Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Friday Musings — Irrational Hatred of ID and a Scientific Sea Change

Gil Dodgen
April 6, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I think that one of the reasons for the irrational hatred of the ID movement is that in the last 50 years a scientific tide has reversed. The hard sciences (as opposed to Darwinian theory, evolutionary psychology and the like), which for centuries had demystified the world and made the transcendent seem increasingly irrelevant, suddenly started providing solid evidence that a materialistic worldview was untenable. The universe was fine-tuned for life, and living things were fundamentally based on highly sophisticated information and information-processing systems. The fact that those of us in the ID movement are promoting public awareness of this has enraged those with a philosophical commitment to materialism, those who counted on the hard sciences to provide ever-increasing support for their worldview.

What was thought to be their best ally is gradually becoming their worst foe, and this is a tough pill to swallow.

Comments
Joseph, I read that link on "wobbling stability," and I honestly just don't get it. Here is an excerpt:
It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.
Is this a common line of ID reasoning? Again, I don't think so. What does it mean to say that an organism that adapts to fill an ecological niche is "unhappy, mutilated" and has "no future?" This seems to make some kind of metaphysical statement about what sorts of ecologies are "normal" -- that poor cave fish, it has gone to live in an "abnormal" environment and lost its eyes! This ignores the fact that the cave fish has likely adapted in ways that can be considered "positive" -- in ways that make the organism better suited to its niche. The cave fish's loss of sight isn't a tragedy, it's a beautiful extension of the seemingly endless flexibility of life. And if the cave fish adapted to life in the cave, why can it not adapt again to some other environment? It also ignores the multitude of organisms that do not represent other kinds of organisms "at the margins of their area of distribution". What of the many unique organisms that are found only in the dark depths of the sea, or in the heat and sulphur of underwater volcanic vents? They aren't at the "margins;" they've long since ceased being "marginal" and are instead right at the heart of where they belong.dopderbeck
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Rats, I messed up a tag. Joseph's words end at "differences observed between chimps and humans"; the rest is my response.dopderbeck
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Jerry said: What evidence? We are all under the impression here that there is no evidence and have been asking for examples for years. And none has been forthcoming. Well, this is where the conversation just goes round and round. Great Ape pointed to a whole bunch of evidence concerning genetic markers and y'all just seem to ignore it or to brush it off with references to the designer / God "re-using" genetic material. Why are common genetic markers over the deep history of the genomes of different species not "evidence?" I understand that you can interpet this evidence in various ways, and you can approach it with differing presuppositions, but to say there is no "evidence" seems grossly overstated to me. Joseph said: Ya see there isn’t any genetic data that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. I'm not following you here. Differences in genes don't produce differences in physiology and anatomy? Of course they do, depending of course on which genes are involved. If what you're trying to argue is that there is no detailed map of exactly which differences in the genomes result in chimps rather than humans, well, so what? Maybe some day there will be. If you are trying to argue that there is no correlation between genetic and physiological / anatomical differences between species, is that a typical ID argument? I don't think it is -- at least I don't think it's an argument a careful ID proponent like Mike Behe would make. I don't think this is even a typical creationist argument. I know that Hugh Ross' organization, for example, likes to point out research that shows greater differences between the chimp and human genomes than previously supposed -- suggesting a further separation between the chimp and human kinds. Or am I misunderstanding something?dopderbeck
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
dopderbeck: Thanks for providing the party propaganda line. You are confusing accomodations with predictions. Ya see there isn't any genetic data that can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. Heavy reliance on the future discovery of the magical mutation accumulation mechanism is hardly the stuff of science. Follow the link in comment 36- see wobbling stability. That is what the data and observations point to. And until one can explain the anatomical & physiological differences observed, then Common Descent, although interesting, does not qualify as a scientific effort. Similarities can be explained by a number of options.Joseph
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
dopderbeck, you said "I mean that in general terms — that there is strong evidence for gradual organismal changes in natural history and a general pattern of coalescence as one goes farther back into natural history." What evidence? We are all under the impression here that there is no evidence and have been asking for examples for years. And none has been forthcoming. Don't you understand our problem? We have not seen any evidence let alone the overwhelming evidence Darwinist say exists. We are serious with this claim. We are like Diogenes looking for an honest man. We are looking for honest Darwinist who can provide some evidence to support Darwinism. So far the light has not found anyone and it gets embarrassing when you see what people like so called religious role models like Ken Miller resort to.jerry
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
kairosfocus We use Akismet for anti-spam. You can look into the particulars of how it works at their website. In a nutshell; all comments, including the source information, are automatically sent to Akismet's server farm. There the comment is scrutinized against a proprietary list of keywords, sender sources, and other factors which are known to be charateristic of spam. If suspected of being spam it is returned to us flagged as potential span and stored in a special queue pending further action by the blog adminstrators. Lately we have been getting over 1000 spam comments per day and Akismet has for us so far intercepted over 90,000 spam comments. Perhaps 1 in 100 of those were mistakes. A year ago we were getting only 100 - 200. A year ago I would conscientiously look at the entire spam list picking out the mistakes so they could be published. However, going through 1000 or more each day is too much. I might glance at the first page of 50 comments but when there's hundreds of them queued up I usually just dispose of the whole lot en masse without examination. I expect as the popularity of the blog continues to rise so will its attractiveness to spammers and the spam problem will only continue to get worse. As an aside for you in particular I've noted that the longer a comment is the more likely it will flagged as spam. I believe that's because the more words in a comment the more likely it is that one of them will be a suspicious keyword. Also as the length of the comment grows the more likely it is that it will hit the magic number of 5 embedded URLs which is a spam trigger. The overwhelming majority of spam comments are 3 lines or less so there may be good reason for Akismet to adjust its policy by weighting longer comments in favor of non-spam. The Akisment protocol learns through experience as well. Administrators have the option of flagging comments that we're given a green light as spam and they are returned to Akismet so the system can analyze it and add any findings to their spam filter. This can effectively blacklist a prolific commenter who is considered a spammer by multiple blogs. We also have the option of tagging red lighted comments as non-spam and that is also returned to Akisment so that it can learn from its mistakes in both directions. One last item worth describing is we also have a private list of "blacklisted" words that when seen will direct the comment to the spam queue. In the past we had words in it such as "diet" and "pill" but because those words didn't need to appear in isolation so that "pillow" would trigger the spam filter I removed all those keywords. That substantially reduced the number of mistakes and didn't cause any spam comments to sneak through. The private blacklist is now composed strictly of email addresses of "banned" posters. So when someone gets banned here their comment privilege isn't cut off entirely but rather their comments just get dumped to the spam queue. In the past when the spam queue was small enough for me to go through it all this effectively gave banned commenters a chance to reform and/or still have acceptable comments allowed through. Alas, because of the recent huge uptick in spam volume, they no longer get that courtesy. DaveScot
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Joseph said: What is the scientific reason it should be accepted? Because it remains the most parsimonious and consistent explanation of the data; and because many of the predictions it makes about what we should expect to find in the data -- including predictions about genomics, which was a black box when the theory of common descent was first posited -- have generally been realized. Appolos said (Theological issues aside) ... One of the beautiful things about Intelligent Design is that it isn’t trammeled by methodological naturalism. This seems directly contradictory to me. The best -- I would say only -- reasons for questioning methodological naturalism are theological ones. Appollos also said: …because it [common descent] isn’t necessarily true — ID doesn’t need to run things through the materialism filter. This seems to me to be part of the heart of the matter: a confusion of the general idea of common descent with the philosophy of materialism. Removing the materialism filter doesn't excuse anyone from ignoring the evidence for common descent. The evidence remains; it remains compelling; and there remains no strong alternative explanation, except for a vague "God / the designer did it" -- which really is a God of the gaps explanation. I have no problem with offering that explanation if it's offered on the grounds of revelation (though I think it would remain a wrong understanding of revelation). I have a problem with the notion, however, that this is the sort of explanation that is separable from theological presuppositions. It just isn't. Tribune said: In the situation you suggested let’s say one of those life forms evolved into all plants and the other into all animals. The plants would have a common ancestor but animals and plants would not. This highlights for me another disconnect in this discussion. Most of you seem to think "common descent" must mean "universal common descent." Personally, I don't use the terms so interchangeably, and I think that conflation of terms can be misleading. When I argue that "common descent" is well established, I mean that in general terms -- that there is strong evidence for gradual organismal changes in natural history and a general pattern of coalescence as one goes farther back into natural history. The evidence, it seems to me, wipes out the artificial distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution. That is not to suggest, however, that the history of life on earth is necessarily so simple that all of life coalesces to one point of ancestry. Even the materialist scientific community recognizes this, with considerable debate and disagreement, of course, in theories such as panspermia. Personally, I do find the notion of "front-loaded evolution" interesting in some ways -- but I don't see that as a rejection of common descent. OTOH, I don't find even "front-loaded evolution" so compelling that I'd stake my life on it. It remains a bit of a "God fo the gaps" explanation, which I can't see any strong reason to favor apart from theological reasons. And even with my theological presuppositions, I don't see terribly strong reasons to favor it -- after all, as the little study of Psalm 139 demonstrates, in theological terms, there are no no "gaps" for God to fill. Secondary causes are not "gaps" -- they are themselves the exercise of God's providential care for the creation.dopderbeck
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Would multiple but similar origins of life be the same as common descent? nullasalus, take the words as literal. In the situation you suggested let's say one of those life forms evolved into all plants and the other into all animals. The plants would have a common ancestor but animals and plants would not.tribune7
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Dave Scott: Thanks for the note -- I still puzzle over the strange parameters that seem to lurk in yon filter! (I note that even moderators complain or at least note on being "Caught" there.) I simply noted on a comment that did not seem materially different from one that got through but was blocked. [This is on our exchange on probability and estimations thereof.] My more basic point is that the Darwinist advocacy partyline that UD etc are unwilling to entertain healthy disagreement is plainly falsified by factual evidence. G-A is living proof of that. So, the challenge is obviously to the NDT -- evo mat-- secularist progressivism advocates: can you hold your own without resorting to uncivilised behaviour? GA has tried and we have had productive dialogue. Currently Pixie and I are having a good exchange on thermodynamics initiated by Sewell. More like that would help move the ball forward . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
So why not just admit that common descent is generally true?
Because the weight of evidence goes contrary to its claims. In fact, the most incredible discovery of modern science has to be the discontinuities in nature. Nature is fundamentally a non-sequential system whereby archetypes seem immune to radical change. There would be no doubt, and nobody here questioning common descent, if the fossil record showed the intergrading forms leading unambiguously from one form to the other, or even a detailed series of fossils showing the development of a complex organ. In respect to viral insertions, how have they managed to remain intact enough to be recognizable as a genetic markers? Is it realistic to believe as both lines diverged from a common ancestor, then travelled on their own path for millions of years, that these would remain? This argument seems very similar to the one gradualists use in repect to hierarchic systems in that many defining characteristics (i.e,. pentadactyl limb unique to all terrestrial vertebrates) must remain essentially unchanged during many millions of years of evolution.Acquiesce
April 9, 2007
April
04
Apr
9
09
2007
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
dopderbeck, you said:
So, again, I haven’t seen any reason yet — scientific or theological — why the general notion of common descent should be rejected.
In a previous comment you said:
So why not just admit that common descent is generally true?
(Theological issues aside) Common descent certainly isn't rejected here, just questioned. One of the beautiful things about Intelligent Design is that it isn't trammeled by methodological naturalism. The benefit for ID proponents is that design becomes a valid explanatory mechanism for biological observations, including genetic similarities. Thus, common descent isn't the only option. Still, it is an option in the ID universe (an ever expanding place). For NDE, common descent is a necessity. Without it, the likelihood for a neo-Darwinian explanation of observed biological systems shrinks away from even "vanishingly small." NDE doesn't even have the option of interpreting anything in nature as intentionally designed, nor does it appear to have the option of suggesting any alternatives to common descent, short of producing some kind of convincing chemical evolution scenario, or deferring to panspermia. It is fenced in to a materialistic world view: nothing else is allowed, nothing else is possible. From what I read on this blog, nobody here rules out common descent, nor does ID force anyone to do so; rather there are views on both sides of the issue. Since there are many who remain unconvinced that common descent is necessarily true, there's nothing to "admit." CD is not an "elephant in the room" for ID.
So why not just admit that common descent is generally true?
...because it isn't necessarily true -- ID doesn't need to run things through the materialism filter.Apollos
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
dopderbeck, I think what is being said is that common descent is a hypothesis that would explain a lot of the sequence of species we see. However, there are two problems, maybe more. Whatever criteria used to justify common descent has lots of holes and anomalies. I have no idea of the proportion of anomalies to consistency but there are many. In other words what has to spelled out is the information that supports and falsifies common descent. Given this approach and after we examine the evidence we find out that the support for common descent far outnumbers the anomalies we are no further along to finding the mechanism for the consistencies. We can argue fairly forcefully that gradualism could never have caused it. Also, there have been some here and in the literature who are evolutionary biologists and who say the ideas of Darwin are dead. Implying Darwinism would be long gone except that it would give solace to the creationists. And that is something they could never be allowed to do. But they have nothing to replace gradualism but pure speculation. So one man's speculation without any evidence (Darwin) remains the basis for a major scientific area because other's speculation have no evidence to back it up yet. You will understand the ID people when you understand none of have seen any evidence for gradualism or any other mechanism for species change. We recognize the fossil record shows a progression and while genetic markers for common descent may in fact be valid, it underlies no mechanism for these markers, not even circumstantial. If gradualism were true, you would expect to find a whole host of things, none of which appear in nature. If you disagree and think there is evidence for gradualism, then make your case. But common descent supported by genetic markers is not evidence for any mechanism let alone gradualism. In fact it is falsification for gradualism because if this was the mechanism one would expect to find a completely different suite of species in nature supported by a different set of genetic markers.jerry
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
dopderbeck: So, again, I haven’t seen any reason yet — scientific or theological — why the general notion of common descent should be rejected. What is the scientific reason it should be accepted? to Great_Ape- Again given what we know about chromosomal recombinations there is no way any viral insertion should remain, not only intact enough to be recognizable as a genetic marker, but also stay in the same location, over millions of generations is the most awkward claim there is to make. And perhaps what we see at X, Y, Z isn't degeneration of the original (W), but only appears to be based on our ignorance and pre-conceived biases. IOW without confirming data that demonstrates such changes are even possible (to account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans, for example), all this is is speculation based on the assumption. That is you have decided Common Descent and have set out to find what you think would be confirming data. And given the data that we do have Common Descent does NOT jive with it at all. Natural selection conserves and sexual reproduction produces wobbling stability. IOW to posit Common Descent would be an extraordinary claim and as such require some extraordinary evidence. Yet the best you can muster is speculation based on the assumption. And given what we are finding out about the genetic differences between chimps and humans there may have had to have been accumulating fixed mutations EACH GENERATION in each diverging branch just to account for them. Never mind the fact that the magical mutations just haven't revealed themselves after all these years of looking...Joseph
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
gpuccio -- thanks for the thoughtful comments. You said this: that “God is constantly “re-writing the code” via the secondary causes of natural selection and genetic drift”. In my opinion, such a statement has no meaning. Why? Why are secondary causes irrelevant as evidence of God's handiwork? In classical orthodox Christian theology, secondary causes certainly are not "meaningless." Take a look at Aquinas' intricate discussion of causation, for example. One good way to think about this is through another classic "natural theology" text, Psalm 139. The Psalmist says, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." Notice the language here: each person is "created," "knit together," "fearfully and wonderfully made" -- in other words, designed carefully by God -- and this fact is a cause for wonder at God's works. And yet, today we can explain the process of human birth from conception through every stage of fetal maturation entirely in terms of seconary causes. There are no "gaps" in our "scientific" knowledge of human conception of birth; no need to suggest there is something God had to do directly through primary causation. Is Psalm 139 thus falisfied? No, because natural theology pictures God as active within and through secondary causes. There is a layer to secondary causes, to use Pascal's term, that is "hidden" from our direct observation -- the will and power of God. Given this, I don't see any reason why common descent through secondary causes must elide God. The question of God's supervenience over secondary causes is a theological question, which scripture (as in Psalm 139) and Christian theology resoundingly answers in the affirmative. So, again, I haven't seen any reason yet -- scientific or theological -- why the general notion of common descent should be rejected.dopderbeck
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
"LoL! We have NOT observed anything for millions of years. " --Joseph By "observed", I mean that biologists have made frequent empirical observations of genetic sequence that are consistent with this working assumption. Say, for example, we examine a species' DNA, species (w), and find a viral insertion (Or retroposon, etc.) If it was there a very long time--say since the common ancestor of species W,X,Y,Z--then when we look at the other species X,Y,Z at the same location, we should find copies of the virus that should have been degenerating for several million years. They should be battered with insertions/deletions, have base changes, etc. The open reading frames of their proteins should be disrupted disrupted. That is precisely what is seen. So yes, we make the inference that they were there millions of years and have been degenerating. Given a great deal of such data, I think it is by far the most reasonable inference. I will not argue that you can not come up with explanations that explain away this phenomenon under a creationist context. I will only say that such arguments are extremely awkward to make, as is the case with the paper you reference. If I had more time, I would detail some of the more egregious stretches there. Perhaps some other time.great_ape
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
nullasalus [27] It's believed that every living organism can trace its ancestry down to a primitive single celled organism that spontaneously generated itself from inorganic matter. If you allow multiple origins, where does it end? One might as well believe in special creation. Orthodox darwinism has survived as long as it has because its proponents make it appear simplistic, elegant and yet paradoxically too complex for the moronic masses to understand. But break through the surface, dare to question the orthodoxy and you'll discover that right from the offset the problems are insurmountable. The theory is not close to demise, it was stillborn. Look closely and you'll see the strings and I don't need to tell you who's pulling them.Acquiesce
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
The following is a Creationist's explanation of ERVs: ?Were Retroviruses Created Good? Abstract:
Retroviruses that are not normally present in healthy hosts are called exogenous viruses, while DNA sequences in cellular genomes that are homologous to retroviruses are called endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). While the belief that all ERVs are remnants of germline infection seems logical, there are also facts against the endogenization theory, such as xenotropic ERVs and essentiality of some ERVs in host physiology. Syncytins, products of the env gene of HERV-W and HERV-FRD, contribute to human placenta development. Similar genes are also found in mouse and sheep. Indeed, the sheep ERV genes have been shown essential for sheep reproduction. Furthermore, regulation of the human syncytin-1 gene involves a complex regulation network including both viral and host factors. Conclusion: While intact ERVs with positional polymorphism are likely germline copies of exogenous viruses, ERVs with fixed locations and conserved beneficial genes may have been incorporated into the host genome at the time of creation. Exogenous retroviruses may have been created to help the ERVs and to transfer useful genes between hosts.
Joseph
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Great_Ape: They most certainly do start to decay, and this is observed, but it takes several million years for them to decay (in mammals) to the point where they are no longer discernable as what they are. LoL! We have NOT observed anything for millions of years. Therefore we don't know how long viral insertions take to decay. We may be able to guess but that guess is goung to be based on one's preconceived biases. Great_Ape: The very fact that they decay in a predictable fashion further reinforces the notion that they (more often than not) have no function and thus serve as excellent markers to demonstrate common descent. In order for Common Descent to have any weoght it must explain the DIFFERENCES observed- that is the physiological and anatomical differences- between alledged closely related populations, like chimps and humans. Also we do NOT know whether or not the allged viral insertions are viral insertions at all. All we have is "they LOOK like viral insertions". Then there could be a cxommon mechanism. That is populations with similar genetic make-up that gewt hit with a similar virus, that virus will insert into similar DNA sequences. Ya see with the recombinations we know about there is NO way anyone should expect a useless viral insertion to stay intact enough over millions of generations all the while other changes are taking place throughout the genome. Changes that alter form and function.Joseph
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
kairosfocus The moderation and spam queues are empty. The spam volume has been so high for the past two or three weeks that I've been emptying it without looking at the comments. Occasionaly a legit comment is in there but it's like finding needle in a haystack amongst 500 advertisements for viagra, online casinos, and things of that nature. If there's anything of yours that was in the spam queue it's gone now.DaveScot
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Great Ape: I entirely agree with GP's point. You are no "troll." speaking for myself: You have been civil and are a valuable participant in this forum. You also demonstrate that if NDT etc advocates will pull back on the incivility that too often mars their behaviour, they can participate productively in UD. [That sharply contrasts with the mantra about unjustified banning as a common tactic at UD. Of course, I say that, having not been banned despite a strong disagreement with the "banner in chief" himself. Though of course there is the minor matter of a pending in-filter comment for a while now . . . which may have something to do with a certain upcoming blessed event for Patrick, the filter-clearer in chief it seems.] Also, as the recent discussion on the sickle cell trait showed, the results from such a process of actual dialogue will not be one sided. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
First of all, let me join the others in praising great ape and his contributions to this blog. Some of the best discussions we have had have been motivated by his interventions, including this one. To dopderbeck, I would like to remark that in his intervention there seems to be some confusion of terminology (but if I have not understood correctly his intentions, I apologize). I have already said that common descent seems to me the most likely explanations for many observations, although it is not the only possible explanation, and always remembering that the observed facts are not always so consinstent as some want us to believe. Anyway, my idea of reutilization of the code can apply both to common descent scenarios and to "special creation" scenarios. The idea is that a designer can always reutilize his code, indeed designer always do that in a massive way. The common descent scenario only explains better the persistance of errors (including the viral insertions cited by great ape), because in that case the designer reutilizes his code "as it is already written in a previous implementation" (that is, in an existing species), and then modifies it as appropriate. The persistance of errors can be explained, outside of common descent, only if we assume that the designer has anyway reutilized a code "written" somewhere else, but I admit that I con't find that explanation very convincing. And I agree with great ape on one other point, I don't believe that "anything" in the genome needs have function, although I do believe that "most" of it has, including most of what has been considered functionless. That's why I am happy enough with the common descent idea, although I think we must keep an open mind about that, and remember for instance that common descent could well be only "partial". Anyway, of one thing I am absolutely sure. Common descent does not imply unguided evolution, and it does not imply, to cite dopderbeck's definition of TE, that "God is constantly “re-writing the code” via the secondary causes of natural selection and genetic drift". In my opinion, such a statement has no meaning. If the code is rewritten only by NS and/or genetic drift, there is no role for God there (except for having created the laws which imply NS and GD). Frankly, I can see no relation between such a view (which could be that of Ken Miller, approximately), and ID. Dopderbeck goes on: "It seems to me, then, that the only reason for preferring the “re-use” hypothesis to TE is if there is some Biblical reason to do so". One thing is important for me: although I have my religious beliefs, I will never use them to motivate or justify a scientific discussion. Although our enemies like to represent ID as a pseudo-scientific, religious movement, I know that's not true. I believe in ID for purely sciebtific reasons, not for religious ones. And I believe, and assume, that anyone in the ID frame should do so. I have never seen Dembski or Behe use a religious argument in a scientific context (although anyone can use religious arguments in a religious and/or philosophical context. Therefore, I am absolutely convinced that the ID arguments demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that biological information is designed. That it is in no way the product of natural selection, genetic drift, or any other combination of chance and necessity. That a designer had to design life from inorganic matter, and had to design each significant new implementation of life (such as species), through means which are open to discussion, and probably (but not necessarily) in a scenario of common descent. The presence of the designer(s) is an easy, constant, exciting, absolutely necessary inference whenever we look at any sifnificant aspect of the biological world. By the way, happy Easter to everybody!gpuccio
April 8, 2007
April
04
Apr
8
08
2007
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT
A question for everyone on common descent. Would multiple but similar origins of life be the same as common descent? Say there were two origins of the first life form - both on opposite sides of the planet. However, they both came from the same material source (Think 2 RNA World events, and yes, I know how unlikely that is.) Is this common descent? Or is CD strictly 'There was exactly one origin-of-life event, and all life came from that'?nullasalus
April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
You're welcome, Dave. A couple of points: The idea of the universal common ancestor many of us remember from the phylogenetic trees shown us back in junior high has been pretty much refuted. Now, back in the 50s60s70s this was taught as basically a slam-dunk sure thing, so it should be understandable that some would hold reservations about any common ancestor theory. And there is another reason that's it's defensible to hold these reservations. While it's not irrational to infer a common ancestory based on genetic similarites (just as it wasn't based on morphological ones in Darwin's day), it can't be shown how this evolution happened. It can't be duplicated. All that's offered are inferences and surmising.tribune7
April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
Tribune, thanks for directing me to this thread. I haven't seen anyone respond to Great_Ape's points in a convincing way. The best argument is that God / the designer may have "re-used" code and that such re-use might incorporate earlier "mistakes," "bugs," or elements that are no longer functional. I think that is possible, but the question remains, is it the best inference given the data? We are not talking here about a few snippets of re-used code here and there, or a handful "bugs" or mistakes. We're talking about "re-use" on a massive scale, with "bugs" and mistakes that fit elegantly into the hypothesis of common descent. At one level, the "re-use" explanation just seems like special pleading. At another level -- and I think this is crictically important -- the "re-use" hypothesis just seems like another way of viewing theistic evolution! After all, God is not absent from the process of evolution under the TE view. In effect, under the TE view, God is constantly "re-writing the code" via the secondary causes of natural selection and genetic drift. It seems to me, then, that the only reason for preferring the "re-use" hypothesis to TE is if there is some Biblical reason to do so -- specifically, if the "kinds" of Genesis 1 require repeated acts of special creation. Personally, I don't think that there is any exegetically or hermeneutically compelling reason to do so. But even more importantly to the ID discussion, there doesn't to be any scientific reason to do so. So why not just admit that common descent is generally true?dopderbeck
April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
"What would conserve a viral insertion? It seems that any coding region that has no function would within a few generations start to deteriorate because there is no reason for it to remain the same." --jerry They most certainly do start to decay, and this is observed, but it takes several million years for them to decay (in mammals) to the point where they are no longer discernable as what they are. The very fact that they decay in a predictable fashion further reinforces the notion that they (more often than not) have no function and thus serve as excellent markers to demonstrate common descent. "Nothing can falsify common descent since it is not science, but a logical deduction from naturalism." --Mats I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion, but it is wrong. Common descent makes a multitude of predictions, any number of which could be used to invalidate it. Let us take the example of the viral insertions discussed above. If a viral insertion is found to be decayed (by mutation) such that it is estimated (by a molecular clock) to have occurred sometime sufficiently *prior* to the speciation time of humans and chimps (i.e. in the *common ancestor*), then we should find it present in *both* species even if, so far, we have only observed one species' genome. The empirical test is whether, when you look at the other species, you find the insertion in question. If it is not present, there will nearly always be some remnant of it or indication it has been removed via deletion, recombination, etc. To my knowledge, this prediction holds true in all cases except in situations where the insertion time is near the speciation time in which case the insertion can sort randomly among the two lineages. And this sorting of insertion polymorphisms is still *another* prediction of common descent. When you find insertions that date *near* speciation times, they sort randomly among lineages. It is not how functional things behave that demonstrates common descent, it is the behavior of spurious changes in retroviral sequence, pseudogenes, etc, that can be traced. These are the best markers and these tell a story that is only intelligible by positing common descent.great_ape
April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
What would it take to falsify common descent as an explanation for genetic similarity?
Nothing can falsify common descent since it is not science, but a logical deduction from naturalism. If the fossil record, which is totally against common descent, the so called Cambrian explosion, the dowfall of homology and the lack of linages did not destroy common descent, nothing will.Mats
April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
I think the word "coding" should be dropped from my question because I beleive coding implies a function.jerry
April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
great_ape, What would conserve a viral insertion? It seems that any coding region that has no function would within a few generations start to deteriorate because there is no reason for it to remain the same.jerry
April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
What would it take to falsify common descent as an explanation for genetic similarity?jaredl
April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
"GA - I’ll wage it. Common descent is only true if genetic similarity is in fact due to common descent - but that’s circular reasoning." -jaredl This was not my reasoning, but I note that your particular charge of circularity could be applied to most any statement whatsoever about the world. For example, "That the earth spins is only true if day and night are the result of the earth rotating...but that's circular reasoning." My reasoning, on the other hand, has more to do with how so very many things about molecular data make sense under common descent and do not under other interpretations. (i.e. inference to best explanation and the robustness of hypotheses based on common descent). This is particularly true in regard to the distribution of viral insertions among similar lineages, neutral mutations (including trivial insertions and deletions), patterns of decay in pseudogenes, and a multitude of other phenomenon, which, to explain by special creation would require either a) a deceptive designer or b) performing various intellectual contortions to assign utility to *every* genetic event in the genome, despite the fact that we now know a great many mutations have no consequence. I'm convinced that if people saw the molecular evidence that I've encountered, there would be far fewer doubters. One day I hope to compile some of the nitty gritty details into an accessible manuscript.great_ape
April 7, 2007
April
04
Apr
7
07
2007
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply