The ID Hypothesis

_{Barry Arrington

August 4, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

A friend writes and asks how ID comports with the “scientific method.” I respond:

As for the scientific method, I am all for it:

Question to be Investigated: What is the origin of complex specified information (CSI) and irreducibly complex (IC) mechanisms seen in even the simplest living things?

Hypothesis: CSI and IC have never been directly observed to have arisen though chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two. Conversely, CSI and IC are routinely observed to have been produced by intelligent agents. Moreover, intelligent agents leave behind indicia of their acts that can be objectively discerned. Therefore, using abductive reasoning, the best explanation for CSI and IC is “act of intelligent agent.”

The intelligent design project is, essentially, the scientific investigation of this hypothesis.

Interestingly, Darwinists make mutually exclusive attacks on the hypothesis. Some claim the hypothesis is not scientific because it cannot be, even in principle, falsified. Others claim the hypothesis fails because it has been falsified. Surely you will agree that it cannot be both.

The answer is that the hypothesis is, in principle, falsifiable.

All it would take is even one instance of CSI or IC being observed to arise through chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two. Such an observation would blow the ID project out of the water.

I have to add that typical Darwinist circular reasoning and “just so stories” will not do the trick. That is to say, reasoning of the following sort fails to impress: CSI arose though the combination of chance and mechanical necessity. How do you know this? Well, we inferred it from the data. And on what was your inference based? It was based on our a priori commitment to explanations based solely on chance and mechanical necessity through which all interpretations of the data must be filtered.

Comments

Barry:
All it would take is even one instance of CSI or IC being observed to arise through chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two. Such an observation would blow the ID project out of the water.
# On another thread there is an ongoing discussion on how to define "information" in such a way that its presence can be unambiguously determined in the produces of Chance and Necessity. For quite good reasons, I think, we have eschewed CSI. But as you have laid out the challenge in CSI terms, can you say how you would apply the calculation to the product of a simulation of OOL?Elizabeth Liddle_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

As to Joseph Thorton. Dr. Behe had an exchange with him in 2009; Excerpt: listen to Professor Thornton (1): “To restore the ancestral conformation by reversing group X, the restrictive effect of the substitutions in group W must first be reversed, as must group Y. Reversal to w and y in the absence of x, however, does nothing to enhance the ancestral function; in most contexts, reversing these mutations substantially impairs both the ancestral and derived functions. Furthermore, the permissive effect of reversing four of the mutations in group W requires pairs of substitutions at interacting sites. Selection for the ancestral function would therefore not be sufficient to drive AncGR2 back to the ancestral states of w and x, because passage through deleterious and/or neutral intermediates would be required; the probability of each required substitution would be low, and the probability of all in combination would be virtually zero.” Behe: 'Let’s quote that last sentence again, with emphasis: “Selection for the ancestral function would therefore not be sufficient … because passage through deleterious and/or neutral intermediates would be required; the probability of each required substitution would be low, and the probability of all in combination would be virtually zero.” If Thornton himself discounts the power of genetic drift when it suits him, why shouldn’t I?' http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-3/ Entire exchange can be accessed here: http://telicthoughts.com/is-behe-right-about-thornton/ further notes: Nature Paper,, Finds Darwinian Processes Lacking - Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function (of a protein to its supposed ancestral form) are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought. (which was 1 in 10^40 for just 2 binding sites) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/nature_paper_finally_reaches_t.htmlbornagain77_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

The fourth dude is Teddy Roosevelt. He is special because he was the first progressive president.tragic mishap_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

ET: Kindly take a look here, and note the track record since April. Notice in particular the biological values. The MG talking point has passed sell-by date months ago; just, the radical evo mat forums have failed to notice. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

I have a question for you then. If you were to land on an alien planet and encounter a structure that, to you, looked designed would you assume it was a representation of the aliens on that planet, without seeing them first?
...
Does Ms. Tanner really believe that someone can look at Mount Rushmore and conclude “obvious design” and that someone else just as reasonably might think, “Oh, not so fast. That could have evolved through eons of rain and wind.” Rubbish.
I have news for you all, the earth is littered with the portraits of aliens carved into rock, unfortunately because we have never seen the aliens first hand we keep mistaking them for natural formations and concocting naturalistic (or as KF would say the evolutionary materialist) just so stories to explain their presence. ;) If only we hadn't been brain washed by the evo mat conspiracy imposed by the priests of the darwinistic majesterium we would be able to see in what direction the warrant to the best explanation lies. Of course, I can't tell you what they look like, but I know them when I see them ;)DrBot_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Uh UP, there are four heads on Mt. Rushmore. -_-tragic mishap_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

By the way ElsieTanner, before you move the goalposts again, what exactly is your claim wrt CSI? Are you saying CSI cannot ever be calculated, period? And who cares if Chance + Necessity might in some alternative universe might be able to generate CSI. The point is that in this one it's a reliable indicator of design. And that remains true until someone comes along and demonstrates otherwise. That's the way science works. See the OP.Mung_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Barry correct. And by the way, that paper has made the rounds here before. After all, they used "state-of'the art" statistical analysis to "ressurrect" and understand the binding activity of ancient organics compounds. Cool huh? - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gpuccio in 2006: I have found, I think, the abstract of the first paper (but I remember I read the full paper, so I will go on looking for it). It should be the following: Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton* Abstract: According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element’s function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system—the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor—evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor’s affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation—recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex. Just to start the discussion, and without entering in detail about the procedure of “using ancestral gene resurrection” and its possible biases, I just ask you: do you really think that an artificial lab work which modifies just two aminoacids, simply altering the affinity of a receptor for very similar ligands, is evidence of anything? What is it showing? That very similar interactions can be slightly modified in what is essentially the same molecule by small modifications? Who has ever denied that? I am sorry, but I must say that Behe is perfectly right here. When we ask for a path, we are asking for a path, not a single (or double) jump from here to almost here. I will be more clear: we need a model for at least two scenarios: 1) A de novo protein gene. See for that my detailed discussion in the relevant thread. De novo protein genes, which bear no recognizable homology to other proteins, are being increasingly recognized. They are an empirical fact, and they must be explained by some model. The length of these genes is conspicous (130 aminoacids in the example discussed on the thread). The search space huge. Where is the traversing apparatus? What form could it take? 2) The transition from a protein with a function to one other with another function, where the functions are distinctly different, and the proteins are too. Let’s say that they present some homology, say 30%, which lets darwinist boast that one is the ancestor of the other. That’s more or less the scenario for some proteins in the flagellum, isn’t it? Well we still have a 70% difference to explain. That’s quite a landscape to traverse, and the same questions as at point 1) apply. You cannot explain away these problems with examples of one or two muations bearing very similar proteins, indeed a same protein with slightly different recognition code. It is obvious hat even a single aminoacid can deeply affect recognition. You must explain different protein folding, different function (not just the same function on slightly different ligands), different protein assembly. That’s the kind of problems ID has always pointed out. Behe is not just “shifting the goalposts”. The goalposts have never been there. One or two aminoacid jumps inside the same island of functionality have never been denied by anyone, either logically or empirically. They are exactly the basic steps which you should use to build your model pathway: they are not the pathway itself. Let’s remember that Behe, in TEOE, places exactly at two coordnated aminoacid mutations the empirical “edge”, according to his reasonings about malaria parasite mutations. You can agree or not, but that is exactly his view. He is not shifting anything. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/chance-law-agency-or-other/#comment-289730Upright BiPed_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

...if you can’t “count” CSI how can you observe it arising though chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two
Don't you just love it when folks come here and want to teach us about CSI? CSI is a way to measure, like Shannon Information. You don't "count" Shannon information in order to quantify "the amount of information." You don't "count" a thermometer to get the temperature.Mung_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Welcome to the design revolution, Barry. I'm literally laughing out loud right now at Mung's #14.material.infantacy_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

I also note this from the article Ms. Tanner quotes from: “How natural selection can drive the evolution of tightly integrated molecular systems – those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts—has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology.” Wait a minute!!! Darwinists have been telling us that the irreducible complexity problem has been solved since shortly after Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” came out in the mid-90’s. Why are these Darwinists telling us in 2006 that the problem has been unsolved? Are the authors of this article prepared to say that all the countless Darwinists who said the problem was solved for 10 years were mistaken or lying?Barry Arrington_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

If you were to land on an alien planet and encounter a structure that, to you, looked designed would you assume it was a representation of the aliens on that planet, without seeing them first?
Yeah Barry, If you landed on an alien planet and saw: http://images.wikia.com/marveldatabase/images/8/82/Mount_Rushmore.jpg ...you would immediately attribute that to chance, or perhaps even chance plus necessity (you don't think those slaves who built the pyramids did so voluntarily do you). Why you would think that was designed unless you knew who washington, lincoln, jefferson, and whoever that fourth dude is.Mung_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

ElsieTanner writes: “Given that what looks designed to you might look as it evolved to somebody else does that not mean that CSI needs to be objectively calculated so it’s appearance can be tracked?” This is a pristine example of what our friend Kairosfocus calls “selective hyperskepticism.” Does Ms. Tanner really believe that someone can look at Mount Rushmore and conclude “obvious design” and that someone else just as reasonably might think, “Oh, not so fast. That could have evolved through eons of rain and wind.” Rubbish. There is a reason Ms. Tanner dodged my question about Mount Rushmore and desperately tried to change the subject. The sheer inanity of her proposition (i.e., CSI does not exist where it cannot be precisely quantified) becomes immediately apparent upon just a moment’s reflection on the question. She knows the answer. Yet, she refused to give it because it utterly undermines her argument from selective hyperskepticism. I personally have no use for trolls like Ms. Tanner. Notice how she pretended to be genuinely interested in engaging with ID. This served only to add mendacity to her trollish behavior. Finally, as has been shown on this site many times, CSI quite often can be precisely quantified. But to deny its existence in a case where it is difficult to do so is sheer fatuousness.Barry Arrington_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

After all, you can’t explore the origin of something until you can quantify it objectively – how will you know it’s appeared unless you can “count” it?
Like temperature.Mung_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

ElsieTanner. Just as I predicted, you dodged the question. Move along.Barry Arrington_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Hey wait a minute, Elsie. In your first post you said that the only way to know the origins of something is if we could count something. Then in you very next post you say that we can make comparisons as well:
I’d say it was only possible if the Aliens know in advance what human faces look like.
So in the space of one post you've managed to get your foot in your mouth. Good Job.Upright BiPed_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

I reject the notion that the CSI in an entire organism would need to be calculated, but rather we could calculate the CSI for ANY SINGLE protein in the system, which is also coded for in the DNA. Could I calculate the CSI for a protein myself? Not at the moment. Although I believe it's been done here before. But if we consider a protein of sequence length 300 (that is, 300 amino acids in the polypeptide) we would be looking at one of 20^300 permutations which account for it. That's roughly one in 10^390, also known as "one over practical infinity."material.infantacy_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

I also found this summary of some work done in 2006: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=746
EUGENE, Ore.—(April 4, 2006)—Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently “irreducibly complex” molecular system. The research was led by Joe Thornton, assistant professor of biology at the University of Oregon’s Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and will be published in the April 7 issue of SCIENCE. How natural selection can drive the evolution of tightly integrated molecular systems – those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts—has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are “irreducibly complex” and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection. “Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism,” said Thornton. “New techniques allow us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions.” Thornton and coworkers used state-of-the-art statistical and molecular methods to unravel the evolution of an elegant example of molecular complexity – the specific partnership of the hormone aldosterone, which regulates behavior and kidney function, along with the receptor protein that allows the body’s cells to respond to the hormone. They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene – which existed more than 450 million years ago, before the first animals with bones appeared on Earth – and characterized its molecular functions. The experiments showed that the receptor had the capacity to respond to aldosterone long before the hormone actually evolved.
Is there a ID refutation of this, as it seems to be solid evidence that IC systems can evolve and did evolve.ElsieTanner_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

I also noticed this in the definition of terms:
(iii) provide a probability and information theory based explicitly formal model for quantifying CSI.
And the OP says:
What is the origin of complex specified information (CSI) and irreducibly complex (IC) mechanisms seen in even the simplest living things?
Yet when I ask "what is the value of CSI in one of these "simplest living things" I get the feeling I've said something wrong? Why? If you can't quantify the CSI in a simple living thing how do you know that there is any at all there? If you have not yet calculated the CSI in such a simple living thing then perhaps that would be a good place to start. Then once the amount of CSI that 'chance' can create is determined (can it create any?) then the answer to if that simple living thing was designed becomes obvious.ElsieTanner_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Barry,
How is that possible?
I'd say it was only possible if the Aliens know in advance what human faces look like.
that the faces carved in the rock are the product of design and cannot be attributed to chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two.
I have a question for you then. If you were to land on an alien planet and encounter a structure that, to you, looked designed would you assume it was a representation of the aliens on that planet, without seeing them first? How can you determine design (i.e. rule out C+N) if you don't' know what processes are operating on that Alien planet in perfect detail? I.E would you see such a structure (that appeared designed to you) and immediately presume that it was a sculpture of an alien face? Why? It seems to me that you can't rule out chance or mechanical necessity in such a case until you have a perfect understanding of the processes operating on that alien planet. Upright,
So the ability to ‘count something’ is the only entailment of the existence of something that can be explored?
I was simply responding to this in the OP
Conversely, CSI and IC are routinely observed to have been produced by intelligent agents.
And
What is the origin of complex specified information (CSI) and irreducibly complex (IC) mechanisms seen in even the simplest living things?
So it seems to me, from what I've read on this thread so far, that CSI is much like obscenity. Impossible to define in advance but "you know it when you see it". As such, I believe the challenge in the OP to be impossible to meet, as if you can't "count" CSI how can you observe it arising though chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two? How will you know when your challenge has been met except in the most subjective of ways? Given that what looks designed to you might look as it evolved to somebody else does that not mean that CSI needs to be objectively calculated so it's appearance can be tracked? How do we know evolution cannot create it if you are unable to "count" it so you know when in increases? If you can't "count" it how do you know natural processes are not increasing it? Perhaps I just need to read more about it, are there any books you can recommend?ElsieTanner_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

The alien was able to count the heads... one-two-three. So there.Upright BiPed_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

ElsieTanner I will answer your question when you answer the following: Imagine an alien comes to earth and lands in front of Mount Rushmore. He looks at the side of the mountain and immediately recognizes that the faces carved in the rock are the product of design and cannot be attributed to chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two. He performed no calculations to determine the “value” of the CSI present in the carving. Yet his design inference is correct? How is that possible? Prediction: You will refuse to answer this question.Barry Arrington_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

After all, you can’t explore the origin of something until you can quantify it objectively – how will you know it’s appeared unless you can “count” it? Really? So the ability to 'count something' is the only entailment of the existence of something that can be explored?Upright BiPed_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

I believe that ID theory should incorporate some design science. Here are a couple of dealing with that: http://design.open.ac.uk/alexiou/papers/cybernetic%20basis%20of%20design_%20Zamenopoulos&Alexiou.pdf http://design.open.ac.uk/alexiou/papers/anticipatory%20view%20of%20design_%20Zamenopoulos&Alexiou.pdfkuartus_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Barry,
What is the origin of complex specified information (CSI) and irreducibly complex (IC) mechanisms seen in even the simplest living things?
I find this very interesting. Would it be possible for you to name "a simple living thing" and tell me the value of CSI present in it, so as to set a benchmark? After all, you can't explore the origin of something until you can quantify it objectively - how will you know it's appeared unless you can "count" it?ElsieTanner_{August 4, 2011
August
08
Aug
4
04
2011
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply