ID’s “predictive prowess”

_{William Dembski

January 14, 2008

The Design of Life}

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

A producer from one of the national talking heads programs is discussing with FTE’s PR firm whether to interview me or Jonathan Wells regarding our new book THE DESIGN OF LIFE. The producer has some reservations about interviewing us:

Hi [snip],

As I’m sure you know, one of the main claims any scientific theory can make is predictive prowess. In other words, if a theory is true, then other things should also be verifiable experimentally, or by research. Before we make a call on your clients, can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true?

Thanks.

[snip]

I have my own list of answers, but I’d like to hear those of this group.

Comments

jerry, Could you please, straightforwardly, say which parts of the modern synthesis must we accept? I'm guessing common descent. And, I'm guessing NS. Is that right?PaV_{January 21, 2008
January
01
Jan
21
21
2008
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

PaV, I will refuse to respond to anything you say after this comment till you get right what I say. You constantly distort what I say to fit a template you have so why bother answering your posts. The best distortions are "I think you buy the microevolution/modern synthesis/variation+NS story “hook, line and sinker.’" "UD seems like an unlikely place for someone who wants to assert, unequivocally, that they know the modern synthesis to be true, and, consequently, this must be incorporated into the ID position." How can you say that after all my posts? These are the silly comments you make all the time that are complete distortions so why bother responding anymore. I will say it point blank that if someone does not accept parts of the modern synthesis and I have outlined which parts they are, then they got their head screwed on wrong and are making ID look foolish.jerry_{January 21, 2008
January
01
Jan
21
21
2008
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

jerry, (186) But it is also a constant source of bad reasoning and science by well intentioned commenters. Who exactly is the judge of whether something is 'good' sicence or 'bad' science? I'm curious. Let me state, unequivocally, that the change in beak size of Darwin's finches has absolutley nothing to do with the modern synthesis, nothing to do with drifting gene pools, nothing to do with 'changing gene frequencies', and everything to do with environmental triggers. OTOH, Jerry, I think you buy the microevolution/modern synthesis/variation+NS story "hook, line and sinker.' One of us is very right; one of us is very wrong. Now, do you want to dogmatically state, ahead of time, that you're correct and that I'm wrong? Frankly, UD seems like an unlikely place for someone who wants to assert, unequivocally, that they know the modern synthesis to be true, and, consequently, this must be incorporated into the ID position.PaV_{January 21, 2008
January
01
Jan
21
21
2008
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

jerry (177): Again, I would consider this micro evolution and trivial even though the freckle genes might have some hypothetical survival implication in some severe climate changes. Why even call freckles 'microevolution'? One of the great problems in this debate is the equivocal nature of the word 'evolution'. The accepted general idea of evolution is that when speaking about evolution it is assumed that evolution contains a 'progressive' component to it. What is 'progressive' about freckles? You suggest that it might be helpful in a certain situation. Well, that's adaptation, not evolution. You'll find that the word 'change' can easily be substituted for the word 'evolution'. The next time you read an article, or even a book, where they use the word evolution, just substitute the word 'change'' for 'evolution' and see whether or not it affects the meaning. I bet it won't. Why not talk about 'evolution' when we're talking about a progressive type of evolution that walks us through the known fossil record and its progression of new forms, and 'adaptive change' when we're talking about these kinds of trivial changes that are probably no more than artifacts arising from a mutational rate set to something other than zero? As to population genetics, what you seem to be missing is that when geneticists talk about changing gene frequencies, this is all assumed, not proven. The way that phenotypic changes have been measured historically is by visually examining specimens. When working with bacteria, this is a different matter. But then think about some of the experiments that are bandied about---do they represent a change from one 'gene' to another, or do they simply represent a change in a 'switch' that precedes the gene and is part of the regulatory process for that gene? IOW, I don't think gene frequencies change at all; expression changes. Think of sickle-cell anemia, does it occur because the gene for hemoglobin disappears, or is it simply a single a.a. error? Well, of course, it's the latter. What's that got to do with "gene frequency"? Remember jerry that you can't rely on scientists to tell you how little they know because they're so absorbed with trying to add to what little they know. Again, I could be totally wrong. But my intuition tells me otherwise, and my intuition has proven quite will over the years. Quicker, faster, genomic sequencing, coupled with greater sophistication in compartative genomics ought to give us the answer. I bet I turn out to be right about this. (Let's also add here that according to Sanford's 'genetic entropy' argument, it's quite possible for genes to be 'lost' or disabled, but that is a different matter. And, of course, we're talking about degradation and not about anything progressive in nature.)PaV_{January 21, 2008
January
01
Jan
21
21
2008
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I never advocate compromise in a debate on truth. But what I see in the ID debate is bad science by many on the ID side and reflexively so. And we will never win the debate with bad science amongst those who are interested in learning and observing the debate. I believe truth will win out and that is the reason that I constantly harp on what I consider some fundamental errors that many make here. This site has been a constant source of learning for me and I assume others and I like it to get even better in the future. But it is also a constant source of bad reasoning and science by well intentioned commenters. I would like to reduce the latter and increase the former.jerry_{January 21, 2008
January
01
Jan
21
21
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

-----Mapou, "I agree with you that the compromisers are really capitulating. However, Christian IDers really have a big problem. Did not Isaiah write “Truly, thou art a God that hideth thyself”? Sure, design is real but the enemy will never accept it. As a Christian, I believe that we need to reevaluate our strategy and change our approach to fighting this war. God must have anticipated this and I reject any notion that that he abandoned us. I am positive that he left us the means to win. We need to find God’s help in the one place where the enemy won’t look, in the scriptures. That’s how we’ll be victorious." Mapou, Let's make a few intellectual distinctions: [1} The Bible declares that God manifests himself in nature and that those who would deny it are without excuse. The passages in Isaiah refer to God's hidden "personality" which would not become evident until the coming of the Messiah. Morally and relationally, God did hide himself from man after the fall. God's "existence," however, is written in nature. [2] I am not suggesting that we should "use Scripture" to win the battle. We should do the science, plain and simple. Where we get the help is a totally different question. That you would conflate these two issues gives me pause. I only raise the issue about Scripture to point out that Miller-style Darwinists, who claim that their Darwinism is compatible with Christianity, are either being illogical or dinengenuous. If they were really serious about their Christianity, they would accept one of its most basic truths---nature is designed. [3] We will win the battle by proving, promoting, and defending the integrity of the design inference, and by proving that SCIENCE DOES NOT NEED RELIGION to find design in nature. Christians, of course, should pray that all of God's truths will someday be acknowledged, both those revealed in Scripture and those revealed in nature. While prayer is a nobler thing that science, it cannot be used as a legitimate substitute. The two realms are compatible but distinct. Each can speak to the same truth from a different perspective, just as faith can believe in a truth that science can often verify. Still, the verification must be done through the use OF UNAIDED REASON in a consistently rigorous way. OTHERWISE, IT HAS NO VALUE. To confuse one's religious beliief with the science of intelligent design is to do violence to both.StephenB_{January 21, 2008
January
01
Jan
21
21
2008
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

StephenB: So we had this scenario: God reveals himself in scripture; God reveals himself in nature. Design is real. I agree with you that the compromisers are really capitulating. However, Christian IDers really have a big problem. Did not Isaiah write "Truly, thou art a God that hideth thyself"? Sure, design is real but the enemy will never accept it. As a Christian, I believe that we need to reevaluate our strategy and change our approach to fighting this war. God must have anticipated this and I reject any notion that that he abandoned us. I am positive that he left us the means to win. We need to find God's help in the one place where the enemy won't look, in the scriptures. That's how we'll be victorious.Mapou_{January 20, 2008
January
01
Jan
20
20
2008
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Jerry: I think I can identify, at least in part, with one of your principles: We ought to reserve our heavy handed polemics for those who are impervious to reason. There are so few on the other side who will risk even the smallest deviation from the "no concession policy" that we ought to be gracious when it happens. As Margaret Thatcher once said about Gorbachev in the middle of the cold war, "I think I can do business with this man." Somehow that overture helped create a climate that made the unthinkable thinkable. Reagan had set the stage beautifully be calling the Soviet Union “the evil empire.” But to have re-introduced that theme at such a delicate time would have destroyed all progress and changed history for the worse. In the heat of battle we sometimes forget that progress does happen sometimes. When someone on the other side shows courage and intellectual integrity, that last thing in the world we should be doing is to immediately demand more from them. Quite the contrary, we should pause and “try to do some business with them,” because that is what they are trying to do with us. Those are not the times to be interjecting irrelevant religious themes and harsh criticisms. At the same time, we must realize that one side is going to win and one side is going to lose. The so-called compromise position offered by Miller and company is not really a compromise. Realize that the term “Theistic Evolution” has been hijacked by neo-Darwinists to mean something that it doesn’t really mean. In its original conception T.E simply meant that God either guided or planted the seeds for a macro-evolutionary process, something that ID can accept with no problem. So we had this scenario: God reveals himself in scripture; God reveals himself in nature. Design is real. Today, the term theistic evolution, Miller style, means this: God reveals himself in scripture; God HIDES himself in nature. Design is illusory. From this perspective, God did not direct evolution at all, nor did he even set up the process. For Miller, everything is contingent and non-teleological---no programming allowed. That is nothing more than Darwinism with God as an irrelevant footnote. These biologists are positing a schizophrenic world view in which a purposeful, mindful God uses a purposeless, mindless process. This they call Theistic evolution even though it is no such thing. It is meant to mislead by evoking images of the old meaning while twisting the words to make them fit the Darwinist paradigm. In an attempt to defend the indefensible, they point to Aquinas, who once pointed out that God can create through contingency. But they twist his words to make it appear that God created “everything” through contingency, which is false. God may have created moon craters and snowflakes through contingency, but he created the DNA molecule through design. Indeed, these dishonest scientists try to use Aquinas, MR. DESIGN HIMSELF, as evidence against design. It doesn’t get any worse than that. I don’t know whether Cornelius Hunter sees through this charade or not, but it doesn’t matter. If he believes that Miller and Co are “Theistic Evolutionists,” that is a problem. So, all I am saying here is that I agree with your strategy for achieving some level of like-mindedness, whenever these opportunities arise. But I also must emphasize that we cannot compromise by integrating God with Darwin. God means design; Darwin means no design. There is no middle ground here and we cannot make intellectual compromises when there are none to be made. There will be no ties or stalemates in this battle; one side will go down.StephenB_{January 20, 2008
January
01
Jan
20
20
2008
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

[...] Comments ari-freedom: you can’t question Darwinian processes without being pounced on by the Darwinists. [...]Nine predictions, if intelligent design is true | Uncommon Descent_{January 20, 2008
January
01
Jan
20
20
2008
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

you can't question Darwinian processes without being pounced on by the Darwinists. Remember, "Science" says evolution is a fact and supporting ID is like denying the unambiguous reality of human caused global warming.ari-freedom_{January 20, 2008
January
01
Jan
20
20
2008
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I am sure that MacNeill's expressed views are in the small minority and so is Provine's. But I bet if there were no creationists or ID out there waiting to pounce on any dissent within the faithful, there would be many others who would express similar concerns. Occasionally we have a thread here about someone who questions Darwinian processes and we make a big deal of it. But they are few and far between. I look at common descent as not part of the paradigm but a conclusion to be accepted or rejected based on the evidence.jerry_{January 20, 2008
January
01
Jan
20
20
2008
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

----DaveScot has written an astoundingly terse and revealing pair of sentences----"Not even close. Nature can’t plan ahead. It is reactive. Intelligence is proactive."StephenB_{January 20, 2008
January
01
Jan
20
20
2008
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

-----Jerry writes, "So I say to Dr. MacNeill: We agree with you and anyone who says that evolutionists espouse rm + ns are promoting a strawman that doesn’t exists. The real paradigm is variation generation + reproductive processes is evolution and ID agrees with this 100%. It is just that no evidence exists that shows that naturalistic means can generate the necessary variation to produce the novelty we see in the natural world." Jerry, have you read John Sanford's book, "Genetic Entropy." He contends that the "The Primary Axiom" for evolution is this: "man is merely the product of random mutations and natural selection. According to him, this is the monolithic view. Behe seems to put the emphasis on common descent, followed by RM+NS. In both cases, the traditional Darwinist model seems to loom large. How sure are you that MacNeill's views are representative of the larger community?StephenB_{January 20, 2008
January
01
Jan
20
20
2008
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

PaV, You said "jerry, it appears where we differ is that when it comes to so-called micro-evolution you think that ‘genes’ are changing and I don’t. " No, I don't think the genes are necessarily changing. We are talking about the gene frequencies within a population's gene pool and there is no reason there has to be different genes for micro evolution to take place, just different frequencies. You could have the same genes but with different population frequencies. Thus, you could have bigger, faster, stronger organisms on the average without adding any new genes to the gene pool and I would consider this micro evolution. It is also possible to have new genes or mutations to alleles such as in the anti-freeze gene in the Antarctic fish or something less significant such as one of your examples for a mutation that created freckles. Again, I would consider this micro evolution and trivial even though the freckle genes might have some hypothetical survival implication in some severe climate changes. You said "I agree that there are various means of variation. But how do we know that these are completely random. " We don't and I don't assume they are but I also don't know anything that says they are not random. If some are not random, then what type of variation is expected? It would be interesting to explore this. Post a thread on this and see where it leads. We need more threads like that. We will start to learn more about gene pools now that more than one entity of a population is having its genome mapped. This is happening big time for humans and we are seeing the human gene pool being developed. It will eventually happen for other species so we can see the extent of gene pools for various species. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5858/1842 and https://www.23andme.com/jerry_{January 19, 2008
January
01
Jan
19
19
2008
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Second, I constantly harp on the fact that the only things that creates novelty is variation and not natural selection. . . . In fact your examples which are all interesting support my point of view that naturalistic processes affect what is in the gene pool and what gets expressed. Jerry, it appears where we differ is that when it comes to so-called microevolution you think that 'genes' are changing and I don't. I agree that there are various means of variation. But how do we know that these are completely random. Why, for example, does recombination occur? Is it simply an accident of nature? I don't see it that way. But, of course, it will be hard to prove whether these variations are 'programmed' or just mere serendipity. But, either way, we know that these mechanisms exist. But when it comes to changing 'genes' and 'drifting gene pools', I see it very differently. We don't necessarily "see" this happening. Inference is more at play than true knowledge here. Instead, I see what 'regulates' the genes as changing, and changing through a combination of built-in genetic mechanisms and environmental triggers. Genes can deteriorate---which is normally what is seen in genetic defects---but it is usually just a single a.a. change. This is, yes, random; and, yes, it can have phenotypic consequences, but is simply a by-product of the overall mutation rate of eukaryotes. (If there are two a.a. changes in critical spots, viability is most likely lost.) When I pointed out that mutation rates of genomes all seem to be about one in one-tenth of the genome length of organisms, I mentioned this because it seems obvious to me that the mutation rate is "set" according to the length of the genome. To me this suggests two things: (1) design, (2) that a certain level of muation is needed at times for the overall survivability of species, which are called to adapt to many different environmental conditions. As to "junk-DNA" and Bob O'H, I'm the very person who pointed out on this blog that an experiment had been done wherein huge blocks of "conserved" junk-DNA had been excised in mice embryos, yet those embryos gave rise to perfectly normal mice. My point to Bob was that just because some "junk-DNA" doesn't have function, you can't go from there to concluding that all of nature is the result of randomness---not that I thought Bob was pushing that point. OTOH, the experiment I brought to the attention of this blog completely demolishes the idea of "selection pressure". It was NS, and the "selection pressure" it exerted, that was touted as the driving force of conserved sequences, with the corollary that highly-conserved sequences must conserve some vital function. Yet, normal mice. The intelligent response to the experiment is the audible gasp that the biolgists gathered to learn about the experiment were heard to make. They understood that it completely undermined the modern synthesis (as does the Netural Theory). Logically, we should conclude that organisms have the power to 'conserve' when they want to, and to allow mutations when they want to. This speaks of organization and design---not random happenstances. But, all of this should get cleared up as science moves (chugs) along. Ciao! Oops! One more thing. In my last post I predicted RNA, in response to the environment, directly or indirectly, would be found to be passed on to the germ line of finches, which, in turn, would be expressed as a protein having an effect on subsequent devlopment. This all suggests that there is some kind of enzyme that permits proteins to be converted back to RNA, a reverse transcriptase for proteins. I wonder if anything like that has been found yet?PaV_{January 19, 2008
January
01
Jan
19
19
2008
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

PaV, Again you come up with an intriguing example which I do not think changes anything. Something has happened on the genetic side which is not clear. That does not destroy the paradigm just represents another modification of the genetic process that can easily be incorporated into future changes of the paradigm. I do not follow everything you are saying but essentially what you are saying is that some of the things that get expressed are not novelty but alternatives and these alternatives were in the gene pool or were part of the genome. And these differential expressions are not due to reproductive variations in the gene pool but to some environmental factor. Interesting but again it changes nothing. I might have the interpretation slightly wrong but I bet the correct interpretation still does not change anything because it is all on the genetic side. You said "NS is no more than death. Does death create/produce/develop diversity of life?" Two things: First, I am not sure I agree with this interpretation of natural selection and we have long discussions about just what natural selection is. Natural selection generally winnows the gene pool but this is not the same as death. Second, I constantly harp on the fact that the only things that creates novelty is variation and not natural selection. Natural selections only acts on what is in the gene pool of the population and presented to the environment and leads to differences in species variants based on environmental pressures. This is pretty clear in the real world. However, the process is limited in what will eventually appear and over time keeps winnowing down the gene pool and the possible alternatives available to the natural selection process. If somehow the gene pool expands and this expansion contains real novelty, then the natural selection process might lead to differential increases in this novelty in the gene pool if it affects differential reproduction and survival. How often do I have to say this. And by the way there are lots of predictions for ID here that are in sync with Behe's Edge of Evolution premise. Behe has indicated that research that will support ID is research into organisms that have large reproduction events and no novelty. No, I am not burnt out on this because I believe this represents a major problem for many here and elsewhere who back ID. I happen to think that many who espouse ID do so with unclear ideas as to what is the total picture. Not that I understand everything but there are definitely naturalistic processes that clearly change things in the gene pools over time and to deny these processes makes ID people look like fools. Lets get rid of the foolish ideas that many ID people have and focus on the real issues. Also my address was to Bob O'H about junk DNA and trying to clarify his image of what ID proposes. You saw the post and renewed the debate from a couple weeks ago so I answered you as best I can. I will continue to bring up the points I make every time it seems appropriate. So far they get ignored and you are the only one who challenges what I am saying and as far as I can see your examples do not bring up anything that contradicts my basic premise. In fact your examples which are all interesting support my point of view that naturalistic processes affect what is in the gene pool and what gets expressed. For this I am appreciative but which I also find ironic since you keep fighting me.jerry_{January 19, 2008
January
01
Jan
19
19
2008
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

jerry, We're making predictions here. Let me take up the case of Darwin's finces. I have stated before that there is no way that population genetics can explain the very rapid beak size changes that have taken place. Here's something from a 2004 report in Science about the Galapagos finch beak development: We have identified variation in the level and timing of Bmp4 expression that correlates with variation in beak morphology in Darwin’s finch species. We are tempted to speculate that differences in the cis-regulatory elements of Bmp4 may underlie the distinct expression patterns, although alternatively they could be explained by differences in the timing or amounts of upstream inductive factors or differences in the transduction of such signals. Two such potential upstream signals are Sonic hedgehog (Shh) and Fibroblast growth factor 8 (Fgf8), which are expressed in the beak epithelium. Isn't it clear that BMP4 is principally involved with the difference in beak sizes, and that other proteins coming from other genes are involved? Here's my prediction: It will be found that some environmental/metabolic trigger is responsible for the changed regulatory processes leading to the different beak sizes. Further, based on the something Craig Ventner said in the transcript that Paul Nelson linked to, where Ventner is saying that they can manufacture DNA's that are like different operating systems, and based on what I've said earlier in this thread about RNA, I believe that the environmental trigger will prove to be a RNA sequence that is passed onto the germ line and which is then translated into a protein that interferes with the regulatory/developmental program for the finches. (Interestingly, this process combines elements of Lamarck's theory of "acquired characteristics" and Darwin's theory of "panspermia", and would thus provide a reason why both men came up with their different, and incomplete, understandings of evolution.) I'm more than willing to stand by this prediction. Now, tell me, how is variation + NS involved in such a process? As to NS: Provine has said that NS does nothing. Here's an analogy. The Saturn rocket engine was developed to get man to the moon. Earlier rocket egnine designs didn't provide sufficient thrust to lift the LEM into orbit. They weren't good enough. They were tested and found insufficient. They wer rejected. They stopped being made. They "died off". Now, should we say that the "moon" created the Saturn rocket engine? NS is no more than death. Does death create/produce/develop diversity of life? P.S. I'm a little burnt out on all this; how about you?PaV_{January 19, 2008
January
01
Jan
19
19
2008
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

PaV, Here is a quote from Allen MacNeill's blog. "Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design Theory ("IDers") are fond of erecting a strawman in place of evolutionary theory, one that they can then dismantle and point to as "proof" that their "theories" are superior. Perhaps the most egregious such strawman is encapsulated in the phrase "RM & NS". Short for "random mutation and natural selection", RM & NS is held up by creationists and IDers as the core of evolutionary biology, and are then attacked as insufficient to explain the diversity of life and (in the case of some IDers) its origin and evolution as well. Evolutionary biologists know that this is a classical "strawman" argument, because we know that evolution is not simply reducible to "random mutation and natural selection" alone. Indeed, Darwin himself proposed that natural selection was the best explanation for the origin of adaptations, and that natural selection itself was an outcome that necessarily arises from three prerequisites: • variation (between individuals in populations), • inheritance (of traits from parents to offspring), and • fecundity (reproduction resulting in more offspring than necessary for replacement). Given these prerequisites, some individuals survive and reproduce more often than others, and hence their characteristics become more common in their populations over time. As I have already pointed out in an earlier post, the real creative factor in evolution isn't natural selection per se, it's the source(s) of variation that natural selection "preserves" from generation to generation. According to the creationists and IDers, the only source of such variation is "random mutations", and so there simply isn't enough variation to provide the raw material for evolutionary change." It is interesting that MacNeill claims the ID people are promoting a strawman when in fact his post is the real strawman. MacNeill doesn't post too often and this is from October. He then goes on to list the 47 means of variation creation. But when here admitted there were no models yet to explain the real novelty that appeared in the fossil record or in nature. So I say to Dr. MacNeill: We agree with you and anyone who says that evolutionists espouse rm + ns are promoting a strawman that doesn't exists. The real paradigm is variation generation + reproductive processes is evolution and ID agrees with this 100%. It is just that no evidence exists that shows that naturalistic means can generate the necessary variation to produce the novelty we see in the natural world.jerry_{January 19, 2008
January
01
Jan
19
19
2008
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

PaV, You said "Darwinism says that what is random, when extrapolated, results in what ‘appears’ to be ‘designed’. I say that what is designed , when extrapolated, results in what ‘appears’ to be ‘random’. Which side of this do you prefer?" I am not sure what this is supposed to mean in this debate you and I have been having because it reminds me of the theistic evolutionist's position who claim that the whole process looks random but is really controlled by God. I have no problem with this philosophically but the evidence points elsewhere. Any way I believe what looks like it was designed, was designed. That is where I believe the evidence points. But again I do not know what this has to do with the variation/genetics discussion.jerry_{January 19, 2008
January
01
Jan
19
19
2008
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

jerry, Darwinism says that what is random, when extrapolated, results in what 'appears' to be 'designed'. I say that what is designed , when extrapolated, results in what 'appears' to be 'random'. Which side of this do you prefer?PaV_{January 19, 2008
January
01
Jan
19
19
2008
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

magnan In other words, the claim is that Nature can act as a very accomplished design-mimic to the extent that the two can’t be distinguished from each other in the resulting biological system Not even close. Nature can't plan ahead. It is reactive. Intelligence is proactive.DaveScot_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

PaV, Nothing you have said changes my mind. Genetics is an interesting side show in the whole evolution debate and while all your examples are intriguing they have nothing to do with the evolution debate except to prove that whatever mechanisms for genetic change there are, does not produce novelty. So the mice are the same with different number of chromosomes. How does that affect the debate? This just makes the ID case easier as it is an example of new species with no new characteristics. Again supporting Behe's Edge of Evolution. Rearrangements of the genome is interesting but in reality has nothing to do with the over all debate, which is the origin of novelty. The modern synthesis will be adjusted a little to accommodate your examples just as it has been adjusted several times since the 1940's to accommodate new information. The basic premise on the genetic side is still the same, just with a lot more options on how species rearrange the chromosomes during reproduction. The real issue was and still is what is on the chromosomes as they are mixed during reproduction. So not every thing falls into the nice neat scheme of distributing genes for all reproduction events as people envisioned. Again this is interesting but changes nothing as far as I can see. One interesting effect is that if some reproductive anomaly created a variant with different number of chromosomes that cannot inter breed then in effect it created a founder effect without any geographical separation. It would be interesting to understand what happened to create enough of a population with the different number of chromosomes so they could inter breed. However, what is always the issue is the other side of the process and that is the origin of variation. That is the only real Achilles heal of the modern synthesis and the only place the debate should be taking place. I have seen nothing yet to change my mind on this. Unless someone can give an example where novelty was created by shuffling genes during reproduction by whatever means it happens. They may discover this some day and if it does happen, we all should sit up and pay close attention. If the modern synthesis is dead, it is not because of changes on the genetic side but on the variation side. If MacNeill makes his claim based on the genetics, then it is a false claim that won't go very far. Evolutionary biology will just rewrite the specs for the modern synthesis a little. However, I had the impression that he was making it because of the lack of any evidence on the variation side which is why he brought up the 47 mechanisms of variation. He then said they have no models yet that would accommodate the origin of novelty. If only they would say that in the textbooks. They cannot re-write the specs on the variation side without a lot of consternation. Though many are trying such as Schwartz and Shapiro and others.jerry_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

jerry: Allen MacNeill, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell, says that the Modern Synthesis is dead. Isn't that what I'm saying? Is MacNeill a kook? Since you likely haven't studied population genetics much, you don't know the flimsy nature of its foundation. All their talk about "alleles", which is later translated into "genes", is all nice talk. But that's all it is. You have morphological changes that follow certain genetic laws: this is Mendelism, not Darwinism. In fact, Mendelism destroyed Darwinism. It took R.A. Fisher, and lots of in-breding and cross-breeding experiments, to salvage what eventually came to be know as the Modern Synthesis. As greater genetic detail has come about, this synthesis has been under attack. I find myself convinced that what passes for the modern synthesis is not anything at all like what is out there in nature. This is just now being discovered. On the link to MacNeill's blog, you'll find an article in which six different species of mice, on the same island, with the same climate have "evolved" from the native stock of mice brought over by the Portuguese 500 years ago. The original mice species had 40 chromosomes. Now there is only 1 species with 40, and all the others have between 22 and 30 chromosomes. It's obvious that chromosomal fusion has occurred. From this fusion, new species have developed. But this has nothing to do with how population genetics is structured. These chromosomal rearrangements/fusions don't seem to have added, or subtracted, any genetic material. It has simply been re-arranged. The species appear not to be able to form hybrids. Richard Goldschmidt, in 1940, said that this must be how different species arise. There is no "gradualism" involved here. Again, please separate the Modern Synthesis from so-called 'microevolution'. We've entered a whole new era of genetics and population genetics. Most everything will have to be re-thought. The ultimate answer will likely turn out to be that there is an entire cellular mechanism that directs the way in which chromosomes are put together. Mendel stumbled on to some of its laws. But there is much more left to be discovered, and it will only be discovered as laboratory techniques become more and more sophisticated, as computers become more powerful and as search mechanisms follow suit, and as whole genome determinations become cheaper and quicker. But enough is known now by scientists like MacNeill to say good-bye to the 'modern synthesis'. MacNeill talks about the 'evolutionary synthesis'. We'll just have to wait and see. Will it turn out to involve random processes? Very likely. Does that mean that Darwin was right? No. Does that mean that Design wasn't involved? No. But, whatever it turns out to be, it won't be what we now know as the 'modern synthesis'.PaV_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Here are the principles that I am thinking about: 1) life is cooperative, not competitive 2) most observed genetic change is neutral or slightly degenerative and not selected for/against 3) NREH as an explanation for microevolution, not rm/ns. organisms can adapt by mutating on purpose in response to an environmental cue. They could cripple functionality in order to get out of a jam. Pav gave an example "But what does the bacteria do when it can’t find glucose? It starts mutating at a higher rate; and not only that, but in the exact area of its genome where it needs to change in order begin to metabolize galactose." Sounds like intentional crippling to me 4) speciation can be sympatric (new species are created within a single population) and also a result of adaptive mutationari-freedom_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Wells's inferences do seem to lead to some solid ID predictions. Unfortunately, like with all ID predictions, Darwinism being non falsifiable is always claimed to make the same predictions. In other words, the claim is that Nature can act as a very accomplished design-mimic to the extent that the two can't be distinguished from each other in the resulting biological system.magnan_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Something that should certainly be on the list, from one of the leading ID experimenters and researchers in the world, Jonathan Wells. In a 2005 paper ("Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force?" Rivista di Biologia 98(1), 2005: 71-95), he makes the ID-based inference that centrioles are microscopic turbines:
Centrioles consist of nine microtubule triplets arranged like the blades of a tiny turbine. Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines. Orthogonally oriented centriolar turbines could generate oscillations in spindle microtubules that resemble the motion produced by a laboratory vortexer. The result would be a microtubule-mediated ejection force tending to move chromosomes away from the spindle axis and the poles.
From this ID hypothesis, several solid, testable predictions follow:
A. It predicts that spindle microtubules in animal cells begin to oscillate at the beginning of prometaphase, and that those oscillations rapidly accelerate until metaphase. B. It predicts that the centriole contains a helical pump powered by dynein molecules located in the inner wall of its lumen. C. It predicts that the polar ejection force is regulated, at least in part, by intracellular calcium concentration.
These are exactly the sort of solid, testable predictions that know-nothing critics of ID are always demanding -- and we got 'em! And in a peer-reviewed journal, no less!! Surely this must be on Prof. Dembski's list -- as I'm sure we're going to be able to discover for ourselves soon (hint, hint, hint)! Peace, Zoe.PlatosPlaything_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Jerry wrote: If you are going to dismiss the modern synthesis wholesale then you better have a theory that embraces those elements of the modern synthesis that work. I just do not believe it is a complete house of cards. It has one major weakness and my point is to go after that and that alone. The evidence is on our side. But if you are going to say that nothing works then you will be the kook tilting at the windmills. I think I agree with this. If the modern synthesis was completely wrong, it would not have lasted this long, even among atheists. The great attraction of all bad theories and dogmas is that they are partially correct. This goes for all of science, not just evolutionary biology. Physics will turn out to be just as defective as evolutionary biology but that does not mean that it is all nonsense.Mapou_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

PaV, You see I understand everything you say but I disagree on how to argue it. Not from the outside but from within. Once you are arguing from within you can take pop shots here and there and raise some doubts. There are two sides of the modern synthesis. Separate the two and then discuss each on its merits. I am not knowledgeable of all the side issues in genetics but leave that to the geneticists to fight out. How freckles appear is not an important issue. There is not much there for ID to care about except for two very important issues: 1. the speed with which something can permeate a population, and 2. the nature of the genomes of related species and whether they show any evidence of novelty or just devolution from a much larger gene pool. That is why I mentioned the thousands of cichlid and beetle species. The genetics of their origin would be another verification of Behe's Edge of Evolution which right not rest on single cell organisms and viruses. There is not quite the reproductive events but the total is quite large and without any novelty would be a great next step for the Edge of Evolution. And things like this are currently being done within the framework of current evolutionary biology. If you are going to dismiss the modern synthesis wholesale then you better have a theory that embraces those elements of the modern synthesis that work. I just do not believe it is a complete house of cards. It has one major weakness and my point is to go after that and that alone. The evidence is on our side. But if you are going to say that nothing works then you will be the kook tilting at the windmills.jerry_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Jerry, Yes, this is the same go-round as last time. And we don't need to do that again. But I think you need to distinguish between so-called microevolution, which I prefer to call adaptation, and the modern synthesis. Population genetics, for the most part, looks to be a big waste of time; and, of course, the modern synthesis is based upon it. They talk about an 'allele'. This hardly has any meaning. The whole of population genetics needs a more rigorous underpinning. Modern genomic assay techniques will likely give it the rigor it needs. But, of course, this will very likely only serve to highlight the ways in which what is considered "microevolution' is a limited concept. Behe very easily compliments Darwin for the insight he provided biologists. He is willing to accept the formulation, RM+NS, as a meaningful biological reality. What do we see as a result of RM+NS? What does Behe see that impresses him? He sees bacteria that cannot live on galactose giving rise to a bacteria that can. He sees the malarial parasite developing resistance to chloroquine. But what does the bacteria do when it can't find glucose? It starts mutating at a higher rate; and not only that, but in the exact area of its genome where it needs to change in order begin to metabolize galactose. Should we just say, "Oh, look at that. The bacteria just happened---all by chance---to mutate at a higher rate in the exact are needed"? Well, personally, I'm more than a little suspicious of such a thing happening by chance. In the case of the malarial parasite, yes, it changed; but the changes were not beneficial to the organism, but harmful. And in both instances, do we really want to call such minor changes "evolution"? Certainly "adaptation seems a more fitting word. I think Behe just graciously concedes ground to the Darwinistas. I find I cannot be that gracious. I have thalassemia. Analyze it according to population genetics. Have I really "evolved"? Freckles and red hair come from a mutation in the GC1R gene. Have the Irish "evolved"? These questions, if thought through, make the tenets of the modern synthesis look silly. I hope you make a genuine effort to think them through more carefully.PaV_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

ari-freedom: Everything that limits the scope of NDT helps the case for ID because otherwise evolutionists will stick with Darwin and just extrapolate. Right. In my opinion, evolutionists (the atheists among them) have only one agenda: they want to destroy religion and the concept of God, especially the Christian God. To explain away the fallacies of NDT on earth, they would rather postulate that an alien race that evolved elsewhere came and messed with evolution rather than accept that God did it. Theirs is a hateful agenda directed at Christians more than anything else. If Christians did not believe in a God, evolutionists would not be atheists. It's all politics and human nature. The reasons for the hatred are many but that's a different story.Mapou_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply