Intelligent Design

Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the Positive Case for Intelligent Design to Answer Common Objections

Spread the love

Part of a series:

An article from the theistic evolutionist BioLogos Foundation argues that “pragmatically” the argument for design “is in fact an argument from ignorance” because “it seems like you need to test for (lack of) natural explanations to discover irreducible or specified complexity.”5

These accusations bear little resemblance to the actual theory of intelligent design, as put forth by ID proponents. Indeed, if the positive case for ID shows anything, it’s that this objection is incorrect.

ID’s positive arguments are based precisely upon what we have learned from studies of nature about the origin of certain types of information, such as CSI-rich structures. In our experience, high CSI or irreducible complexity derives from a mind.

If we did not have these observations, we could not infer ID. We can then go out into nature and empirically test for high CSI or irreducible complexity, and when we find these types of information, we can justifiably infer that an intelligent agent was at work.

Thus, ID is not based upon what we don’t know — an argument from ignorance or gaps in our knowledge — but rather, is based upon what we do know about the origin of information-rich structures, as testified to by the observed information-generative powers of intelligent agents.

Casey Luskin, “Using the Positive Case for Intelligent Design to Answer Common Objections” at Hillfaith (May 17, 2022)

Casey Luskin links to the whole series at this page.

You may also wish to read: Casey Luskin: ID as fruitful approach to science The trouble is, many people would just as soon that research into evolutionary computation anatomy and physiology, and bioinformatics, however fruitful, not be done if it undermines a comfortable Darwinism.

87 Replies to “Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the Positive Case for Intelligent Design to Answer Common Objections

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    There is nothing pragmatic about those who believe in Darwin. They are the ones who have no evidence to support their beliefs. Everything is based on assumptions.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    News,

    I have clipped from our Resources, and have posed an empirically founded, postulational framework, similar to those of major domains of physics.

    For one comparison, classical thermodynamics pivots on a zeroth law [defining temperature as an equivalence relation] and three laws on energy. Similarly, Newtonian dynamics pivots on three laws of momentum [= motion in Newton’s terms] and a law of universal gravitation. Maxwell’s core of electromagnetism, famously, pivots on four key equations that built on a body of empirical findings. Special relativity pivots on two theses regarding c’s constancy in vacuo as seen in inertial frames of reference and how in IFRs the laws of physics take the same, simplest form. For general relativity, gravitation is held equivalent to acceleration; start with the apparent weightlessness of someone freely falling in a closed elevator; similarly, “laws of physics themselves should be independent of an observer’s motion, that is, they should have a covariant form . . . a good law of physics should be built from mathematical quantities that are coordinate-independent, such as tensors”; with (restating the equivalence postulate): “the gravitational acceleration is the same for all observers in a gravitational field . . . gravity [therefore] not actually being a force, but a property of spacetime itself (spacetime curvature).” Of course this leads on to the famous non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime and onward, modern cosmology. After all, logic of structure and quantity is pivotal.

    And so forth.

    (Pump priming.)

    I am laying out here, that such a framing is not an unusual thing to do, and that it is empirically accountable.

    Observe, that we here start from the facts of intelligently directed configuration and a common result, recognisable, reliable signs of design (as just defined) that we may take as key indicia where present. Hidden design is possible, but is irrelevant. If signs are not present, the question of import of signs per abductive inference to best explanation does not arise.

    As a practical matter, signs are not rare, and occur in strategic contexts in the world of life and in the cosmos. Indeed, insofar as coded algorithms appear in the cell, we are pointed to the insight that history seeks to give an account of the past primarily i/l/o record, i.e. text. We have technological text tracing to the root of and pervading the tree of life multiplied by a cosmos fine tuned towards aqueous medium c-chem cell based life, thus we need to rethink chapter zero of history.

    We proceed:

    The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds

    [–> key, evidence backed postulate, cf those of Newtonian dynamics and special then general relativity, thermodynamics and statistical thermodynamics, postulational cores can be brief but sweeping in impact]

    that

    [First, Evidence-backed Programmatic Postulate:] certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained [–> explicit reference to logic of abductive reasoning] by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

    ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

    In a broader sense,

    [2nd, Operational Postulate:] Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.

    Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). [–> design oriented sciences. Signal to noise ratio in telecommunications is based on a design inference.]

    [3rd, Empirical Warrant/Point of test or potential falsification postulate:] An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

    ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

    [Evidence Corollary:] Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life . . . .

    Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” That is,

    [4th, Designs and Signs Postulate:] as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts. When such agents act, there are certain characteristics that commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design. [–> definition of design, note, abductive inference from observed sign to signified cause.]

    Among the signs of intelligence of current interest for research are:

    [Supplement, on evidence:] [a] FSCI — function-specifying complex information [e.g. blog posts in English text that take in more than 143 ASCII characters, and/or — as was highlighted by Yockey and Wickens by the mid-1980s — as a distinguishing marker of the macromolecules in the heart of cell-based life forms], or more broadly

    [b] CSI — complex, independently specified information [e.g. Mt Rushmore vs New Hampshire’s former Old Man of the mountain, or — as was highlighted by Orgel in 1973 — a distinguishing feature of the cell’s information-rich organized aperiodic macromolecules that are neither simply orderly like crystals nor random like chance-polymerized peptide chains], or

    [c] IC — multi-part functionality that relies on an irreducible core of mutually co-adapted, interacting components. [e.g. the hardware parts of a PC or more simply of a mousetrap; or – as was highlighted by Behe in the mid 1990’s — the bacterial flagellum and many other cell-based bodily features and functions.], or

    [d] “Oracular” active information – in some cases, e.g. many Genetic Algorithms, successful performance of a system traces to built-in information or organisation that guides algorithmicsearch processes and/or performance so that the system significantly outperforms random search. Such guidance may include oracles that, step by step, inform a search process that the iterations are “warmer/ colder” relative to a performance target zone. (A classic example is the Weasel phrase search program.) Also,

    [e] Complex, algorithmically active, coded information – the complex information used in systems and processes is symbolically coded in ways that are not preset by underlying physical or chemical forces, but by encoding and decoding dynamically inert but algorithmically active information that guides step by step execution sequences, i.e. algorithms. (For instance, in hard disk drives, the stored information in bits is coded based a conventional, symbolic assignment of the N/S poles, forces and fields involved, and is impressed and used algorithmically. The physics of forces and fields does not determine or control the bit-pattern of the information – or, the drive would be useless. Similarly, in DNA, the polymer chaining chemistry is effectively unrelated to the information stored in the sequence and reading frames of the A/ G/ C/ T side-groups. It is the coded genetic information in the successive three-letter D/RNA codons that is used by the cell’s molecular nano- machines in the step by step creation of proteins. Such DNA sets from observed living organisms starts at 100,000 – 500,000 four-state elements [200 k – 1 M bits], abundantly meriting the description: function- specifying, complex information, or FSCI.)

    [(f) evidence of the fine tuned cosmos.] . . . .

    I find it interesting to see the side stepping around it to spin and perhaps even to gaslight.

    KF

  3. 3
    Fred Hickson says:

    Casey Luskin:

    ID’s positive arguments are based precisely upon what we have learned from studies of nature about the origin of certain types of information, such as CSI-rich structures. In our experience, high CSI or irreducible complexity derives from a mind.

    Studies of nature? I’d be interested to hear of any meat in that sandwich

  4. 4
    JKB says:

    I believe that when engineering principles in practice point back to ID then making the case for ID will become easier. It is like when I go to the Apple display at BestBuy: “It just works”.

  5. 5
    relatd says:

    ‘the argument for design “is in fact an argument from ignorance” because “it seems like you need to test for (lack of) natural explanations to discover irreducible or specified complexity.”5’

    This is stupidity on parade. Nothing less.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Fred, please stop quote-mining. It makes you look much weaker and ignorant than you already demonstrate. Science is the study of nature, Fred. And via science we have learned, for example, that the genetic code involves a coded information processing system in which mRNA codons REPRESENT amino acids. There isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce coded information processing systems. There isn’t even any way to test that claim. Christopher Hitchens said we can dismiss it.

    However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships (from studying nature) we infer the genetic code is intelligently designed. Science 101

  7. 7
    JVL says:

    ET: There isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce coded information processing systems.

    There is evidence but none that you accept. Out of honesty you should admit that.

    Christopher Hitchens said we can dismiss it.

    Christopher Hitchens firmly and definitely supported evolution via unguided and natural processes.

    However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition.

    BUT there is another notion which you may not accept but which is a possibility which, since you can’t prove a negative, you cannot completely rule out.

    Just saying: case closed, it must have been an intelligent designer is an attitude which would stop research into the possibility that life came about via unguided and unintelligent processes.

    This is one of the reasons why some people say ID is a science stopper: Id proponents don’t just say intelligent design is a possibility; they say: intelligent design is the only acceptable answer. Which is clearly not true or even logical. You cannot prove or show or demonstrate that something which happened a long time ago didn’t happen. You can find possible ways it could have happened which is what the origin of life research is focusing on: ways it might have happened. Which is perfectly reasonable.

    And, as usual, is anyone actually researching how or when the intelligent designer implemented their design? For years and years and years you’ve been saying: we have to study the design, that’s all we can do. But no one seems to be studying ‘the design’ in an attempt to address the how or when. And other sciences and approaches look for other evidence from other sources which support and clarify the timeline. As far as I know, no one in the ID community is even trying to find other evidence for an intelligent designer. This makes no sense. EVEN IF you think that some all-powerful and all-seeing and all-knowing god did it why aren’t you still trying to do some science by asking: When? How? (As in: where did the energy come from? To interact with and push around material particles and substances takes energy.)

    From the outside it looks like (not saying it’s true just that it looks like) ID proponents have zero interest in doing any kind of work or research past trying to establish that design happened. Why not at least try and narrow down the when? Surely that is a reasonable and acceptable question and one that studying the ‘design’, i.e. DNA, could potentially answer?

  8. 8
    relatd says:

    JVL,

    Unguided processes is not a reasonable answer. I have been studying attempts to produce a minimal living thing. In other words, what’s the least we need to cobble together a living thing? The answer? They don’t know. The additional answer: they need living parts to cobble together something that functions. Life is designed. And there is no answer to: How did the first living thing reproduce?

  9. 9
    ET says:

    JVL:

    There is evidence but none that you accept.

    No, there isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce a coded information processing system. Evidence that nature can produce amino acids doesn’t help.

    Christopher Hitchens firmly and definitely supported evolution via unguided and natural processes.

    With what? Did he use a jock strap? He definitely never presented any evidence.

    BUT there is another notion which you may not accept but which is a possibility which, since you can’t prove a negative, you cannot completely rule out.

    Again, for the learning impaired: Science requires evidentiary support and a way to test the claim. You don’t have either.

    Just saying: case closed, it must have been an intelligent designer is an attitude which would stop research into the possibility that life came about via unguided and unintelligent processes.

    You are a hypocrite and scientifically illiterate. Just saying an intelligent designer produced Stonehenge- case closed is an attitude that would stop research into the possibility that Stonehenge is a natural formation.

    This is one of the reasons why some people say ID is a science stopper: Id proponents don’t just say intelligent design is a possibility; they say: intelligent design is the only acceptable answer.

    Then those people are scientifically illiterate also. If someone can just step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can do it, then ID would be falsified! But no one can! So all you do is whine.

    The rest of your post just further exposes you as being scientifically illiterate.

    You and yours have nothing. No cause and effect relationships to call upon. Just wishful thinking and promissory notes. You are sadly gullible.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL,

    Really?

    [ET:] However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition.

    [JVL:] BUT there is another notion which you may not accept but which is a possibility which, since you can’t prove a negative, you cannot completely rule out.

    Just saying: case closed, it must have been an intelligent designer is an attitude which would stop research into the possibility that life came about via unguided and unintelligent processes.

    This is one of the reasons why some people say ID is a science stopper: Id proponents don’t just say intelligent design is a possibility; they say: intelligent design is the only acceptable answer. Which is clearly not true or even logical. You cannot prove or show or demonstrate that something which happened a long time ago didn’t happen. You can find possible ways it could have happened which is what the origin of life research is focusing on: ways it might have happened. Which is perfectly reasonable.

    Strawman.

    We both know that induction identifies and extends patterns, this is at the heart of science. It is inherently open-ended, a good counter example in principle can overturn any law of science. So, you have made up a convenient closed minded strawman and knocked it over.

    Now, ET is speaking in the context of trillions of observed cases of origin of FSCO/I. Every time, by design. Further, we know the sort of search challenge posed by a config space for say 500 bits of information carrying capacity: 3.27*10^150 possibilities. For 1,000 it is 1.07*10^301. The sol system’s resources at the low end and those of the observed cosmos at the high end, on blind search, could not sample more than a negligible fraction, so we have excellent reason to further infer that blind needle in haystack search is not a plausible way to find shorelines of function that would allow any hoped for hill climbing incremental improvement.

    Worse, as Newton pointed out, you do not have free speculation in science, you need to show capability of a proposed mechanism to explain causally what we did not observe so we know it works. There is no observed blind chance and mechanical necessity mechanism seen to originate cell based life or its key components, or body plans requiring 10 – 100= million bases of genetic info.

    All of this has been pointed out in your presence, many times.

    So, that you twisted ET into a convenient strawman tells us that you know you don’t have a cogent case on the merits.

    KF

  11. 11
    ET says:

    kairosfocus is right. If every time we observe X and the cause has always been Z, then when we observe X and don’t know the cause, science says that we infer Z. And yes, scientific inferences are tentative and can be superseded if someone can demonstrate another cause. But until then we have to go with what we know.

    And specialists, like biochemists, are looking into the OoL. Not evolutionary biologists. So, yes, once people are properly trained to tackle the questions that ID forces us to ask, we will have what you request. But it’s beyond hypocritical to ask ID for something when you and yours just have denial and promissory notes.

  12. 12
    JVL says:

    ET: With what? Did he use a jock strap? He definitely never presented any evidence.

    That wasn’t his point. He looked at the arguments made and the evidence and made his decision. And, if you really cared, you could find his reasons.

    Again, for the learning impaired: Science requires evidentiary support and a way to test the claim. You don’t have either.

    This is simply not the case. If you look at all the data and evidence and do not jump to the assumption that there is/was an intelligent designer around at the time who left zero other evidence they were there then it’s all down to unguided, natural processes. You are happy with the assumption that such a designer existed even though, aside from the contested ‘designed’ object’, there is no evidence of a designer.

    You are a hypocrite and scientifically illiterate. Just saying an intelligent designer produced Stonehenge- case closed is an attitude that would stop research into the possibility that Stonehenge is a natural formation.

    Look, we have lots of other evidence of there being humans around at the time with the necessary tools and abilities to have constructed Stonehenge. Plus we’ve got lots and lots of other stone circles in the British Isles and in France which indicate it was a widespread and fairly common practice. You can still research if it’s possible that Stonehenge was purely natural if you like, no one is stopping you. But no one is going to fund that because of the multiple threads of evidence.

    Then those people are scientifically illiterate also. If someone can just step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can do it, then ID would be falsified! But no one can! So all you do is whine.

    But I think they have shown, based on multiple threads of evidence, the unguided, natural processes are capable. Especially considering no one can say when the designer did their work and how.

    You just don’t have enough data and evidence to be plausible.

    You and yours have nothing. No cause and effect relationships to call upon.

    Again that is just not true. We have a lot of evidence from the last 2000 years that human breeders, working with the natural variation that occurs can bring about wide varieties of morphological forms. Plus we have documented evidence of cases in the last century where populations which had a common root split into two or more separate lines.

    IF you want to do science then you have to look at all the data and evidence, not just the part that you think supports your view. Sitting in your living room requoting the same sources over and over again is not doing science, it’s not considering all the data and research. That’s just cherry picking the results and statements you like.

    Like it or not, you only have your contested design inference. You’ve got zero other evidence that there was any kind of designer present at what time was it? And what did they do exactly? You really need to do a lot more work and research to put your case on firm ground. And, yes, probably more that usual since it’s so contentious. But that’s the way it works: when you suggest that the common paradigm is wrong then you really have to make your case. And, so far, ID just keeps saying the same things over and over and over again. And then getting angry when everyone else says AGAIN: no, we’re not convinced. Go back and do some more work.

    If every time we observe X and the cause has always been Z, then when we observe X and don’t know the cause, science says that we infer Z. And yes, scientific inferences are tentative and can be superseded if someone can demonstrate another cause. But until then we have to go with what we know.

    And I say: there is plenty of evidence now to support the notion that unguided and natural processes are capable of creating life forms which some people think give the appearance of being intelligently designed.

    But it’s beyond hypocritical to ask ID for something when you and yours just have denial and promissory notes.

    It’s not hypocritical at all. I don’t think the origin of life researchers have made their case yet. I’ve never said they did. I’m very skeptical of all the models proposed so far. They have a lot of work to do.

    As does ID. Same criteria: what you are saying is challenging and paradigm changing, we want to see a lot of evidence before we change our minds. That’s fair.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    JVL:

    He looked at the arguments made and the evidence and made his decision.

    Nonsense. The only evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are genetic diseases and deformities.

    Again, for the learning impaired: Science requires evidentiary support and a way to test the claim. You don’t have either.

    This is simply not the case.

    That is the case. You are simply gullible and naive.

    If you look at all the data and evidence and do not jump to the assumption that there is/was an intelligent designer around at the time who left zero other evidence they were there then it’s all down to unguided, natural processes.

    Thank you for continuing to prove that you are ignorant of science.

    You are happy with the assumption that such a designer existed even though, aside from the contested ‘designed’ object’, there is no evidence of a designer.

    It isn’t contested. It is denied. And the deniers don’t have anything to account for it. So they can be dismissed.

    Look, we have lots of other evidence of there being humans around at the time with the necessary tools and abilities to have constructed Stonehenge.

    You have serious issues. The only reason we “know” they were capable is because Stonehenge exists! And we don’t know how they built it.

    But I think they have shown, based on multiple threads of evidence, the unguided, natural processes are capable.

    No one has ever done so.

    We have a lot of evidence from the last 2000 years that human breeders, working with the natural variation that occurs can bring about wide varieties of morphological forms.

    Begging the question. There isn’t any naturalistic mechanism capable of producing metazoans. Given starting populations of prokaryotes there isn’t a naturalistic mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

    Intelligent Design offers the ONLY scientific explanation for our existence. Without intelligent design all you have to try to explain our existence is sheer dumb luck. And that is the antithesis of science. Go ahead, quote-mine that and ignore the context.

    Evolutionary biologists don’t even know what determines biological form! They can’t even formulate a scientific theory of evolution. You are lying or you are just gullible.

  14. 14
    relatd says:

    ‘And I say: there is plenty of evidence now to support the notion that unguided and natural processes are capable of creating life forms which some people think give the appearance of being intelligently designed. ‘

    Unguided and natural processes. Assuming the first living thing somehow assembled itself, then what? It was the only form of life on Earth. What did it eat? How did it digest/convert its food to energy to stay alive? How did it reproduce? Where did the instructions come from?

  15. 15
    ET says:

    No one can say how to test the claim that nature can produce coded information processing systems. And with 10 million dollars on the line you would think that your side would be all over that challenge.

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: We both know that induction identifies and extends patterns, this is at the heart of science. It is inherently open-ended, a good counter example in principle can overturn any law of science. So, you have made up a convenient closed minded strawman and knocked it over.

    This is just not true at all. Unguided evolution was a very controversial notion when it was first proposed; a lot of scientists refused to accept it. Now it’s widely accepted and is the common paradigm because more and more evidence, more and more data came to light which supported it. And multiple lines of data and evidence might I add.

    You do realise that Newton himself realised that some of his ideas were controversial and spent a lot of time doing a lot of work to support his views. And, when he first published them, he didn’t initially revealed that he had, essentially, invented a new kind of mathematical manipulation to support his ideas. Many, many scientific ideas were initially controversial and unaccepted. And the proponents of those ideas had to work hard to establish their veracity. This has happened over and over and over again.

    ID wants to make one single argument and get everyone to agree with it. That just doesn’t make sense. It reminds me of the ancient astronauts argument: we don’t understand how these structures came about so it must have been ancient alien astronauts. Ignoring all the other evidence which said: no, actually, it’s pretty clear these things were built by the local people at such and such a time. We even have some of their tools. We have some of their detritus. We even have some of their toilets. Multiple lines of evidence all in line with each other. The pyramids and Stonehenge still seem pretty amazing but there’s no credible doubt that they were designed and constructed by human beings around at the time. To suggest otherwise means choosing to ignore all the data and evidence.

    When ID can start to be a bit more specific (when was design implemented, how was design implemented) and back those ideas up with multiple lines of data and evidence then you will gain more supporters, Guaranteed. When you go up against the long-standing and existing paradigm then you need more than just a sword to tear down the walls. You need cannons and siege engines and ballistas and anything else you can get ahold of. Go find those other lines of evidence and data. Do some work. Science is not just done on paper in someone’s study. It’s not just logic and interpretations. It’s actual surveys and excavations and experiments and observations and tests.

  17. 17
    relatd says:

    Design started on day one. The Human Genome Project revealed the complexity involved. Blind, unguided chance is like taking a person, putting on a blindfold and allowing him to wander in the forest. How will he find food? Where can he rest? Where will he get water?

  18. 18
    asauber says:

    “then you will gain more supporters, Guaranteed.”

    JVL,

    You can’t make any such guarantee. You won’t engage in an honest conversation about design.

    Andrew

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    ET: No one can say how to test the claim that nature can produce coded information processing systems.

    I say it has been tested. I say that there are multiple lines of evidence and data which agree with each other. I say that there is no other credible, documented, evidence-based cause for what we see and observe in the morphological, geographical, genomic and fossil evidence.

    Where is the designer? When were they about? What did they do exactly?

    You haven’t even got a claim that anyone can grab a hold of and sink their teeth into.

    Again, unguided evolution has multiple lines of evidence all of which are congruent. It’s all pointing the same way. AND, the evidence is growing.

    ID points to a few phenomena and says: we don’t know how those could have happened naturally so there must have been a designer. And it completely disregards all the data and evidence which is growing that there did not need to be a designer.

    There’s a kind of fish, I can’t remember the species, which creates really intricate patterns in the sea bed to attract a mate. If you had come across one of those designs and hadn’t seen the fish making it you might have said: they only kind of thing that I’ve seen do that before is an intelligent designer like a human. But, it turns out, it wasn’t a human. You cannot just say: case closed based on our limited experience. You have to check and test and collect data. And after 150 of data and evidence collection the case for unguided evolution is stronger and stronger.

    And no one can yet say when the designer did whatever it is they did and how. Even ID proponent cannot agree on those things.

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    Asauber: You can’t make any such guarantee. You won’t engage in an honest conversation about design.

    If you mean: you refuse to agree with my conclusions then yes, I am guilty. But having an honest conversation is not the same as agreeing. Honest people can have a frank and open discussion and still disagree.

    I’ve been very clear and honest about my views and why I think they are true. If you want to have a discussion, a real discussion, then I’m good with that. But if you just want to slag me and my views off then you want something else.

  21. 21
    asauber says:

    “ID points to a few phenomena and says: we don’t know how those could have happened naturally so there must have been a designer.”

    JVL,

    For instance, the above is something you already know is wrong. It’s not a few and we already know they couldn’t have happened naturally.

    Andrew

  22. 22
    relatd says:

    “… the case for unguided evolution is stronger and stronger.”

    No, it’s not.

    From Communion and Stewardship, part 69.

    ‘In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles….It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2). ‘

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Whatever, JVL. I KNOW that you are full of it. You don’t even know what science entails. The fish is an intelligent designer, JVL

    Perhaps you just stop posting. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

    There is up to 10 million dollars for anyone demonstrating or discovering that nature can produce coded information processing systems. Have at it with your enormous knowledge of the concept.

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Asuaber: For instance, the above is something you already know is wrong. It’s not a few and we already know they couldn’t have happened naturally.

    How do you ‘know’ the could not have happened naturally? How can you ‘prove’ a negative? If you mean it’s highly improbable they could have happened naturally then say that.

  25. 25
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so

    How do you establish that scientifically, with evidence and data? I agree it’s possible but just saying it could be doesn’t make it true.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    JVL:

    ID points to a few phenomena and says: we don’t know how those could have happened naturally so there must have been a designer.

    That is a lie.

    And it completely disregards all the data and evidence which is growing that there did not need to be a designer.

    That is also a lie.

    AGAIN, for the learning impaired: Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is supposed to be all about the HOW. Yet they have NOTHING. ID is NOT about the HOW. Yet those cowards try to force ID into that.

    No one even asks about the who and how until AFTER intelligent design has been detected. The SCIENCE of ID is in the detection and study of intelligent design in nature. And given that the how is well above our capabilities, it is beyond desperate to ask ID, which isn’t about the how in the first place, to say something about the how. Why is JVL being such an infant and why does he think his infantile responses amount to something?

    If we gave a smartphone to a native Amazon tribe, they couldn’t tell us how it came to be. But they would know nature didn’t do it.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    Earth to JVL- Science mandates that the claims being made have evidentiary support. They also have to be not only testable but tested and confirmed. You don’t have that.

    There is a reason that there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. Because all you and yours have is a narrative. Nothing more.

  28. 28
    ET says:

    JVL:

    ID wants to make one single argument and get everyone to agree with it.

    You are obviously just a sick puppy. You don’t have any idea what ID claims. I doubt that you have read ONE book by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Gonzalez, et al.

    ID doesn’t care if you agree with it. All that matters is that you don’t have any viable alternative to ID.

  29. 29
    JVL says:

    ET: Whatever, JVL. I KNOW that you are full of it. You don’t even know what science entails. The fish is an intelligent designer, JVL

    Again, I would love to see ID proponents come up with more evidence and data for their hypothesis. I would love them to try and nail down when design was implemented. I would them to try and figure out how design was implemented. I think it’s good and healthy for scientific hierarchies to be challenged and tested as long as the challenge is well founded and strong.

    I fully appreciate the theological views and faith that some commenters here have. I am not questioning that or attempting to cast aspersions on it in its pure form. I once heard the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, talk about his faith and its relation to science, evolution in particular. He said, very clearly, that true faith must be in accordance with the science; that it was up to the faithful to figure out how their faith fit into the scientific landscape. He was honest, he was sincere and he was also, clearly, devote. I respect him a lot, not just because he accepted the science, because he saw, clearly, what being a person of faith meant in the modern world. He understood and articulated that faith, like science, has to adapt and change with new data and evidence. And, he clearly indicated, that true faith, true understanding, was aside and separate from topics like evolution and such. Real true faith was about something else.

  30. 30
    JVL says:

    ET: No one even asks about the who and how until AFTER intelligent design has been detected. The SCIENCE of ID is in the detection and study of intelligent design in nature. And given that the how is well above our capabilities, it is beyond desperate to ask ID, which isn’t about the how in the first place, to say something about the how.

    So, what is ID for then? Where does it go past: we’ve detected design? What is the research agenda? Why is it that the ‘how’ is well above your capabilities?

    Let me ask: don’t you care about the when and how? Don’t you have even any kind of speculation about those things? I would assume that, as a curious, intelligent person, that you would think about those things.

    Science mandates that the claims being made have evidentiary support. They also have to be not only testable but tested and confirmed. You don’t have that.

    I don’t think ID has any testable evidence that there was a designer around at . . . what time was it? Who did what exactly?

    Besides, the ideas of unguided evolutionary theory are being tested and checked all the time. Not only with field observations, some of them quite long terms, but also with lab experiments.

    There is a reason that there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. Because all you and yours have is a narrative. Nothing more.

    Pretty clearly not true. But, one thing I do know after a long time talking with you is that you’re not going to accept any source or reference I give for the theory of unguided evolution. So, there’s not much point in me doing some work finding one or two or three or many, many such references.

    Again, are you actually doing science when you just deny everything that doesn’t support your view?

    You are obviously just a sick puppy. You don’t have any idea what ID claims. I doubt that you have read ONE book by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Gonzalez, et al.

    Just because I disagree with them? That’s not a logical argument.

    ID doesn’t care if you agree with it. All that matters is that you don’t have any viable alternative to ID.

    ID needs to have a plan and a roadmap of where it’s going and what it’s going to do. It can’t just continue to viably exist as a protest movement. It must have an idea of what to do next. Aside from the infamous Wedge Document I’ve yet to see one.

    If you complain and protest about the captain of the local football team but don’t have a better plan for winning games then you’re not likely to be hired if the position becomes vacant. There are lots and lots and lots of obvious research questions for unguided evolutionary research. What are the main, core research questions for ID that are not just trying to prove the negative that unguided processes are not capable.?

  31. 31
    ET says:

    JVL:

    So, what is ID for then? Where does it go past: we’ve detected design? What is the research agenda? Why is it that the ‘how’ is well above your capabilities?

    You have been told many times what ID is for. You have been told many times that is goes past design detection. You have been given research agendas. And the fact that humans cannot create life in a lab is proof it is beyond our capabilities. And it is a given that we can’t produce planets or laws that govern nature.

    Let me ask: don’t you care about the when and how? Don’t you have even any kind of speculation about those things? I would assume that, as a curious, intelligent person, that you would think about those things.

    What I want has NOTHING to do with ID. And, unlike you, I understand reality. And it suits me fine imagining a lab with genetic engineering being carried out and software being downloaded.

    I don’t think ID has any testable evidence that there was a designer around at

    The genetic code is testable evidence for ID.

    Besides, the ideas of unguided evolutionary theory are being tested and checked all the time.

    And yet no one can even formulate a scientific theory of evolution! Evolutionary biologists don’t even know what determines biological form!

    There is a reason that there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. Because all you and yours have is a narrative. Nothing more.

    Pretty clearly not true.

    I will ante up $10,000 against you to see which side has the science and which side has the cowardly liars.

    Stop lying. There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. You can’t provide any references to the contrary. You can’t say who the author was. You can’t say when it was published. You can’t say what the predictions are.

    What am I denying that doesn’t support my view? Be specific or admit that you are just a desperate coward

    You are obviously just a sick puppy. You don’t have any idea what ID claims. I doubt that you have read ONE book by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Gonzalez, et al.

    Just because I disagree with them?

    No, just because you don’t have any idea what ID claims. I doubt that you have read ONE book by Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Gonzalez, et al.

    What part of that don’t you understand?

    ID needs to have a plan and a roadmap of where it’s going and what it’s going to do.

    You don’t know anything about it. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design. That is by far more than evolution by means of blind and mindless processes has.

    There isn’t any viable scientific alternative to ID.

  32. 32
    ET says:

    Earth to JVL- ID exists because you and yours have FAILED to demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are up to the task. So go soak your head and get over it.

  33. 33
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ET

    The genetic code is testable evidence for ID.

    True, because we can produce functional code using intelligence. Natural causes cannot produce it at all.

  34. 34
    JHolo says:

    ET: kairosfocus is right. If every time we observe X and the cause has always been Z, then when we observe X and don’t know the cause, science says that we infer Z

    Fair enough. Every time we have seen a code the cause has been human. Now, we observe a code in DNA and we don’t know the cause, science says that we infer a human cause. Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense.

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, your claimed evidence is unable to account for either origin of life or for origin of body plans, especially required information, certainly not on observational evidence of capability. Further to this, you are dragging a red herring across to the same strawman. I pointed out that inductive reasoning follows a pattern as described, correctly. ET correctly used it. You attacked a strawman. KF

  36. 36
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, Johnson, in his reply to Lewontin, is revealing:

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original — the context is Lewontin in NYRB] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.

    [–> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:

    “Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses.” [NB: I am aware that Rational Wiki has backed away, un-announced, from the cat-out-of-the-bag direct phrasing that was in place a few years ago. That historic phrasing is still valid as a summary of what is going on.]

    Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to “natural vs [the suspect] supernatural.” Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga’s reply here and here.]

    And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]

    That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

    For further record, Lewontin annotated, we are not setting up a strawman:

    . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

    [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

    we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

  37. 37
    Fred Hickson says:

    No meat so far.

    So speculation revolves around guidance. Evolution proposes a mechanism that involves genetic variation and phenotypic differential reproduction to explain the pattern of life’s diversity that we see and the pattern of genetic inheritance we observe.

    Details are somewhat vague and variable, but ID proponents argue evolution is inaccurate and insufficient, the process is obviously guided and… Well here things get vague.

    I suggest there is a real Third Way (Noble, Shapiro et al. seem to have set off fifty ways) in that guidance may be inferred or ignored as a matter of choice and emotional comfort.

    Problem solved!

  38. 38
    Fred Hickson says:

    Just glancing again at the Casey Luskin quotes in the OP:

    ID’s positive arguments are based precisely upon what we have learned from studies of nature about the origin of certain types of information, such as CSI-rich structures. In our experience, high CSI or irreducible complexity derives from a mind.

    If we did not have these observations, we could not infer ID. We can then go out into nature and empirically test for high CSI or irreducible complexity, and when we find these types of information, we can justifiably infer that an intelligent agent was at work.

    This is a mathematical argument using probability. Unfortunately, my math is a bit too rusty to convince others that “complex specified information” as offered by ID proponents is not an argument against evolutionary theory but a failure to correctly represent evolutionary theory.

    Never mind, help is on the way. Amazon, ever hopeful I might exceed my monthly quota on Kindle, have drawn my attention to a book by Jason Rosenhouse, professor of mathematics at James Madison University, called The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism. Of course, I don’t expect anyone here to buy the book, but handily, he has also recently had an article published in Skeptical Inquirer which seems to summarize his arguments.

    Anyone else like to take a look at the article?

  39. 39
    jerry says:

    Anyone else like to take a look at the article?

    I believe Rosenhouse used to come here or was at least discussed here

    He makes the same nonsense mistakes/misrepresentations that others have. He must know what he is doing is bogus but yet he persists. Why?

    The basic ingredients of evolutionary theory are simple, empirical facts. Genes really do mutate, sometimes leading to new functionalities, and natural selection really can string together several such mutations into directional, evolutionary change. On a small scale, this has all been demonstrated and observed.

    agreed to by ID.

    But if evolution can produce small changes over short time periods, what abstract mathematical principle is going to rule out larger changes over longer time periods? If there is a mechanism for small change, then how can any calculation or abstract theorem rule out simply repeating the process to produce large change?

    What has been shown to be impossible by ID. His god of Deep Time is not enough but ignores other obstacles.

    Some of the above ID agrees with except the deep time bit. There isn’t enough time. He also ignores that the process he describes will kill the organism eventually. And the source of Evolution is not in the DNA.

    In other words he provides a superficial explanation that cannot work using his god of Deep Time. But I am sure the soft headed will nod. Natural Selection works in genetics and seems obvious till you realize it cannot work for anything but very minor things.

    Rosenhouse is not soft headed but he is using nonsense to make his case. What drives him to do this?

    Aside: there is a research program that would prove his thesis that Deep Time works to produce significant change. But the evolutionary biologist community avoid it like the plague. I wonder why?

  40. 40
    jerry says:

    ID’s positive arguments are based precisely upon what we have learned from studies of nature about the origin of certain types of information

    The argument for ID in part is based on information but it is not the major argument. The complete unlikelihood of natural phenomena is the most striking.

    The fine tuning of the universe and the fine tuning of Earth are extremely implausible. That’s what Denton’s book is about.

    But other phenomena are also improbable. Namely ecologies. We just assume they happen and to a large part they do but think how fragile they are. Dominance by one element or the elimination of one element could destroy the ecology and the inhabitants of it.

    We constantly hear the environmentalist warnings on this. But maybe the ecologies were designed to begin with natural mechanisms that prevent too much change. So that the fact that natural selection is limited to trivial things is a feature of design.

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    FH, dismissive rhetorical assertions don’t change the balance on merits or the realities of sciences crippled by imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. It remains that you cannot account for code based algorithmic protein synthesis at OoL and onward for Oo body plans, on forces observed to cause the like effect while excluding intelligently directed configuration, resorting only to blind chance and mechanical necessity. Code is language expressed in alphanumeric characters, here, using monomers chained to form string data structures, often with editing involved. Algorithms are inherently goal oriented and editing is worse. KF

  42. 42
    Fred Hickson says:

    Who’s being dismissive? Me? KF? Jerry? Support your answer with examples found from comments above.

  43. 43
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    Details are somewhat vague and variable, but ID proponents argue evolution is inaccurate…

    No, it doesn’t. You are obviously just willfully ignorant. ID is not anti-evolution. ID argues against evolution by means of blind and mindless processes having the ability to produce the diversity of life.

    How many times does this have to be explained to you?

  44. 44
    ET says:

    Fred Hickson:

    This is a mathematical argument using probability.

    Probability arguments are used because you and yours don’t have any supporting evidence.

    Unfortunately, my math is a bit too rusty to convince others that “complex specified information” as offered by ID proponents is not an argument against evolutionary theory but a failure to correctly represent evolutionary theory.

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution and you couldn’t support your accusation is your life depended on it.

  45. 45
    ET says:

    JHolo:

    Fair enough. Every time we have seen a code the cause has been human. Now, we observe a code in DNA and we don’t know the cause, science says that we infer a human cause. Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense.

    Yes, you are sorry and you are also unable to think. If humans couldn’t have done it then we infer it was some other intelligent agency, duh. Nature has already been eliminated, so there isn’t any turning back.

  46. 46
    Silver Asiatic says:

    FH

    I suggest there is a real Third Way (Noble, Shapiro et al. seem to have set off fifty ways) in that guidance may be inferred or ignored as a matter of choice and emotional comfort.

    If an unguided process could produce the results in question, then there’d be not need to propose guidance. We don’t propose that raindrops need to be guided to fall to earth via the natural processes that we know of. We could say that each raindrop is guided, and that’s fine – but we also have natural mechanisms and factors that can explain their creation and movement from cloud down to the ground.
    The same is not true of evolution – although it should be the same sort of thing.

  47. 47
    Silver Asiatic says:

    But if evolution can produce small changes over short time periods, what abstract mathematical principle is going to rule out larger changes over longer time periods?

    The waiting time for two mutations is one such. The number of mutations required versus time allotted for fixation is the simple math. The actual probability of a stochastic process – probability of a random output to create a functional communication network would also be a mathematical projection.

  48. 48
  49. 49
    Silver Asiatic says:

    FH

    Anyone else like to take a look at the article?

    Thanks for the reference. This is helpful. We often ask for some defense of blind-evolution and don’t often get very much. So, this is something anyway.
    I took a look – couldn’t get much farther than this though:

    He talks about the probability of getting 100 coins to flip heads.

    One approach is to throw all 100 coins at once, repeatedly, until all 100 happen to land heads at the same time. Of course, this is exceedingly unlikely to occur. An alternative approach is to flip all 100 coins, leave the ones that landed heads as they are, and then toss again only those that landed tails. We continue in this manner until all 100 coins show heads, which, under this procedure, will happen before too long. The creationist argument assumes that evolution must proceed in a manner comparable to the first approach, when really it has far more in common with the second.

    He’s saying “the creationist argument” (assuming he includes ID in this) is like the first example. Probability is measured so that all coins are flipped at once and all have to land heads. That, supposedly, is how Behe and Meyer measure the evolution of specified complexity? Not as a gradualist process but the entire flagellum, for example, has to appear in one event? This is beyond a parody – just absurd and lacking knowledge of what evolutionary critics are saying.
    Additionally, in his second option – he’s just repeating Dawkins’ Weasel program, which supposedly was not an analogy for evolution, but here it is again. The coins are flipped, and heads are locked in place, and eventually they all become heads.
    That is not how evolution works. There’s no foresight, no goal – no locking mechanism. The heads that work for today will cause extinction tomorrow. The heads that work for fitness in one niche work against fitness as the environment changes. Plus, the coin-flipper itself (random mutation generator) is blocked by repair mechanisms that do not allow 100 heads to be established.

    This part I did like at the beginning however:

    Evolution says that natural forces have led organisms to become more complex over time, but our everyday experience is that things break down unless energy and intelligence is expended to maintain them. Since probability is the branch of mathematics that quantifies our intuitions as to what is likely and what is not, it is natural that it should appear in anti-evolutionist literature.

    It’s good at least to see that evolution goes against our intuition. We don’t experience non-living things growing more complex, powerful or intelligent. As stated, we see things break down. We don’t experience non-living things caring about survival or fighting against death, changing their powers so they can be immortal. Soap bubbles just exist for a while, then they die. They don’t try to become new beings in order to maintain their bubble. Becoming just basic chemicals is good enough. So why should living things be different?
    That’s what goes against intuition and goes against actual observed nature.
    So evolution would actually need a lot more evidence — bold claims require bold evidence.

  50. 50
    JVL says:

    ET: You have been told many times what ID is for. You have been told many times that is goes past design detection. You have been given research agendas

    I’ve been told ID is only about design detection and I’ve been told that it goes past that. I haven’t seen a published, multi-point ID research agenda that has any wide-spread support. Most of the ID ‘research’ I’ve been shown has a focus of trying to show that unguided processes are not up to the job. They are not researching the design or anything past it.

    And it suits me fine imagining a lab with genetic engineering being carried out and software being downloaded.

    Well, you can dream as much as you like but that’s not the same thing as actual, physical evidence that that’s what happened.

    The genetic code is testable evidence for ID.

    What test is that?

    And yet no one can even formulate a scientific theory of evolution! Evolutionary biologists don’t even know what determines biological form!

    But they do! That’s why there is a lot of work being done on genes that turn other genes off and on. Again, it seems that most life forms have the genetic records of how to make most of the proteins used to create life and what is different from species to species is the timing and order of when genes are turned on and off. And those switches get tripped based on the chemistry around them.

    I will ante up $10,000 against you to see which side has the science and which side has the cowardly liars.

    As long as experts in the field are the judges. Which you won’t agree to because you know they disagree with you. Why not have a panel of judges from the guided and unguided camps populated in the same percentage of which biologists support unguided evolution and which don’t? That seems a fair representation of the situation?

    What am I denying that doesn’t support my view? Be specific or admit that you are just a desperate coward

    From Darwin on just about every book published about evolution has a statement of the theory of unguided evolution which, at its simplest, is: universal common descent via inheritable variation. That is what we observe in the lab and in the field. We never observe a new species just popping into existence.

    ID exists because you and yours have FAILED to demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are up to the task.

    ID exists as a replacement for something called scientific creationism and it was created, according to the Wedge document, to get God back into science and the classroom. That’s been documented. Now, some of the later converts may not have that motivation but they’re not the ones who started the movement.

    Probability arguments are used because you and yours don’t have any supporting evidence.

    Do you think quantum mechanics is a valid scientific notion? You are aware that quantum mechanics has a large number of probabilistic arguments and rules? They talk about probability clouds.

    What about plate tectonics? Is that a proper scientific notion? What is the mechanism that moves the continents around? Can we predict where they will go? Is it all just down to dumb luck?

    What about weather prediction? Is that scientific? Considering things like the butterfly effect does it even make sense to predict the weather beyond some probabilistic arguments?

    The reason some sciences have probabilistic arguments is because there is a certain amount of uncertainty in the system. IF we were never able to detect any trends or tendencies, i.e. if everything was truly random, then we couldn’t have some of those sciences. But there are trends and tendencies.

    And remember, many ID arguments made by ID proponents is that some events are NOT IMPOSSIBLE but highly improbable. Those are not arguments made by unguided evolution supporters, no one forced the ID proponents to utilise those arguments, they are not necessary because of any failing in unguided evolution. Those arguments and approaches were invented by ID proponents as the rock-bed of their stance: okay, yes, unguided evolution COULD HAVE done it but it’s just incredibly highly improbable. Kairosfocus‘s arguments are almost complete along those lines. He could make other arguments but he doesn’t because he hasn’t got any physical evidence aside from the contended design. So he makes a probabilistic argument.

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: The waiting time for two mutations is one such. The number of mutations required versus time allotted for fixation is the simple math.

    The number of mutations required? Having a particular target in mind is like saying: when will I win the lottery? You might not ever win the lottery. And that is a different question from: will someone win the lottery? That’s one issue.

    The other has to do with the probability of two mutations arising in the same individual which is much less likely to happen that for the two mutations to arise in two separate individuals who then breed and pass the two mutations to their offspring.

    There are some other ways to misinterpret the probabilities; my favourite example is how to get 8 heads in a row when flipping a coin.

    Dr Behe has been told over and over again that he was making a mistake similar to those I’ve just elucidated but he didn’t back down. Perhaps he was embarrassed that he made such a rookie mistake. I don’t know. I do respect Dr Behe because he is always straight and is always willing to defend his views, like at the Dover trial, unlike some of his fellows who bailed.

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    ET: Nature has already been eliminated, so there isn’t any turning back.

    The ID argument actually is: the natural, unguided processes are highly, highly, highly unlikely to have done it. That’s not the same as elimination.

  53. 53
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    what abstract mathematical principle is going to rule out larger changes over longer time periods?

    One mathematical principle that would rule out changes is the number of mutations required versus the time available for those mutations to become fixed.

  54. 54
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    The ID argument actually is: the natural, unguided processes are highly, highly, highly unlikely to have done it. That’s not the same as elimination.

    First of all, yes – that’s good. Highly, highly, highly, highly unlikely because … mutations occur at a certain frequency and have a certain effect on the organism (detrimental, neutral or positive). Then, there is not an infinite amount of time for mutations to work within.
    So, ID says highly unlikely because a certain number of mutations are needed (the exact number is not required) and there is a finite period of time for them to occur.
    If, for example, it would take twice the age of our universe for a functional string of code to emerge, then yes, it could still happen but we generally call that opportunity “eliminated”.
    Any person could win the lottery 5 times in a row.
    But the reason sensible people do not mortgage their house and borrow money to play is because that rare chance is, for practical purposes, eliminated.
    That’s how ID views the unlikelihood of a natural, unguided process achieving the result observed.

  55. 55
    Fred Hickson says:

    If an unguided process could produce the results in question, then there’d be not need to propose guidance.

    But a purely random process would not result in cumulaative change. Cumulative change happens (see Lenski’s LTEE) ergo evolution is non-random. I call that guided, others call it what they call it. We can argue what “guided” means or we can look at what happens and consider explanations.

    We don’t propose that raindrops need to be guided to fall to earth via the natural processes that we know of. We could say that each raindrop is guided, and that’s fine – but we also have natural mechanisms and factors that can explain their creation and movement from cloud down to the ground.

    Well, apart from not knowing what gravity is, only what it does, I agree.

    The same is not true of evolution – although it should be the same sort of thing.

    It’s work in progress. There’s an old Arab saying, “the dogs bark but the caravan carries on.” In this respect, evolutionary science is the caravan and objectors are the noisy dogs. Criticisms of evolutionary theory are ignored and the real work carries on.

    This could change if some ID proponent were to do some serious research and produce support for a better explanation for biological phenomena than those we work with currently.

  56. 56
    relatd says:

    JVL at 52,

    Quit posting fiction.

  57. 57
    Fred Hickson says:

    Just a small point of fact:

    …he’s just repeating Dawkins’ Weasel program, which supposedly was not an analogy for evolution, but here it is again. The coins are flipped, and heads are locked in place…

    It’s very old hat now, and Dawkins has said he never bothered to keep his original program, never thinking it would become controversial, but there have been several recreations using Dawkins’ description which work perfectly well without needing locks or latches.

  58. 58
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: So, ID says highly unlikely because a certain number of mutations are needed

    Needed for what?

    If, for example, it would take twice the age of our universe for a functional string of code to emerge

    Based on what mathematical model exactly?

    Any person could win the lottery 5 times in a row.
    But the reason sensible people do not mortgage their house and borrow money to play is because that rare chance is, for practical purposes, eliminated.

    Agreed, but the probability of someone winning five weeks in a row is much, much lower.

    Your example tend to assume a particular target which is always harder to hit.

    That’s how ID views the unlikelihood of a natural, unguided process achieving the result observed.

    Again, you are asking: what is the probability that we arose via unguided and natural processes? And, I agree, once you specify a target then the answer is almost zero.

    BUT the probability of something arising via unguided and natural processes is much, much higher.

    In general this is called the sharp shooter fallacy because if you draw the target around the bullet hole and then ask what is the chance of this hole being made in this particular location you’re not understanding the way the system works.

    Think about it this way: IF the asteroid hadn’t slammed into the earth about 66 million years ago do you think you and I would be here conversing via our highly developed and complicated technology? I don’t think there is any way you can say things would have developed the same if we changed that one event. 70 million years ago the chances of you and me being here doing what we’re doing is zero for all practical purposes. 60 million years ago the probability is still damn close to zero but maybe a bit more likely. And so on. Even two hundred years ago the probability of our exact event occurring is still very, very low. But, by two hundred years ago, the probability of there being people around now talking about how we came about is pretty likely But you and me in particular? Eh?

  59. 59
    Fred Hickson says:

    Silver Asiatic

    He’s saying “the creationist argument” (assuming he includes ID in this)

    fair assumption

    is like the first example. Probability is measured so that all coins are flipped at once and all have to land heads. That, supposedly, is how Behe and Meyer measure the evolution of specified complexity?

    Yes, and Dembski too, the upper probability bound that he took from Seth Lloyd.

    Not as a gradualist process but the entire flagellum, for example, has to appear in one event? This is beyond a parody – just absurd and lacking knowledge of what evolutionary critics are saying.

    Indeed it’s a gross misrepresentation of how evolution happens. If there are evolutionary critics who acknowledge this then good for them!

  60. 60
    JVL says:

    But a purely random process would not result in cumulaative change. Cumulative change happens (see Lenski’s LTEE) ergo evolution is non-random. I call that guided, others call it what they call it. We can argue what “guided” means or we can look at what happens and consider explanations.

    Part of what Dr Dawkins was trying to show with his simplistic weasel program was the effect of cumulative selection: i.e. if some variation was ‘preferred’ or gave some advantage to the organism and was retained then it was ‘locked’ (to some extent, obviously, what with mutations being random, some offspring might not retain the ‘lock’) or at least preferred; we now say ‘fixed’ in the population.

    While unguided evolution has no conscious goal certain variants are better able to exploit their environment and leave more offspring because of the environmental conditions which are NOT random. Over many generations the environmental conditions groom organisms to be more and more adapted, to leave more and fitter offspring.

  61. 61
    Fred Hickson says:

    Taking a weekend break. Will look in next week.

  62. 62
    relatd says:

    JVL at 60,

    No way that this explains anything.

    Imagine a bunch of random elements doing random things, and then, after millions of years, one gets an unspecified “advantage.” Then, after millions of years, another unspecified “advantage.” Pretty soon, you run out of millions of years.

    A rock falls and kills an organism with a unspecified advantage.

  63. 63
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Imagine a bunch of random elements doing random things, and then, after millions of years, one gets an unspecified “advantage.” Then, after millions of years, another unspecified “advantage.” Pretty soon, you run out of millions of years.

    That’s not a fair or good representation of what I said.

    Every generation will have variants, some of those variant might be a bit stronger or faster or taller or somehow better able to exploit the local environmental conditions so they leave more offspring. Some of each generation are about the same as the generation before. Some of each generation are slower or stupider or less likely to outcompete their fellows; they will probably leave fewer offspring.

    Mutations and variation happen all the time, every single individual has some genes that are different from their parents. After millions of years what you get looks and acts a lot different from what you started with.

    Only the variation is random based on the what came before. The ‘selection’, what is better suited, fitter, is not random. It’s based on the local environmental conditions.

  64. 64
    ET says:

    JVL:

    The ID argument actually is: the natural, unguided processes are highly, highly, highly unlikely to have done it. That’s not the same as elimination.

    Nope, just as archaeologists eliminated nature as a cause for Stonehenge, so it is with the explanatory filter.

  65. 65
    ET says:

    JVL- Natural selection is a process of ELIMINATION. It is non-random only in that not all variants have the same probability of being eliminated. Loss of function is beneficial. NS is nothing more than contingent serendipity.

  66. 66
    JVL says:

    ET: Nope, just as archaeologists eliminated nature as a cause for Stonehenge, so it is with the explanatory filter.

    Please explain how the explanatory filter determines that natural processes are unlikely to have produced a certain thing. Be specific. What tests are used? What criteria are applied?

    Every archaeologist I have worked with has a process, a procedure, for deciding if something was man made or natural. What is your procedure?

  67. 67
    relatd says:

    JVL at 63,

    Not fair? The ‘leave more offspring’ idea does not mean the previous version disappears. We have people alive today that are taller, faster and so on. And guess what? That proves evolution wrong.

  68. 68
    ET says:

    Great. JVL doesn’t have any idea what a scientific theory is. He is too afraid to pick up pro-ID literature and start reading.

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. JVL cannot say who the author was. JVL can’t say what journal it was published in. JVL can’t say when it was published. JVL can’t provide any predictions borne from blind and mindless processes (besides genetic diseases and deformities).

    JVL doesn’t understand biology. JVL doesn’t understand genetics. JVL doesn’t understand science.

    The test that the genetic code is intelligently designed is summed up as:

    The genetic code involves a coded information processing system. There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. There isn’t even any way to test the claim that nature can produce coded information processing systems. Christopher Hitchens said that we can dismiss such claims. And the $10, 000, 000 challenge cements that dismissal.

    However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. We infer the genetic code is intelligently designed. Science 101.

    And it fits right in the design hypothesis:

    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

  69. 69
    JVL says:

    ET: Natural selection is a process of ELIMINATION. It is non-random only in that not all variants have the same probability of being eliminated. Loss of function is beneficial. NS is nothing more than contingent serendipity.

    Some variants are less able to exploit their environment, some are better at that. Those that are better tend to leave more offspring and their genes become more prevalent in the population. You can focus on that which is ‘eliminated’ or that which is ‘selected’ but the overall process is the same. Good variation tends to get kept, bad variation tends to get eliminated. Just concentrating on the words used doesn’t help understand the situation.

    I absolutely agree that some variants have a greater or lesser chance of being eliminated or kept.

    Loss of function can be beneficial depending on the environmental conditions. The point is that unguided processes unconsciously influence what is more likely to get passed on. There is no plan, just environmental pressures.

  70. 70
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Not fair? The ‘leave more offspring’ idea does not mean the previous version disappears. We have people alive today that are taller, faster and so on. And guess what? That proves evolution wrong.

    Agreed, which is why the old creationist argument: if we evolved from apes then why are they still around is wrong. Well, it’s wrong in lots of ways.

    What happens is that over many generations the stronger, smarter, etc variants become more and more prevalent. This may be what happened to the neanderthals, they just may not have been able to compete with homo sapiens and so, eventually, just faded out.

    It doesn’t prove evolution ‘wrong’; it means you are expecting sudden and vast changes when it takes many, many generations. Hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of years.

  71. 71
    ET says:

    No plan and no chance at producing the biological diversity observed today. Natural selection is impotent with respect to producing the diversity of life

  72. 72
    JVL says:

    ET: There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. JVL cannot say who the author was. JVL can’t say what journal it was published in. JVL can’t say when it was published. JVL can’t provide any predictions borne from blind and mindless processes (besides genetic diseases and deformities).

    When I have done that in the past you’ve just dismissed what I spent time and effort to present. So I’m not going to bother feeding your obviously ridiculous claim. Even Dr Behe thinks there is a theory of evolution.

    There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. There isn’t even any way to test the claim that nature can produce coded information processing systems. Christopher Hitchens said that we can dismiss such claims. And the $10, 000, 000 challenge cements that dismissal.

    As well you know, Christopher Hitchens fully supported unguided evolution and thought that ID was pure religious manipulation.

    We do have evidence. We have multiple threads of evidence all of which are congruent with the unguided explanation.

    However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. We infer the genetic code is intelligently designed. Science 101.

    Brilliant. The same reasoning lead people to decide there could not be black swans. That reasoning would say: no, quantum mechanics can’t be right because we’ve never actually seen that happen. Someone had to say: well, why don’t we actually look to see if it happens. And evolutionary researches have looked and have concluded: yup, it is happening.

  73. 73
    relatd says:

    JVL at 70,

    So I raise a curtain, wait millions of years and better organisms pop out? That isn’t science. That’s not even good, plausible stortytelling.

    “What happens is that over many generations the stronger, smarter, etc variants become more and more prevalent. This may be what happened to the neanderthals, they just may not have been able to compete with homo sapiens and so, eventually, just faded out.”

    That’s why everyone is tall and handsome today? So-called “modern humans” have Neanderthal DNA.

  74. 74
    ET says:

    JVL:

    When I have done that in the past you’ve just dismissed what I spent time and effort to present.

    You have never done so. No one on this planet has ever done so. You are lying.

    Christopher Hitchens never supported evolution means of blind and mindless processes. No one has. But way to ignore the argument. Your willful ignorance exposes your agenda.

    We do have evidence. We have multiple threads of evidence all of which are congruent with the unguided explanation.

    Liar. Given starting populations of prokaryotes there aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing eukaryotes. Endosymbiosis just provides one organelle. And even that isn’t testable.

    However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. We infer the genetic code is intelligently designed. Science 101.

    Brilliant.

    Yes, it is. It is the SAME reasoning that tells us that Stonehenge was intelligently designed. But you, being ignorant of science and investigation, are too dim to understand that.

  75. 75
    JVL says:

    Relatd: So I raise a curtain, wait millions of years and better organisms pop out? That isn’t science. That’s not even good, plausible stortytelling.

    I explained to you the rough outlines of the process. If you don’t understand it I’m not sure what else you expect me to do.

    That’s why everyone is tall and handsome today? So-called “modern humans” have Neanderthal DNA.

    What? Not everyone is tall and handsome are they? AND, I suspect ‘tall’ and ‘handsome’ are more likely to be part of sexual and not environmental selection.

    Do you want to have a serious conversation or are you just going to continue to throw out vague and shallow objections which have most likely been discussed and explained years if not decades ago?

  76. 76
    JVL says:

    ET: You have never done so. No one on this planet has ever done so. You are lying.

    Right. ET‘s got it right and generations upon generations of scientists have got it wrong. Wow, I don’t see what I can say in the face of such intellectual power.

    Christopher Hitchens never supported evolution means of blind and mindless processes.

    Clearly he did. Over and over and over again. Your blind denials might go down well with some but for anyone who has read his books or listened to him debate, the truth is obvious.

    Liar. Given starting populations of prokaryotes there aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing eukaryotes. Endosymbiosis just provides one organelle. And even that isn’t testable.

    What’s your testable, congruent alternative? The designer did it? When? How? NOT FAIR you’ll shout, ID doesn’t deal with that until we’ve spent time studying the design. Well, you’ve studied the design and you haven’t moved on.

    You can protest and pout all you like but ID has not come even close to making an attempt to say when design was implemented. Not as a whole body of thought. Some individuals have but there is no unified ID theory.

    That’s one of the reasons why unguided evolutionary theory is a better explanation: there are general agreements on when and how and, sometimes where. And certainly why. ID has none of those. How is that an explanation? We don’t know how. We don’t even agree on when. Where . . . forget that.

    However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. We infer the genetic code is intelligently designed. Science 101.

    There are no black swans, there cannot be any black swans because . . . well . . . we’ve never seen them. Our only experience is that they don’t exist. Who built the pyramids? It must have been some superior intellingence? Why? Because in our experience we’ve never seen anyone do that. Five hundred years ago: we have never seen anyone produce a rainbow so they must be signs from God. Ummm . . . hang on. Don’t you want to check and test and make sure you don’t toss in the towel before you’ve checked everything out?

    This is part of the point. Some ID proponents say: it’s done, we’re sure. Unguided processes could not be responsible. But how do they know that when there is work ongoing. When there is research being done? Heaven forbid they should make a probabilistic argument! That’s not right is it ET?

    IF ID is not to be considered a science stopper then it must accept that it’s not possible to make bold and definitive claims as to what is and what is not possible. We just don’t know yet. I am firmly in the unguided camp, I admit it. But I also acknowledge that we have to consider all our rules and opinions provisional, subject to the data and knowledge we have now. And, if that changes, then our opinions and laws and views must also change.

    What I hear a lot of ID proponents say is: no, we’ve eliminated unguided causes. ET said so explicitly earlier in this thread. Is that science or confirmation bias?

  77. 77
    relatd says:

    JVL at 75,

    I have been discussing this for a long time. My objections are not vague and no evolutionist has explained anything. I’ve heard the same stories repeated but they are based on belief, not science. You seem to think ‘evolution’ is the only answer.

    It’s a series of stories told over and over. There was not enough time for evolution – a blind, unguided process – to do anything. That is the key element, isn’t it? Given enough time, enough throws off the dice, modern living things? Take the human eye. Just gradually ‘evolved’ from previous, less functional light sensors? No, that’s just a story.

    You keep saying things kept improving, that nature got rid of the bad versions of organisms and replaced them with smarter and faster, etc. Take humans. We are not all smarter, faster, etc. I’m sure you know people who are shorter than average, slower, both physically and mentally, and otherwise less than ideal according to the story. But guess what? They reproduce. So there’s no need to believe in evolution gradually improved anything.

  78. 78
    ET says:

    JVL:

    ET‘s got it right and generations upon generations of scientists have got it wrong.

    Stomping your feet and whining doesn’t help you, JVL.

    Hitchens was NOT a scientist. He was a philosopher.

    What’s your testable, congruent alternative?

    Alternative to what? Your lies and ignorance?

    However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. We infer the genetic code is intelligently designed. Science 101.

    Again, THAT IS THE SAME REASONIN G ARCHAEOLOGISTS USED TO DETERMINE THAT STONEHENGE WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. JVL is clearly being an obtuse infant.

    Blind and mindless processes have been eliminated for the reason there isn’t any evidence to support it. There aren’t any testable hypotheses. And you don’t even know what a scientific hypothesis is.

    ID is scientific because it’s claims can be and have been tested and confirmed. But you are ignorant of science. So, that is all you have.

    It is very telling that the way to falsify ID is to step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are capable. Yet instead evos just flail around like fish out of water.

  79. 79
    ET says:

    However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. We infer the genetic code is intelligently designed. Science 101.

    JVL’s flailing responses to that proves he is ignorant of science. Nice own goal.

  80. 80
    JHolo says:

    ET: However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. We infer the genetic code is intelligently designed. Science 101.

    Actually, there is ONE and ONLY one intelligence known to produce coded information processing systems and that is via humans. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning, we infer the genetic code is designed by humans. Science 101.

    And by the same reasoning, we can infer than humans invent time travel.

    Or, we can simply draw the only honest conclusion that can be drawn about DNA. We do not yet know how it developed.

  81. 81
    ET says:

    JHolo:

    Actually, there is ONE and ONLY one intelligence known to produce coded information processing systems and that is via humans.

    I have already been over this. Why do you think your willful ignorance is an argument?

    Once intelligent design has been determined, if it couldn’t have been humans, we infer it was some other intelligent agency, duh. Science 101.

    And DNA isn’t the genetic code. Do you even have a high school education in biology?

  82. 82
    JHolo says:

    ET: Once intelligent design has been determined,…

    Well, let us know when it has been determined. Because I can hardly wait until all of the research that will follow.

    And DNA isn’t the genetic code. Do you even have a high school education in biology?

    It is like a code. If you are given one set of letters you can write down the others.
    Now we believe that the D.N.A. is a code. That is, the order of the bases (the letters) makes one
    gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another).”

  83. 83
    ET says:

    It has been determined. And thank you for proving my point:

    Genetic code refers to the instructions contained in a gene that tell a cell how to make a specific protein. Each gene’s code uses the four nucleotide bases of DNA: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) — in various ways to spell out three-letter “codons” that specify which amino acid is needed at each position within a protein.

    and

    The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences of nucleotide triplets, or codons) into proteins.

    Even high school students understand that the genetic code involves transcription and translation.

    DNA is a coded information carrier.

  84. 84
    ET says:

    JVL:

    There are no black swans, there cannot be any black swans because . . . well . . . we’ve never seen them.

    Except for the fact that has NOTHING to do with our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships!

    And you want to ante up $10,000 to debate me on science?

  85. 85
    jerry says:

    I have photos of black swans I took in New Zealand.

  86. 86
    JHolo says:

    Jerry: I have photos of black swans I took in New Zealand.

    So, that is what they do with the surplus Kiwi brand shoe polish. 🙂
    https://www.spar.lk/products/kiwi-shoe-polish-black-36g

  87. 87
    kairosfocus says:

    JH, I remember going with my then fiance to a park set up by the then just previous PM of Jamaica, and seeing there black swans. KF

Leave a Reply