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

Neurode:
An experiment in which a flagellum evolves in immotile bacteria under selective pressure cannot reveal the full mechanism whereby the mutation occurs without establishing a complete deterministic chain of cause and effect accounting for every genetic, developmental and phenotypic aspect of the mutation. As soon as a causal gap of any kind arises, any (superficially consistent) explanation can be inserted. Unfortunately, the methodical preclusion of causal and explanatory gaps in even the best-monitored evolutionary processes lies well beyond the current limitations of biological science.
You've just described a problem that is endemic to all of science, and which has been discussed, debated and deliberated by scientists and phiolosophers of science for...well a heck of a long time. How can we know with certainty what our test results are telling us? This is why science is always tentative (or ought to be) in its conclusions. This is why Feneyman (I think it was he) said that scientists need to exhibit an extra measure of integrity that means bending over backwards to show how maybe they're wrong. This is why falsification is so difficult. Yet science advances for all that. I see no reason to conclude that because of the possibility you mention we ought to avoid the investigation altogether. Applied globally, we could justify not investigating anything because we could never be totally certain of our results, or of filling all gaps, or that some other unknown factor affected our results.DonaldM_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

"It needs to be established that the mutation, or series of mutations, that led to the flagellum was of high enough probability to rule out a design inference." But you are already assuming that a mutation did occur, and that you need to have knowledge of the causal "chain".mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Neurode, I think I see your point... and why we need to have knowledge of the causal chain of the mutation. It needs to be established that the mutation, or series of mutations, that led to the flagellum was of high enough probability to rule out a design inference. It's easy to let the imagination get in the way here... as though locking the bacteria in a black box for the experiment can somehow keep out design. Dave T.taciturnus_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

On the topic of bacterial resistance, I wrote a blog about an article I read today: Anti-Bacterial Soap Ineffective - Evidence for Evolution? http://evolutionnomore.blogspot.com/2005/10/anti-bacterial-soap-ineffective.htmlmtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

That no human is observed to direct a biochemical process does not prove that the process was not somehow intelligently directed, in either a "front-loaded" or ad hoc sense. For example, a neoDarwinist might say: "This genetic mutation has been observed to occur with a probability of 1/1 billion (per reproductive event). Over the duration of this experiment, billions of reproductive events have occurred. Hence, this experiment confirms RM&NS and disconfirms ID!" However, an ID proponent can say something like this: "Wait a minute, you've ignored the specificity of the associated phenotypic modification. Granted, this genetic mutation did occur, and was subsequently spread by natural selection. To this extent, the efficacy of NS has indeed been confirmed. But as regards the purported disconfirmation of ID, we must consider the probability of the existence of an ontogenic mapping from the given mutation, or for that matter any other genetic mutation, to a desirable phenotypic outcome with respect to this experimental setup. The probability of a mutation for which there exists such an adaptive outcome is quite small with respect to the entire space of conceivable phenotypic outcomes. The probability is thus lowered considerably, and ID is also confirmed." Notice that this would prevent neoDarwinism from "putting paid to the attack on evolution via irreducible complexity." IC, like specified complexity, is phenotypic in nature, and is thus described only by the lower probability cited by the ID proponent...the one factoring in the probability of a favorable genotype-phenotype correspondence. The probability cited by the neoDarwinist is computed with respect to genetic information alone.neurode_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

I have no doubt that minor changes can produce variations of species. However, I have not seen any evidence that suggests new species can be created by NS acting on these varations (e.g., no intermediate fossils, etc.).mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

i took about 10 mins to post my last comment (ran into the other room in the middle of the comment) and i said much of the same thing MT said. :) nice. good points tho- we now know that the resistance was there to begin with. so that example is a nonissue when discussing large scale change. of which no testable evidence exists. as for NS tho. ive also read numerous studies that have shown NS has little true effect in the wild. some even say that NS as a mechanism is nearly dead in the water at this point (i think dave scot might have said something similar about NS at one point...maybe it was someone else.) ??jboze3131_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

jboze3131 That's supposedly correct. Hence, "ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why evolutionists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like to use those examples any more."mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Neurode, I thought the claim of "irreducible complexity" was that there is no step-by-step point mutation process that can naturally produce biological structures like the flagellum, notwithstanding whatever statistical characteristics the process might have. In other words, the random nature of evolution is incidental to the "Beheian" criticism of it. That's why the arguments over irreducible complexity often occur in the abstract, consisting of debates about how mousetraps or three-legged stools might be constructed by non-random step-by-step processes that yield functional artifacts at every instance. If the suggested experiment were successfully performed, it might not stand as a complete demonstration of evolution by truly random mutation and natural selection, but would it not at least put paid to the attack on evolution via irreducible complexity? Dave T.taciturnus_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

speaking on the issue of preexisting genes for resistance to antibiotics. i read 3 or 4 studies that showed that the genetic info WAS already there for the resistance. they proved this by even going back and finding fossilized bacteria with intact genetic material and the fossilized bacteria had the "resistance" genes already present...and that shows they were always present because antibiotics werent around thousands, tens of thousands, or millions of yrs ago, question is- anyone know where these papers can be found? i cant, for the life of me, remember where i read them a cpl months ago. it was interesting to see the research tho, considering darwinists always try to claim this small scale change clearly equals mud to man change, even tho some honest scientists out there in the same camp atleast admit that this isnt the case. and it exposes the claim that resistance is new information as bogus as i already knew it was from common sense. on the subject of this post- i love how scott and others like her seem to think the burden of proof is on ID. thats now how it works. i keep hearing that mud to man evolution is fact and its indeed scientific because its testable- yet, in no way is mud to man evolution testable in the strict sense that would be necessary to truly make it "science" as defined by these individuals. all the hypothetical transitionals are just that- hypothetical, and you cannot test the purely hypothetical. the common design in all life (or common descent as others would say) is in no way testable as to whether its common design or ancestry. so-called junk dna is constantly being found to have function and its being exposed that it truly isnt junk. if life forms are getting more complex, why would you see all this junk dna anyhow? billions of yrs of evolution is powerful enough to turn mud into man, yet its not powerful enough to remove so-called "junk dna"? you cant have it both ways. the mechanism is either so powerful it can via chance transform mud to man, or its so weak that it cant evolve OUT "junk dna" and the like. macroevolution is purely a historical and theoretical science, not empirical science and you cannot test these theories in any way. to able to test something, you must be able to repeat the test- clearly not a possibility with mud to man change...and clearly not the case to see what the true mechanism is that might even change mud to man (a change i dont believe ever occurred). fact is- theve done tests on e coli over more than 10, 000 generations- MANY MORE generations than that, and no new body forms ever were formed, no new anything was ever found...just existing body parts in different places (which lead to death!) or bigger body parts due to radiation and such. if 100, 000 generations, or however many theyve gone thru with e coli and fruit flies have never created a single new structure, no way 10, 000 generations could create a complex system like the flagellum.jboze3131_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Antibiotic and pesticide resistance are Ã¢â‚¬Å“shopworn examples" that evolutionists are embarrassed by because they show natural selection, but not evolution. For example, it has been shown (using bacteria cultures that were sealed before the invention of modern antibiotics) that some bacteria were resistant to certain modern antibiotics before these antibiotics were invented. Bacteria did NOT evolve a resistance to them. Natural selection merely removed the non-resistant bacteria, giving the APPEARANCE that modern bacteria had evolved. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why evolutionists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like to use those examples any more.mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

I guess I don't get Neurode's point. So long as no human actively directed the biochemical process of change to the genetic code (snip A here, insert T there, and so forth), then why wouldn't Darwinism be confirmed and ID be rendered superfluous?jaredl_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

I will try ;-)mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Don't tell me. Tell whomever you think was propounding macroevolution.neurode_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Read what I wrote. I wrote, "Absolutely not. Not macroevolution anyway." Please pay attention.mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Whatever the outcome evolutionist won't be convinced because of their presuppositional commitment to naturalism. If there was no change after 10K generations they would say "it needs to be much more generations", or "only certain selective pressures produce changes", or "we still have unassailible evidence from x,y,z etc..".david3088_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Read what I wrote. I defined my usage carefully, nowhere referring to "macroevolution". Please pay attention.neurode_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Also, on the subject of your evidence in support of evolution as a "fact" based of bacterial mutations: The antibiotic resistance comes from other bacteria that already have the needed genes. Which means that the antibiotic resistance doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t appear out of thin air. The genes already existed. The theory of evolution requires the creation of new genetic information, not the appropriation of pre-existing genetic information from another source.mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

"In this sense, evolution is indeed an observable fact. The fossil record attests to it; experiments confirming changes in bacterial populations due to drug resistance attest to it." Absolutely not. Not macroevolution anyway. There's absolutely no proof that mutations have created new species. The fossil record with its fragmentary support is hardly the evidence that gives you the confidence that evolution is a "fact". It's your belief. Not a "fact".mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

sharpguy: "Now that will never happen because it simply isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t true [that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Evolution (biological change over time, the reproductive modification of organisms, etc.) is a factÃ¢â‚¬Â]." In this sense, evolution is indeed an observable fact. The fossil record attests to it; experiments confirming changes in bacterial populations due to drug resistance attest to it. The point to keep in mind is that "the theory of evolution" (RM&NS) is not necessarily the exclusive explanation of these phenomena, which are collectively labeled "evolution". This dual usage of the term "evolution", one referring to certain data and the other to a theory purporting to completely explain those data, is a widespread point of confusion.neurode_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Would this experiment really prove anything? If flagella arise then we could assume that either "naturalism" produces complex systems by itself or that "naturalism" contains the "information" and capability to develop such systems. In other words evolution is even more irreducibly complex then we can imagine in that it finds solutions by itself at the moleculor level. Either way we are back to either magic naturalism or an intelligent designer as the source of information. If flagella don't arise but thru some external input of information can be coaxed to arise, we again have the same problem. We can guess how that external information might magically exist in nature or assume the information is arranged and transfered by an intelligent designer. It again would point to a more complex system that needs explanation.DK_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

"Evolution (biological change over time, the reproductive modification of organisms, etc.) is a fact." Now that will never happen because it simply isn't true.mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

"But we may as well call a spade a spade: neither hypothesis is really amenable to scientific verification, at least under the current mainstream definition of science." I agree. And you won't hear me saying that ID is a "fact". I know better than that.mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Well, I happen to agree. But we may as well call a spade a spade: neither hypothesis is really amenable to scientific verification, at least under the current mainstream definition of science. In my opinion, the ID movement could productively adopt the following position: (1) Evolution (biological change over time, the reproductive modification of organisms, etc.) is a fact. (2) Neither hypothesis purporting to explain this fact is scientifically falsifiable, which puts them on an even footing. (3) Because the RM&NS hypothesis is nevertheless included in bio texts as an explanatory device, the complementary hypothesis (ID) must also be included for the sake of balance. NS is potentially instructive regarding the selective or "pruning" phase of evolutionary processes, while ID is potentially instructive regarding the generative phase. This might eventually take care of the educational side of the controversy. Meanwhile, both camps will be free to concentrate on coming up with a real model of biological causation, and appropriately extending the definition and methodology of science.neurode_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

"In neither case will the essential nature of evolutionary causation be specifically nailed down." No amount of evidence in support of ID will ever be enough for evolutionists. In my opinion, there's more evidence to support ID than there is macroevolution.mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

No, jaredl - to prove that, you'd need to show that the key point mutations were actually "random" (acausal)...that their occurrence resolved to no deterministic mechanism or active probabilistic tendency resolving to a mechanism in some conceivable theory and model of the phenomenon. sharpguy: neither of the live evolutionary hypotheses (ID and random mutation + natural selection) can strictly be falsified at this point, because falsification can occur only relative to a particular causal model, and neither of these hypotheses happens to have one yet. This doesn't mean that there won't be a suitable model in the future. If this experiment is ever performed, this model-theoretic ambiguity will all become quite evident as each side attempts to explain why its hypothesis is confirmed (or not disconfirmed) by the result, whatever it may be. In neither case will the essential nature of evolutionary causation be specifically nailed down.neurode_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

"Unfortunately, the methodical preclusion of causal and explanatory gaps in even the best-monitored evolutionary processes lies well beyond the current limitations of biological science." So then we are to have "faith" that evolution could produce such irreducible complexities? So then evolution is truely a theory and subject to a belief system.mtgcsharpguy_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

The test, if successful, would prove that differential reproduction and random mutation can produce flagella in non-motile bacterial populations, whether or not we had a record of each mutation and the probabilities associated with its fitness. In other words, neurode, whatcha talkin' 'bout?jaredl_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Such a test would prove nothing. An experiment in which a flagellum evolves in immotile bacteria under selective pressure cannot reveal the full mechanism whereby the mutation occurs without establishing a complete deterministic chain of cause and effect accounting for every genetic, developmental and phenotypic aspect of the mutation. As soon as a causal gap of any kind arises, any (superficially consistent) explanation can be inserted. Unfortunately, the methodical preclusion of causal and explanatory gaps in even the best-monitored evolutionary processes lies well beyond the current limitations of biological science. Why do I get the impression that very few of those sounding off on these matters have any idea what they're talking about?neurode_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

I found this part of the article most interesting:
Outside court, Dover school board members Alan Bonsell and Sheila Harkins said if anyone should perform the test, it should be the evolutionists. "Somebody could do that if they wanted to," Harkins said. "If somebody believes intelligent design is not science, certainly they have a means to prove it's not." Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said scientists Ã¢â‚¬â€ who widely accept evolution as the cornerstone of modern biology Ã¢â‚¬â€ aren't going to take two years on an expensive test to disprove something they don't consider science. They wouldn't bother, she said.
If the test of growing bacteria for 10k+ generations under various selective pressures were run, irrespective of the results, the very fact the test was run would demonstrate the testability of an ID hypothesis. Should the test demonstrate the ability of evolution to grow a flagellum, the ID hypothesis would be considered falsified. Seems to me the reason evolutionists don't want run such tests is because they know that just running the test demonstrates the testability and potential falsifiability of an ID hypothesis, thus contradicting all claims of "ID isn't science". And Behe is exactlty right. If Darwinist ran the test and the results were not favorable to evolution, they would just say we need more time, or the conditions weren't right or we don't know enought yet....ad infinitum. (The Darwinists would probably claim the same thing if Behe ran the test with the same results).DonaldM_{October 20, 2005
October
10
Oct
20
20
2005
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply