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

mentok, Good point. I believe Convergence is the general term, and yes, we see "theme and variation" in artistic and engineered works. It is hard to explain from a NDE perspective, but makes sense from a Design perspective.Atom_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

I haven't read all the comments, so if someone already said this... One prediction that stands out for is the prediction that if species are designed, then it is highly likely that we should see repeating design structure and functionality across the board, even when there are no "evolutionary relationships" between species. One example is vision. A designer once having figured out how to make vision possible and stable, would more then likely use that design or a variant of that design over and over because vision is extremely complex. Evolution cannot adequately explain why various species supposedly evolve similar organs and forms without any evolutionary relationship between the species. If mutation is the origin of novel organs and limbs etc, then why does mutation seem to create similar organs and limbs in species without any evolutionary relationship between them? Not only are we expected to believe that random mutation can build computer coded nanotechnology (far surpassing anything we can design, for example cold fusion in plants) as well as flight technology superior to anything we can design, swimming technology superior to anything we can design, and on and on, but we are also expected to believe that random mutation can build the same type of technology over and over.mentok_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Q, in my non-expert opinion, the existence of unexpressed genes falsifies Darwinian evolution. The reason is that, since NS can only discriminate against expressed genes, it cannot get rid of bad unexpressed genes from a population. It follows that, since random mutation is given as the primary mechanism of speciation, over millions of years, the number of bad unexpressed genes due to mutation should accumulate uncontrollably. Is this observed? Looking at it from the ID side in which RM seems to be given almost no evolutionary role, an intelligent designer would have no reason to keep bad genes around. This is true for the same reason that a software engineer has no desire to conserve bad code. Therefore, I believe that, in contrast to Darwinian evolution, ID predicts that very few bad unexpressed genes should exist in a complex genome. Note that I am speaking for myself. I am not yet well versed in the "official" ID theory to know what it actually says on the matter. I'm learning slowly, time permitting.Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Mapou in, 131, said "Sorry, I can’t go along with that. I see no way for natural selection to get rid of bad unexpressed genes from a population. " Thanks for adding to your previous comments. I can agree with your comment. Mapou also said "An example might be an unexpressed gene that would cause your brain to become disconnected from your spinal cord if it became active." I know I don't want my brain to disconnect from my spinal cord when it becomes active! I uses my brain at least a few times a day. :-) puns - the best form of low humor. Back on track: It sounds like an interesting investigation. If such genes are found, what predictions would ID make about those genes that would allow testable discrimination between front-loading and neutral mutations that occured long ago?Q_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

I wrote:
The problem I have with this is that, since mutations are said to be random, there should be millions of mostly deleterious but unexpressed genes within complex genomes.
Q replied:
Except, that according to how natural selection is argued, those millions of deleterious mutations that are unusable in any fitness landscape would most likely be removed if they were ever expressed.
Sorry, I can’t go along with that. I see no way for natural selection to get rid of bad unexpressed genes from a population. If such a gene suddenly became active in an individual, NS would only get rid of the individual with the expressed gene. The others would continue with their bad unexpressed genes unaffected. Q:
I’m not sure what a “deleterious but unexpressed” gene is, unless you mean it is neutral for one environment, and deleterious for another. Does ID make a claim about such an event? It seems to be contrary to inferrable design principles.
An example might be an unexpressed gene that would cause your brain to become disconnected from your spinal cord if it became active.Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

As for predictions, I made this comment here: "So you want other applications that would require acceptance of ID? How about designer drugs that take into account the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms predicted by ID? ... What one needs to know to do that: a) A drug and how the drug breaks the bacteria or virus b) All possible stepwise evolutionary pathways for developing resistance to that drug (potentially the most difficult aspect) c) How fast on average the drug kills the virus or bacteria d) Rate of replication/estimated limits of Darwinian mechanisms http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152725 Short version is that they've identified the host proteins required by HIV. Perhaps Behe's work could be applied to this line of research. How? Several hundred of these genes might make good drug targets, since they can reduce HIV infection without killing the host cell. Blocking 28 of these genes could even prevent the formation of functional viruses (obviously the preferred scenario). HIV is dependent on its host for the functionality of parts of the nuclear pore, RNA transcription machinery, Golgi complex, and controls for proteins on the cell surface. Now first note my previous comment where I quote Behe's discussion of HIV. As parts of the host genome, these genes do not possess the replication rates nor the selective pressures that allow HIV to rapidly evolve around therapies. The virus could still evolve to be less dependent on these specific genes but, given the fundamental nature of the host proteins required to sustain life, this seems fairly unlikely. In fact, if there is a particular host gene that plays a critical function for HIV I say researchers should examine it to see what sort of modifications would be required for HIV to work around it. If they are beyond Behe's edge then that should be the primary target for designer drugs. Still...as Behe pointed out in his book (in regards to malaria) this seems to be an indirect way to attacking the problem. Perhaps there is a way to modify the host's immune system or something else. Using the trench warfare analogy, why not build a defensive fortified wall instead of blowing up a bridge?Patrick_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

The edge of evolution not specific enough? We should be able to design antibiotics that bacteria will never be able to evolve resistance to. This would save many lives.ari-freedom_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

It's now two days since Professor Dembski alerted us to the list of predictions he has compiled. I'm beginning to think he never meant to share them with us! I'm enjoying this discussion - and impressed, as ever, by the knowledge people bring here. But many of the predictions are a little wooly, along the lines of "If naturalism is disproved/if God is back in control of things, then the following would ensue." (As a pagan ID proponent, I have to say that if the gods are back on top, as I believe they are, some of you had better watch your butts - Zeus can get a little itchy with that thunderbolt :-) ). These predictions, while interesting, are not specific consequences of the ID-theory - consequences that might, for instance, immediately redirect the research of lab-scientists. This is what we need to know, and we need to hear it from someone who has worked deeply in the highly technical areas of ID. That person is Dr Dembski. So I don't think I can be alone in wondering when Prof. Dembski is going to share this enormously important document with the world. Did Einstein hang back about the perihelion of Mercury, or the bending of light around the sun's disk? No, he was quite up-front about these concrete predictions. The Prof. is being falsely modest if he thinks he's one bit less of a revolutionary than Einstein! So let's have those predictions. Peace - Zoe.PlatosPlaything_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

beancan5000:
Sword thrusts of Scientific Theory & Opinion will not win, only the Word of God which is sharper than any 2-edged sword.
Ain't that the truth?
To name “The Designer” would then start another round of religious debate of who is the true God.
Yeah. There is also the legal and cultural tradition in western societies regarding the separation of church and state. To name a designer would make it inadmissible in public education. ID advocates seem to want to avoid this at all costs. Personally, being an unapologetic Christian, I have no qualms about Christianity becoming the victorious religion after all is said and done. If our God was the designer, then we should rely on him, period. We have nothing to fear. Given what I now know about the sophisticated use of metaphors in the Bible to hide scientific secrets, there is no question in my mind that we will win indeed this battle. And we will win decisively with great fanfare. However, we will not do so the way we’re currently going about it. In fact, I would say that we've been losing big time with our current strategy.Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

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).
"Resultant admission"? He wasn't aware of this information when writing the book. That's it...where's the "admission"? And if a revision to the book is released there'd be no issue with including this example since it would have no effect on the rest of the book. On page 138 of Dr. Behe’s Edge of evolution:
As one study put it “Each and Every possible single-point mutation occurs between 10^4 and 10^5 times per day in an HIV-infected individual.” (HIV population dynamics in vivo Collin J.M., 1995). Every double point mutation, where two amino acids are changed simultaneously, in each person once a day. (This means a chloroquine-type resistance mutation-where two particular amino acids had to appear before there was a net beneficial effect-would occur in each aids patient every day. Not that’s mutational firepower!) In fact, just about every possible combination of up to six point mutations would be expected to have occurred in an HIV particle somewhere in the world in the past several decades-double the number that could occur in the slower mutating P. falciparum. In addition to all those point mutations, enormous numbers of insertions, deletions, duplications and other sorts of mutations would occur as well. An exactly what has all that evolution of HIV wrought? Very little. Athough news stories rightly emphsize the ability of HIV to quickly develop resistance, and although massive publicity makes HIV seem to the public to be an evolutionary powerhouse, on a functional biochemical level the virus has been a complete stick_in_the_mud. Over the years its DNA sequence has certainly changed. HIV has killed millions of people, fended off the human immune system, and become resistant to whatever humanity could throw at it. Yet through all that, there have been no significant basic biochemical changes in the virus at all…
Smith herself briefly came onto UD. Short version is that assuming you accept the assumptions surrounding Smith's hypothetical scenario (which many on UD did not) this example still falls in line with the main points of EoE. In fact, destructive modifications like passive leaky pores (a foreign protein degrading the integrity of HIV’s membrane) would provide yet another example for his trench warfare analogy. So why call it an "admission" when the example only strengthens the premise of the book? I made this point back then:
1. A bundle of assumptions seems to be substituted for hard data. Reconstructing a speculative Darwinian pathway is not hard data. It would be best to stick to observed evolution known to have been caused by unguided Darwinian processes rather than perceived/inferred evolution. 2. Behe only made an ESTIMATE for a generalized “edge of evolution” that can apply in all circumstances. I don’t see why this “edge” could be expanded a bit further under fortunate circumstances. Obviously I’m doubtful observation will expand this “edge” enough to save Darwinism but if there is a minor expansion everyone (especially Darwinists) needs to keep in mind that potentiality won’t hurt ID. So the current estimate need not be defended overly much by ID proponents. I for one will say right now that I think the estimate too low.
When I say “estimate” I only mean that although everything was based upon real observations the derived edge/limit of evolution is not a hard limit in that under certain conditions Darwinian processes “might” be capable of a bit more. This is an assumption on my part, but as we gather more evidence over the years I’m assuming we’ll derive a more accurate "generalized" limit that may be slightly higher than what is currently given. I also would not want to be associated with people like Ms. Smith. Let’s just say that people who are respected over at PT like Abbie Smith have wished horrific deaths on public figures in “interesting” fashions…among other lovely statements.Patrick_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Mapau, in 122, mentions "The problem I have with this is that, since mutations are said to be random, there should be millions of mostly deleterious but unexpressed genes within complex genomes." Except, that according to how natural selection is argued, those millions of deleterious mutations that are unusable in any fitness landscape would most likely be removed if they were ever expressed. I'm not sure what a "deleterious but unexpressed" gene is, unless you mean it is neutral for one environment, and deleterious for another. Does ID make a claim about such an event? It seems to be contrary to inferrable design principles.Q_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

(post #13 Mapou:) I think we are doing ourselves a great disservice by focusing on the design while ignoring the designer... They have impregnable fortresses and giants in their midst. Mapou, I agree with you completely. This impregnable fortress you speak of is just one Principality, a Power of Darkness. Tearing down this stronghold of the enemy will not occur except by spiritual means. Sword thrusts of Scientific Theory & Opinion will not win, only the Word of God which is sharper than any 2-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12). Perhaps the reason ID shies away from naming "The Designer" is because to Muslims it is Allah as revealed by Mohammad, Jesus Christ (who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature) to the Christians, Gd to the Jews, and of course many others. To name "The Designer" would then start another round of religious debate of who is the true God.beancan5000_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Q:
That could be the right explanation. But, it might also be argued that it was a neutral mutation that occurred long ago, and just now found a fitness landscape in which it would be expressed.
Interesting. The problem I have with this is that, since mutations are said to be random, there should be millions of mostly deleterious but unexpressed genes within complex genomes. By deleterious I mean that they should be unusable in any "fitness landscape". Is this observed?Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

PaV - 1. Thank you for the just so story about algorithms. How will you test this speculation? 2. Whether junk DNA is designed or not is not of direct relevance to whether it has a function or not. I'm asking about whether you are claiming that it all has a function. Your comment seems to suggest that you're saying that some junk DNA might not have a function. You then state that there's nothing to say a priori about the correlation between regulation and junk DNA. If that is so, then I assume that you are saying that junk DNA could have another function. Do you have any suggestions or just so stories about what these other functions might be? BobBob O'H_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

PaV, the subroutine idea is brilliant.Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

ari-freedom:
It didn’t sound like the mouse sprouted bat wings, just that their limbs were longer after the gene ‘opened the floodgates’ on cartilage cell growth.
Yes. Notice that the article makes a big deal about how "successive slight modifications" would ultimately result in the evolution of diverse limb morphologies, like a hand, wing, or fin" but fails to mention that a mouse that evolved long forelimbs without actually being able to fly would not survive long. Also, even if the mouse actually managed to evolve wings, this means that the sophisticated neural wiring needed to control those wings in flight and navigate would have to evolve simultaneously, a very tall order. A flying bat-whale of a story, if you ask me. LOL.Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

ari-freedom #116: Yes, you're right. But this means that the regulatory mechanism of the gene for limb elongation must work cooperatively with other genes, which are, in turn, regulated. This different regulatory section for limb elongation must then be part of a larger regulatory process. So you have a 'subroutine' operating inside of a larger 'routine'. Based on information technology, this is something you would predict to be found happening.PaV_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H #72: "How would the structure of the proteins and RNAs be coded and inherited if not from the genome? Are you suggesting some other form of inheritance?" Some algorithm is needed if the genome is to produce structures that exhibit patterns amenable to mathematical analysis. This algorithm will necessarily have to be iterated just as a cpu must iterate a set of equations in order to 'draw' patterns onto a printer. It would be inefficient in the highest degree to use the transcriptional properties of DNA as a substitute for this iterative process. Hence, it would be more logical/probable for some cluster of proteins to process this algorithm, possibly in conjunction with the intermittent interactions of a special kind of RNA. This processing will most likely happen at the quantum level and will thus be very hard to detect. So, we can almost expect that this property of living organisms---if it exists---will be one of the last ones to be discovered. #74: "About the “what if only some junk DNA had function” question, I was asking whether some junk DNA being non-functional would (in your phrase) “completely undermine ID”. I’m still interested in knowing this." I think I know the line of your argument you want to go down, so, (and this is very cryptic, but I think you're up to the task) I ask: If a Mercedes-Benz has a "Hillary Clinton for President" sticker on its rear window, does this mean it wasn't designed? [I've decided this is entirely too cryptic. So, concisely, partial imperfection does not disqualify something from having been designed.] As to the 1-to-1 relationship between "junk-DNA" and 'regulatory mechanisms' in the genome that you're asking about, in the above question I think you'll see that there's nothing to say, in an 'a prior' way, about what the degree of correlation might be (or necessarily has to be).PaV_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

It didn't sound like the mouse sprouted bat wings, just that their limbs were longer after the gene 'opened the floodgates' on cartilage cell growth.ari-freedom_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Mapou in 108 asks Isn’t this an example of frontloading? How do mice evolve functional genes millions of years before their actual use? That could be the right explanation. But, it might also be argued that it was a neutral mutation that occurred long ago, and just now found a fitness landscape in which it would be expressed. Is there a premise and test that could be suggested by ID which would allow people to clearly demonstrate whether it was a front-loaded feature from long ago, or a neutral mutation?Q_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

ari-freedom #107, I suspect their thinking has to do with the long canines the R.O.U.S. has. I love "just-so" stories---you can do so much with them.PaV_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Clarence #97 "There are many that have been discovered - human, whale, horse, to name the most obvious ones for which many intermediates have been discovered." You're new to the game. Go check out what Stephen J. Gould has to say about the supposed "horse" lineage. "I’m not entirely sure what you mean. Perhaps you can clarify the process by which the environment could affect the genome - that sounds like a form of Lamarckism to me, which has long been abandoned." Ah, but you see, Lamarck is making a big comeback. 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. Maybe old Darwin was too rough on Lamarck, the true author of 'evolution'. "But there weren’t any - there were only acquatic forms in those strata. 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?" 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?PaV_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Inconceivable!ari-freedom_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

For the non-Princess Bride fans, here is some context to ari-freedom (107): [after Westley rescues her from the lightning quicksand] Buttercup: We'll never succeed. We may as well die here. Westley: No, no. We have already succeeded. I mean, what are the three terrors of the Fire Swamp? One, the flame spurt - no problem. There's a popping sound preceding each; we can avoid that. Two, the lightning sand, which you were clever enough to discover what that looks like, so in the future we can avoid that too. Buttercup: Westley, what about the R.O.U.S.'s? Westley: Rodents Of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist. [Immediately, an R.O.U.S. attacks him]BarryA_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

PaV: "It’s a whale of a story, I tell ya." LOL, yep.Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

ari-freedom:
until that rat reached a certain size it would only get slower as it grew and still not formidable against tigers.
My thoughts exactly. Besides, why should the predators do nothing while the prey is evolving? They, too, should grow so as to compensate, no? Where are the fossilized remains of giant saber-tooth tigers?Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Genetic Times has a story about mice given bat-like forelimbs, not by switching genes, but by swapping the mouse Prx1 gene regulatory element with that of a bat. The article goes on to say, "this unprecedented finding demonstrates that evolution can be driven by changes in the patterns of gene expression, rather than solely by changes in the genes, themselves." Isn't this an example of frontloading? How do mice evolve functional genes millions of years before their actual use? Isn't this an example of design whereby the designer creates multiple tentative prototypes but chooses only a subset for actual expression? Isn't this kind of like the way an artist would draw multiple sketches of a subject before making a final decision?Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Rodents of unusual size? until that rat reached a certain size it would only get slower as it grew and still not formidable against tigers.ari-freedom_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Mapon, there's nothing like a good "just-so" story. Welcome to the head-scratchers. We all scratch our heads at these kinds of stories. If this rodent spent time in water like a hippopotamus, then maybe a mouse became a rat became a...... whale! It's a whale of a story, I tell ya.PaV_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

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?Mapou_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply