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

Accepting part of their framework may make you a little popular but scientists are looking for one unified theory instead of 2. That was the biggest problem with Darwin's Black Box. ID as an explanation for a couple of cases and NDT for everything else? If you accept NDT as so useful then why not just wait and have faith in Darwin? Edge is so important precisely because it does try to go after more of the whole enchilada. ("The Edge of Evolution makes the case that design is not just needed for the fanciest biological systems, but for almost all of them.") But we still need to look at everything else: fossil record, OOL, embryology, Spetner's NREH, altruism, etc. Everything that limits the scope of NDT helps the case for ID because otherwise evolutionists will stick with Darwin and just extrapolate.ari-freedom_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

PaV (153) "Really. Check this out. You do believe in National Geographic, right? Here’s a quote: “Kathleen Hunt, a biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, said the modern-day horse is ‘merely one twig on a once flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived.’”" I have to wonder if you understand what you read. It DOESN'T mean that horses didn't evolve or that there were no horse intermediates - nothing you've posted even hints at that. What it DOES mean (and was made clear in the Talk Origins site I referenced earlier) is that horse evolution is much more complex than was earlier thought. Essentially there wasn't a simple, straight-line evolution from the earliest equine forms to the modern day horse, there were a number of different branches of the horse family, most of which died out leaving only the modern-day horse family. I strongly advise you to read the Talk Origin website I posetd before. "I mention that RNA involvement is ‘cutting edge’. You reply: Well, this is the first I’ve heard of it. Well, that’s what makes it cutting edge. As to references, why not try a Google search?" Well, YOU are the one who made the assertion and it's up to you to provide the evidence (or at the least the reference on which you are replying). If you think you can make assertions withpout provifing evidence then your assertions can also be dismissed without evidence. "Let me understand: I have to make the prediction, and then also explain the exact way the prediction will come about?" Not necessarily "exact", but at least a rough indication would help. How else do you expect to make a prediction? Coming up with one out of thin air, as opposed to a well thought-out prediction based on scvientific principles, simply doesn't cut it. "I suppose that if I explained it now, and it was later discovered to be exactly as I predicted, then I would receive the Nobel Prize, right?" If your work was original and added significantly to human knowledge then I'd be happy to see you get it. "Well, I’m sure that’s what they were looking for. The question is, what did they find? You’ve just admitted that land animals can become aquatic. Your sticking point earlier was that there were no land animals yet. But we’re dealing with geologic time, where the age of strata might not be known within a million or more years accuracy; and we’re dealing with a boundary between the Devonian and the Carbonferous. So, right at that boundary, are we dealing with an innovation that produced land-animals, one of which quickly went back to fish-like characteristics through a process of adaptation because of the environment; or, are we dealing with straight-line evolution produced by the same environment? Which is it? Can you tell me that unequivocally?" I think you need to read a basic text on the principles of geology and palaeontology, because either you are writing tongue in cheek or you need a basic primer in the subject. This is very clear and simple: I can unequivocally say that at the time Tiktaalik was living, the transition was from sea-to-land. This is because the whole history of the fossil record, from the formation of the earth to then, has no land-dweller forms in it. Consequently the transition must have been from sea-to-land. Now, if you are saying that there was a tiny, tiny inflexion in the fossil record where Tiktaalik was found, and actually an earlier species had transitioned from sea to land, and then migrated back to sea (God knows why because the land represented a great opportunity for new species to expand into without competition, whereas the sea was a highly competitive environment), all in a tiny patch of time and without leaving, as far as we can tell, any fossil evidence at all then that is a different matter. Nonetheless I can STILL say, unequivocally, that Tiktaalik was tarnsitioning from sea-to-land. That is because its primary oxygen gathering apparatus were gills whereas its lungs were rudimentary - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik If it had derived from a land-dweller it would, of necessity, have had true lungs and the gills would, as in modern land-dwellers, have been dispensed with as being an unnecessary and resource sapping expense. "Do you see the logic?" I did. And once the contrary evidence was apparent I saw right through it.Clarence_{January 18, 2008
January
01
Jan
18
18
2008
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

PaV, We are into the same discussion we had before and you again want to impose your own definitions on modern day evolutionary biology while I want to work within what everyone in it is using. Because I think it works for ID. Constantly trashing the modern synthesis makes ID look like a bunch of cranks when it is so obvious that it does something. Concentrate on what it can do and what it cannot do. What was called the modern synthesis as defined in the late 1930's and early 1940's is not the same thing as it is today so don't shoot down the old version. From Wikipedia, "Modern evolutionary synthesis is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, and the evolutionary synthesis." One of the key components of the modern synthesis is that all evolution is gradual and this is the key element to challenge. Yes some evolutionary changes are gradual but the evidence does not support that all the evolutionary changes are gradual and this is what Provine and MacNeill are challenging. You can call the changes that happen, adaptation and I will call it the natural selection process because a subset of the gene pool is selected by environmental pressures. Yes it is adaptation but it also natural selection and yes it is also micro-evolution. And please do not go into the active versus passive nature of selection. We all know what it really means. The process of the modern synthesis is random variation plus selection/genetic drift/ or gene transfer. The second half of this does not create but only refines the gene pool. Behe, Dembski, Wells accept this but go on to discuss the modern synthesis' limitations which all revolve around the creation of new variation which is very, very limited. We constantly see modifications of the gene pool (I know you will quote Provine to say there is no such thing as a gene pool). This is so obviously false as all we have to do is look at humans and see their different shapes, sizes, colors, abilities etc. There is no purple hair because it is not in the gene pool but maybe someday there will be a mutation and we will see someone with purple hair and our gene pool has expanded. Then when no one wants to mate with such an individual, the gene pool contracts. This refinement of the gene pools in terms of creating species variants is clearly said in everything I say so what's the beef. There is also are lots of examples of where the gene pool gets expanded. I don't use your terms but prefer to work within what is the terminology of evolutionary biology and don't bow to your interpretation of Provine who I do not believe has said natural selection does not work because in the reference you gave to me before he discusses how it works. I believe he thinks it has been completely overblown and that I agree. MacNeill who is Provine's associate clearly believes big time that natural selection works and how it affects the gene pool so why not go along with it and the others and then say it has limitations which MacNeill admits. He agreed with the limitations on the modern synthesis while he was here (primarily the gradual assumption) so we have an evolutionary biologist willing to have some agreement and saying the rest is speculation and they don't have the models to account for real novelty in evolution. All on the variation side of the modern synthesis. He lists 47 types of variation creation and then admits they are not able to explain real novelty. Is there is any of this ID contests? No, so let's join the conversation instead of being antagonistic all the time. You want to make arbitrary distinctions without a difference and I do not see where that gets us. Your example of mules, donkeys and horses is interesting but what does it change. I do not know what their mating problems are or why but the answers do not negate anything I propose nor do MacNeill or Davidson's speculations on what is happening genetically with these animals. If it is proven that a rare process takes place with the mating of these animals then so what. It is just added to the list of things we know. I believe you are missing the whole point of the debate by bringing up a couple unusual examples which could very easily be folded into the modern synthesis and still be completely compatible with ID. These naturalistic processes will always be compatible with ID as long as they are true and because they are true they actually strengthen ID. They are absolutely nothing to be afraid of. Evolutionary biologist are 100% wedded to a naturalistic mechanism for variation creation and will change the definition of the modern synthesis to accommodate non gradual changes without blinking an eye. We can agree with their changes and still challenge the ability of their models to create real novelty. All within their paradigm. We are not out to destroy their paradigm, only modify it one or two key areas. I have read Behe's book and Dembski and Well's book and what I get out of both of them is that the modern synthesis works but is limited. What I got from reading Dembski elsewhere on the modern synthesis is that he is not against it philosophically but that it is not a comprehensive theory based on today understanding of biology. What he is against is the BWT or the Blind Watchmaker Thesis. I also take away from this that what most evolutionary biologist call evolution is nothing more than refinement of the gene pool to meet an environmental pressure and this is trivial but by joining them we can discuss it. But I believe that throwing non standard terminology and non relevant examples out all the time in a provocative way prevents an intelligent discussion. For example, a Darwinist come here and brings up the thousands of cichlids species and the 60,000 beetle species and then challenges ID to explain it. Our answer is no problem because ID agrees with the process that probably created all those cichlid and beetle species and they were probably not created by some unknown intelligence. Instead we say it is no big deal and probably represent trivial variation creation and natural selection and this makes sense from an intelligent design perspective because this process is good design basics. We then go on to explain to them what a big deal is and ask if they have any way to explain it and they will be left stuttering with such inanities as deep time or gene duplication or some other speculative process and we can counter with the Edge of Evolution etc. We are having a discussion within their framework and showing its limitations. I am sorry about this long post but I feel strongly that this is the way to go in the ID debate and if anyone has a better suggestion I would like to hear it.jerry_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

PaV: actually according to what I know of ID theory, microevolution DOES lead to macroevolution IF you believe like evolutionists that DNA is fully open to change. But as we are discovering (like in those great links ari posted) DNA has protection built in, which is exactly what ID predicts because macroevolution cannot occur under the theory.Venus Mousetrap_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Greetings! I hope no one has forgotten about biomimetics. There must be tons of colaborative evidence in that field that conforms to ID, since the whole field is based on the premise of ID.Unlettered and Ordinary_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

jerry (145)[for the time being] The modern synthesis is completely compatible with ID (in their books, Behe, Dembski and Wells accept it and use it to illustrate how it can change species over time.)" Jerry, you're failing to distinguish between the modern synthesis and what is termed 'microevolution'. We can observe something like 'microevolution', which I prefer to call 'adaptation'. But the Modern Synthesis, or neo-Darwinism, is a different critter. Your friend Allen MacNeill from Cornell says here that the "modern synthesis is dead." And William Dembski himself started a thread here that was entitled: "Further Indications that neo-Darwinism is dead." So, I would be a little careful who you have saying what. Here's a question: a male donkey mates with a female horse to produce a mule. The mule is phenotypically different from both of its parents. It looks like an intermediate--just what Darwin was looking for. Now, are these phenotypic differences the result of: (a.) point mutations, (b.) genetic drift, (c.) gene transfer? If you answer (c.), then a follow-up question: why do you get a hinny and not a mule when you mate a male horse and female donkey? (That is, the same set of genes are available in both instances.) The only real answer to all of this lies in how chromosomes are pieced together during fertilization. This is roughly along the lines that Allen MacNeill is traveling. This is John Davison's answer as well.PaV_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

PaV #138: Just to clarify things. If you want to build a pentameric structure with C5 symmetry from asymmetric (chiral) monomers as in the case of the Vpu viroporin channel you need to create two protein binding sites per subunit. Furthermore, these two binding sites have to appear simultaneously to yield the pentamer.rna_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Atom: Thank you. Glad you enjoyed reading the dissertation.vjtorley_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Clarence(143): Horse evolution, with intermediates, is well established - check this out: Really. Check this out. You do believe in National Geographic, right? Here's a quote: "Kathleen Hunt, a biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, said the modern-day horse is 'merely one twig on a once flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived.'" I mention that RNA involvement is 'cutting edge'. You reply: Well, this is the first I’ve heard of it. Well, that's what makes it cutting edge. As to references, why not try a Google search? I would appreciate an explanation of how (i.e. the mechanism) by which “the environment” managed to trigger the appropriate RNA changes to get passed from parent to offspring - i.e. how did the environmental influences on the phenotype get translated into the genotype. Let me understand: I have to make the prediction, and then also explain the exact way the prediction will come about? I suppose that if I explained it now, and it was later discovered to be exactly as I predicted, then I would receive the Nobel Prize, right? That’s a very easy one - the whale lineage clearly goes from land-to-sea. And in post #97 you wrote: "That is why the researchers were looking for a transitional form from the acquatic to land-dwelling forms, not the other way around. Do you see the logic there?” Well, I'm sure that's what they were looking for. The question is, what did they find? You've just admitted that land animals can become aquatic. Your sticking point earlier was that there were no land animals yet. But we're dealing with geologic time, where the age of strata might not be known within a million or more years accuracy; and we're dealing with a boundary between the Devonian and the Carbonferous. So, right at that boundary, are we dealing with an innovation that produced land-animals, one of which quickly went back to fish-like characteristics through a process of adaptation because of the environment; or, are we dealing with straight-line evolution produced by the same environment? Which is it? Can you tell me that unequivocally? Do you see the logic?PaV_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

vjtorley, [Off topic] I've been reading through your dissertation and so far it is very good! Almost book like! (If not book length, hehe.) I like your conservative approach. AtomAtom_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

I believe ID makes some important predictions about humanity. I'm assuming here that the Designer is a Cosmic Designer as well as the Author of Life, and that the Designer planned the arrival of each and every race of intelligent beings in the cosmos. Here are my predictions. The last one is a short-term prediction: (1) The following scenarios will never happen: technologically advanced aliens wiping out the human race; the human race wiping out another alien race; an asteroid from space destroying humanity; and the human race wiping itself out. If an intelligent race were wiped out, this would render pointless the whole exercise of creating it. Therefore, presumably the Designer has set up the cosmos in such a way that either we are alone, or if other alien races exist, then we cannot find them, or if we do find them, then we cannot interfere with them. (2) For the same reasons, we can be confident that robots will never be able to take over the world, and that humans will never be able to create a "master race" of superior beings that could turn on us and destroy us. (3) We can likewise be confident that computers will never be able to read or control our thoughts, and that no race of aliens should be able to do this either. If this were possible, it would make moral agency impossible for the race that was being controlled. (4) Man-made global warming should either turn out to be a hoax, or to be a problem with a straightforward technical solution that won't exhaust our resources. Reason: a Cosmic Designer must have foreseen the fact that human beings, in their efforts to stay warm, mass-produce artifacts, travel more quickly and make scientific advances, would make use of the Earth's fossil fuel reserves. Presumably the Designer wanted us to make technological and scientific advances. If the use of fossil fuels resulted in humanity's extinction (or for that matter, a mass extinction of species) then that would indicate a distinct lack of foresight on the Designer's part. However, it may be the case that man-made global warming is real, but a technical solution is close at hand. IF the IPCC's climate predictions are correct, then an ID proponent should expect a major technological breakthrough by 2020 at the latest in fighting global warming.vjtorley_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

this is another interesting example http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7185ari-freedom_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

ari-freedom, thanks for that link. Wow! Self-repairing DNA? How did something like this evolve? Isn't this a case of irreducible complexity? Venus, I was wondering along the same lines that, if every cell contains a copy of the genome, could there be a repair or quality control mechanism in the reproductive systems of animals that uses this redundancy to ensure that any DNA material passed to offsprings is of the highest quality? I mention this because, as a software engineer/designer, I know that various error-correction schemes are used during data copying and/or transmission. I tend to look at reproduction as a form of communication whereby information is transferred from one system to another. Therefore, I would suspect that one of the better places a designer would incorporate a quality control mechanism would be the reproductive system. Is this currently an area of study?Mapou_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

DaveScot said (comment #48) --
There is also the possibility of multiple front loadings over the course of history although I tend to favor just one instance. Existing species can be easily modified with new information by highly transmissable, highly contagious viral vectors which in principle could cause some large and abrubt phenotype changes in a very small number of generations or even just one generation constrained only by physical limitations like a fish not being able to have mice hatch from its eggs.
In the co-evolution of co-dependence where two kinds of organisms -- e.g., bees (or other pollinators) and flowers -- become dependent on each other for survival, the changes in both kinds of organisms would have to simultaneously occur in the same localities. The Darwinists have not even acknowledged that this co-evolution of co-dependence presents special difficulties that would not be present in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g, water, land, air, and climate. On to a different subject -- There are different kinds of "predictions" in science: (1) A positive prediction that something will be observed. Example: the theory of relativity's prediction that starlight would be bent by the sun's gravity in a coming eclipse. If this bending had not been observed, that would have been a big strike against the theory. (2) A prediction of a single possible occurrence (or maybe just a few possible occurrences). Example: It was predicted that a fossil like Tiktaalik might be found in a particular place, and such a fossil was found there. However, failure to find the fossil would not have been a big strike against Darwinism -- such failure could just be attributed to bad luck. (3) A prediction of the likelihood of many occurrences. Example: Darwinism predicted that many transitional fossils would be found, but they have not been found. This is a big strike against Darwinism. (4) A finding that something that was not predicted is consistent with a theory. This is sometimes falsely called a "prediction," but it is more like serendipity. I certainly disagree with the Darwinists' claim that something must make predictions in order to be considered scientific.Larry Fafarman_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Venus Mousetrap something like this? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060927-resurrection.htmlari-freedom_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

hi everyone! this thread is really interesting and I'm sorry I've been away for a couple of days. I was very glad to see DaveScot agrees with me about dna being protected from mutations. People seem to be complaining in this thread that no-one is giving real predictions, but the limitations of microevolution really is testable - we HAVE the dna, after all. In this day of modern genetics there is no reason why scientists can't test for dna protection - we couldn't do it thirty years ago but we can now. I have come up with a list of potential ways to protect dna from mutation. - molecular forcefields (the most likely) - error-correction - natural selection of unwanted mutation (mutants die off) - retroamino introsposon (via pi bond) The problem with the error-correction hypothesis is that it raises the question of what guides the error-correction, and how that itself is coded. This is why I believe that the protection is intrinsic to the molecules, and not the dna. I didn't mention it before, but dna protection also has obvious medical benefits, especially in the field of cancer. We know cancer is caused by mutations in the cell replication program - I'm sure all programmers here have accidentally caused an infinite loop in their code before. It also ties in with what PaV was saying about subroutines - it would be so easy to make a subroutine call itself repeatedly. dna protection, if we could manipulate it, could protect those areas of dna which are vulnerable.Venus Mousetrap_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H, you said "No, I was going to suggest that if it was without function, then some people around here might think that it 'would completely undermine ID." I think that those who hold this here are few and far between and getting less over time. The modern synthesis is completely compatible with ID (in their books, Behe, Dembski and Wells accept it and use it to illustrate how it can change species over time.) In fact it makes good sense for a designer to have designed a system that can be modified by the processes described in the modern synthesis. Few remark that the system of life is exquisitely designed so that it can be modified through natural processes and as such makes life in this world richer as species adapt to changing environments through these naturalistic processes. And we see how it creates hell as genomes or cells get modified to create medical challenges that shorten life or creates misery. The modern synthesis predicts that many of the changes in a genome will lead to junk and thus some useless DNA accumulates over time while most will be culled out. So it is reasonable to expect "real" junk in the genomes. It is a question of how much. So the presence is not a threat to ID. And as more and more of the non coding DNA is found to have function, the stronger the ID position gets. Where ID parts with nearly all who ascribe to the modern synthesis is in its power to create complex functional novelty. That it creates changes that have some functional benefits is without doubt but the changes are not real novelty but slight changes to the genome that may have dramatic effects but alas are only simple changes. Many of the changes actually represent deterioration to the genome which has some current advantage but which represents long term problems for the organisms with these changes. Behe's book, Edge of Evolution, was all about that and I personally believe when more and more genomes get mapped the results will support Behe's conclusions that few species changes/differences are the result of complex functional novelty. In other words the modern synthesis can produce thousand of cichlid species but can it produce bats with wings and sonar navigating systems. The ones that have complex functional novelty will be a challenge to the robustness of the modern synthesis as the mechanism for the origin of all species. This may seem a diversion to your comment but actually flows from what ID accepts and finds reasonable. And as such is the basis for what ID will predict versus what those who hold only to the modern synthesis will predict. There should be much overlap but ID will have a whole set of possible predictions not possible within the modern synthesis because this theory is limited in what could be logically expected by additions to variation in a genome produced by naturalistic methods. But for most biological research today, there is very little that is not compatible with ID since many within ID accept the random variation/selection paradigm as operating to make minor changes to the genome (some of which have dramatic effects especially in the medical area.)jerry_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

DLH #100 Prototype, as in engineers will try something out, then improve it. I suspect that many of the similarities in apes and humans may be viewed this way. (This may mess with some people's theology) The change, does not come about physically, until it has come about in the mind of the engineer. RE: use of evolution, I meant neither micro- nor macro- but rather the type of change thru time that does not require intermediate physical forms, but rather mental constructs that then get made by an engineer. I am taking my thinking from the evolution of the automobile.the wonderer_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

PaV (110): "You’re new to the game. Go check out what Stephen J. Gould has to say about the supposed “horse” lineage." I did - what makes you think he doubted that horses evolved? Horse evolution, with intermediates, is well established - check this out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html "Ah, but you see, Lamarck is making a big comeback." With whom? "They have discovered that RNA can be transmitted from one generation to the next, and the transmitted RNA can contain ‘information’ about how the next generation is to set up certain cell structures. Plants are known to impart information between generations using RNA also. This is cutting-edge stuff." Well, this is the first I've heard of it. Any references? I would appreciate an explanation of how (i.e. the mechanism) by which "the environment" managed to trigger the appropriate RNA changes to get passed from parent to offspring - i.e. how did the environmental influences on the phenotype get translated into the genotype. "You mentioned earlier that there are ‘intermediate forms’ for the whale lineage. Tell me, does the lineage go from land-to-sea, or sea-to-land? Do you see the logic now?" That's a very easy one - the whale lineage clearly goes from land-to-sea. Check this out: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ Do you see why this is? The land-dwelling forms, such as Ambulocetans, were found in strata dating to 50 million years ago, whereas the "true" whale forms such as Basilosaurus didn't appear until much later - 35 to 40 million years ago. As the ancestral, land-dwelling forms were older than the acquatic forms the logic dictates that the transition was land-to-sea. That is the clear logic. I'm not sure what logic you are using, but if this is diffciult I'm happy to discuss further.Clarence_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

the idea (and this follows more from ReMine's message theory than Dembski/Behe) is that ID would expect different things than evolutionists. Evolutionists really wanted most of DNA to be junk so we would predict most DNA would not be junk. Or take IC for example. Evolutionists wanted everything reducibly complex and everything could certainly have been designed that way, but we would predict to find provable IC structures. If life was designed, it would be in a way to make it harder for evolutionists to come up with a simple coherent explanation.ari-freedom_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

Mapou (102), you wrote: "Speaking of chance and necessity, there is a news story today about the discovery of a giant fossilized South American rodent that weighed 1 ton. The explanation given by Darwinists is that the rodent grew to that size in order to defend itself against predators like sabertooth tigers. The reason given is that rodents are not fast runners. My question is, why grow big then? Why not evolve into a fast runner that can elude predators? And if change is random and both outcomes are equally beneficial to survival, why not do both? How does evolution decide which way to go?" The answer to your question is that the there is actually no "decision" at all - merely an outcome. "Decision" inplies some conscious act, either on the part of the rodent or on the part of evolution. But there is no such consciousness, and no such decision. The probable explanation is that slightly larger rodents had a higher probability of surviving attacks by predators, hence had more chance to reproduce so that trait would have carried on for several generations until those particular rodents reached the size they did. It's equally possible that other rodents DID escape by running faster than predators, in which case there would be other species of rodents which were fast runners. Elephants, for example, tend to be safe from lions because of their size (although oddly, some lions in Namibia have very recently taken to group attacks on young elephants) whereas gazelles rely on speed. This often leads to natural "arms races" in prey and predator evolution, which can result in extremes - hence the extreme size of elephants (and rodents, in the case mentioned), and the high speeds of both cheetahs and gazelles. There is no set path for evolution -the outcomes are often matters of luck and chance.Clarence_{January 17, 2008
January
01
Jan
17
17
2008
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

I’ve already anticipated that you will turn around and say that if it’s possible for DNA not to have function, then in what way can you say that it is ‘designed’.
No, I was going to suggest that if it was without function, then some people around here might think that it "would completely undermine ID". BobBob O'H_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

Mentok, I like your thoughts on lateral functionality. Atom, the signature idea is very interesting but I have my doubts. If the designer really wanted to be found that easy, he would just show up in his shiny sky chariot and land on P.Z. Myers' lawn. I think he's the kind that likes to hide himself. I'm sure he left us plenty of clues but, in my opinion, the clues were meant only for the believers, not the deniers.Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Clarence #99: "Mike Behe’s statistical approach is interesting, but I think the jury is still out on whether or not he is right. I note in particular the exchanges he has had with Ian Musgrave and Abbie Smith on other blogs, and his own resultant admission that his “Edge of Evolution” analysis of HIV wasn’t quite right (although he still maintains his general thrust)." I've had personal correspondence with Dr. Behe about this. He has very graciously, IMO, accepted the vpu viroporin formation as an instance of protein-to-protein binding. I think he's being entirely too magnaminous in doing so. But let's point this out: if you're going to change the zero to a 1 in the column showing the number of protein-to-protein bonds formed by HIV over the last 10^20 generations, then you must also change the 10^20 number also. The reason for this is that Dr. Behe was relying on evidence of HIV since the late 70's, whereas the vpu viroporin ensemble developed in the late 1920's. So, does the 10^20 become 10^30 or 10^40 replications? I don't know what the number would be, but it would certainly be larger---and IT TOO would have to be changed. This, of course, doesn't change the force of Dr. Behe's argument one bit. It's like telling someone who tells you that he needs to borrow $6,000,000,000, that he's wrong, that he needs to borrow $6,000,000,000.25 It hardly changes the reality!PaV_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

I've certainly come to the party late it seems, but I have some predictions of my own. I've posted them as a post as my blog. ID predictionsprofessorsmith_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Atom #137: My mind goes along similar lines as yours.PaV_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H #122: Yes, the algorithm idea is a "just-so" story. And, it's falsifiable. But, I carefully pointed out that what is likely happening is something at the quantum level, along the lines of quantum-computing. Until such time as we are able to build sophisticated quantum-computers, I don't think we'll have the technology to begin to test for the kind of scenario I'm suggesting. As to the "junk-DNA", it's entirely possible that DNA without a known function might exist in genomes. I've already anticipated that you will turn around and say that if it's possible for DNA not to have function, then in what way can you say that it is 'designed'. Which gets us back to the Mercedes-Benz and Hillary Clinton. As to other possible 'functions' for "junk-DNA", I've already mentioned one: redundancy. The other possibility is "excess capacity"; i.e., there are latent functions, latent potentialities that await 'triggering'. You'll note that one of the things that I listed as a prediction are environmental 'triggers'. Entire regulatory circuits could be "dormant", if you will, right now, and won't begin to function within the genome unless some triggering sets it off. Just some thoughts.PaV_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Greetings! Atom: I thought of this too but you said it... The Signature of the designer is every where, The Golden ratio, The Fibonacci numbers, and PHI as you mentioned found in living things. I like the math in flowers, these are superb in mathematical design and aesthetic beauty. Definite Signature comming in loud and clear. I think this is not only a very good observation, it's perfect, Mathematics in not only comprehensible, but it really only applies to intelligent agents capable of using it, such as ourselves. I know of no other organism that uses mathematics consciously, deliberately, and purposefully. For that matter, Are there any organisms that possess any of our many capabilities? I suppose that's beside the point. We are more than a bit unnatural, artificial, and perhaphs supernatural, and opposed to nature, too which we find ourselves the lone exception. I would expect The Designer to leave his signature around just to let us know, completely aware we would find them and be mystified and delighted.Unlettered and Ordinary_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Also, don't know if someone said this one... -Signature Information: We could expect an engineer to leave some form of signature or copyright notice on their creation (signing it, if you will.) As related to living things, this signature would need to be*: 1) Robust: Since living things change/mutate, it would need to be able to survive such changes; this rules out superficial markings, as these are the easiest surfaces to change. 2) Universal: It should be applicable to everything from DNA, stars, galaxies, the elements, bacteria, to elephants and humans. This rules out things such as banners or physical symbols/machinery. 3) Non-linguistic or at least reasonably universally understandable: The signature should be understandable by most, ruling out a specific language. What could fit these requirements*? I argue that a mathematical relation could, as it could be encoded in everything from the periodic table to man to galaxies, it is robust (if the relationship is recursive or multi-leveled), and mathematics are the universal language. With this in mind, I think that Phi (also known as the Divine Ratio) is such a signature mark. It shows up EVERYWHERE in nature, as if nature has a reason to favor this particular ratio over others. It can be seen in the ratio of width to run length in DNA, in the spiral shape of galaxies, in the fibonnacci sequence, in the body proportions of man and animals, and lots of other places. It ties together all of nature with a single unity and is robust enough to still be recognized everywhere, even after eons of environmental change. So signature information as backed up by the ubiquitous Phi is one I think that serves as good evidence for ID. (Creationists, a proper subset of ID proponents, did predict this, even before the first century AD.) -Atom *These requirements are borrowed and modified from Walter ReMine, The Biotic Message. I have my own interpretation as to what the signature is, however. (He believes it to be Nested Hierarchy.)Atom_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Mentok and Atom, See the section "Origin of the Carnivorous Plants" in the article: www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/carn.pdf for some examples of "convergence".Granville Sewell_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply