rb_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

I have an easier solution. First off, IC is not a condition which demonstrates "design." IC, at best, is a threat to the evolutionary model. Design detection is a job for Dr. Dembski's EF (explanatory filter). I propose that two years are not necessary to prove the irreducibility of the bacterial flagellum. Indeed, evolutionists have argued that there are certain parts of the flagellum that can be compromised without the loss of the flagellum's motility (such as the L-P ring complex, which are comprised of FlgH and FlgI proteins). This, of course, is only imaginative conjecture, since there have been no experiments in a lab to prove this. Evolutionists make this assumption by imagining a motor without them (L-P rings), and taking the flagellum's structural complexity for granted; and furthermore, ignoring the effects of natural selection on their uselessness. The IC of the flagellum can be tested by programming genetic or evolutionary algorithms using the "proposed" precursor, Type III secretory system (T3). (Note: This may require the assumption that gene duplication+mutation occurred) A scientist can track the evolutionary pathway (assuming the program produced the most parsimonious) to the bacterial flagellum. The scientist can then reverse-engineer the structural complexity of the system (BF) by turning off the essential regulatory genes leading to the system (T3) in the order produced by the program (this can be done by using the dicer enzyme/RNAi method or older methods such as the use of antisense and ribozymes). Once the irreducible core has been reached (or the systemÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s motility mechanism has been compromised), the effects of natural selection are more obvious, that is, that the bacterium may have managed to perfect its motility device, but without any evolutionary precursors. Indeed, its irreducibility poses the problem of novel genetic information and the need for additional proteins necessary to construct the flagellum from a less complex system, such as the Type III secretory system. If the structural complexity of the flagellum can be reduced without any compromise of motility, then evolution has proven to be the victor. However, if its irreducibility is confirmed, the flagellum can be passed through the explanatory filter's three-part criterion for inferring design!Mario A. Lopez_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Good stuff. On page #42 (1), Behe mentions how the authors (UC Berkely and Harvard professors) of the Book "The Plausibility of Life" (released Oct. 19, 2005) introduce a new theory that resolves Darwin's flawed theory of evolution. They claim that natural selection acting on random variation does not support Darwin's theory. They instead "resolve" it with a process called "directed variation" and "facilitated variation". The authors state that the book is about "the origins of novelty in evolution". "They seem to reveal design." Here it is: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300108656/cnefu-20?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1 (1) http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10AMSession.pdfmtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

gumpngreen Thanks for this - really cool stuff! http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10AMSession.pdfmtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

RE: Ã¢â‚¬Å“biological change over timeÃ¢â‚¬Â But change can mean anything. If a species changes so much and so gradually and with so much time so as to produce a entirely new species then we can conclude that microevolution has caused macroevolutionary changes. However, that evidence doesn't exist. All you see is abrupt appearances of irreducibly complex organisms. That alone screams "design". Now, that doesn't mean I'm closed minded. I am willing to accept new evidence that can sway my belief in either direction; but so far the evidence points towards design.mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

"Neither does evolution". Well, it does and it doesn't. If you mean "biological change over time", then it does. If you mean "macroevolution" or the hypothesis on which it is based (RM&NS), then it doesn't.neurode_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

"The noteworthy point is that one canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t point to a bacteria evolving into something that isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a bacteria nor to a fungus that evolved into something that isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a fungus in response to the pressures of chemical warfare. Microevolution - maybe thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s going on in said chemical war but macroevolution remains a pipe dream by that measure." Right on. That was exactly my point! Evolutionists don't want to that distinction to exist, however.mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

"To take a rudimentary example, we can infer that Ã¢â‚¬Å“gravity existsÃ¢â‚¬Â simply by watching objects fall and planets orbit, and can then use Ã¢â‚¬Å“gravityÃ¢â‚¬Â to explain all sorts of phenomena." "Sadly, neither RM&NS nor ID qualifies as such an hypothesis with respect to its entire domain of reference; the class of phenomena with which these hypotheses deal is far too complex for simple inductive reasoning." Neither does evolution. We cannot see monkeys "evolving" into humans. We do not see flagellum-less bacteria "evolving" into flagellum-like bacteria. We have no observations of species "evolving" into entirely new species. Similarly, We have no observations of a "designer" creating entirely new species. All we have that is observable are the effects of such phenomena. Which is stronger? That's subjective, unfortunately. For me, it's stronger for ID than it is for evolution!mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Actually antibiotics have been around for God only knows how long. Fungi, such as those that manufacture penicillin, have been waging chemical warfare against bacteria competing for the same food sources for perhaps billions of years. Bacteria have been fighting back for just as long. The noteworthy point is that one can't point to a bacteria evolving into something that isn't a bacteria nor to a fungus that evolved into something that isn't a fungus in response to the pressures of chemical warfare. Microevolution - maybe that's what's going on in said chemical war but macroevolution remains a pipe dream by that measure.DaveScot_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Right, taciturnus. Mutations happen, and through the developmental expression of genes (in the evo-devo sense), lead to phenotypic changes between generations. Some of these are adaptive. ID doesn't deny this, it merely says that the adaptive changes tend to have a "purposive" sort of complexity. The problem is to link complex relational (phenotype-environment) "targets" with genetic mutations through specific causal mechanisms that can be used to explain, and probabilistically quantify, the relational correspondence. Only by quantifying the correspondence can we (statistically) calibrate a scale of confirmation and falsification (actually, disconfirmation) against which to measure the validity of either hypothesis with respect to its various explanatory or predictive applications. ID has only begun to learn how to assign probabilities to evolutionary events, and thus to calibrate the scale. But even if there were a credible means of doing this short of actually producing a causative model, IDT would remain a statistical theory, and could be called "explanatory" only in the loosest sense. On the other hand, RM&NS does no better; as I've already remarked, it fails to adequately link the genotypic and phenotypic realms. From a scientific standpoint, the goal is thus to produce a causal model, period. As observed by DonaldM, this is known to be quite a tall order. However, DonaldM seems to think that I consider this to be a scientific show-stopper. I don't; some kinds of hypothesis are formulated in such a way that they can be inductively inferred and productively applied by scientists within the scope of their observations. To take a rudimentary example, we can infer that "gravity exists" simply by watching objects fall and planets orbit, and can then use "gravity" to explain all sorts of phenomena. Sadly, neither RM&NS nor ID qualifies as such an hypothesis with respect to its entire domain of reference; the class of phenomena with which these hypotheses deal is far too complex for simple inductive reasoning. In my opinion, to bring these phenomena within the grasp of science will require a fundamental redefinition of science and its methodology.neurode_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10AMSession.pdf The subject under discussion begins on page 124.Gumpngreen_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Sorry to go completely off topic but an update from Oz. ID has been on both the tele and radio lately. Last nite it aired on a science show down here. There were the typical misconceptions in fact they said DI's catchcry is "teach the choice". Also there is a big spread comming out in some of the main papers this morning from a whole list of scientists denouncing ID, consensus science people! Anyho the controversy is off and running down here. If you'd like to read the transcript of last nites show go to http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst cheerspetro_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply