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

In post #20, I wrote this: "(7) Using the analogy of a computer program, one would expect what I call “subroutines”, or, put another way, various parts of the genome that are used for a variety of purposes in an “on-demand” basis. These “subroutines” would be part of the “regulatory” system of the genome." I'm happy to report that this prediction has been confirmed. See here.PaV_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

We have to be careful to distinguish between predictions made by ID supporters and what ID theory actually predicts, which is that you won't get specified complexity even after trillions of replications. Theories need a structure so that the prediction logically follows.ari-freedom_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

the wonderer Good exploratory thinking on reverse engineering. Why "prototypes" in
"ID predicts that some organisms may be viewed as protoypes, thus an absence of detailed evolutionary fossil record."
How about: "ID predicts distinct species with an absence of intermediary evolutionary fossil record"? Why appeal to "evolution" in:
ID predicts that significant evolution takes place in the mind of the Maker.
This is ambiguous in "microevolution" vs "macroevolution" Alternative: "ID predicts most differences between species are due to design by an Intelligent Designer,with little macroevolution".DLH_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

ID predicts that reverse engineering will further scientific endeavors. ID predicts that some organisms may be viewed as protoypes, thus an absence of detailed evolutionary fossil record. ID predicts that significant evolution takes place in the mind of the Maker.the wonderer_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

DaveScot
"Life may have begun here from hundreds or even thousands of cell lines. Extremophiles of all kinds would be a good starting point."
So there is then no evidence which proves universal common descent, although some common descent is possible.
"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."
I am not a biologist, correct me if I am wrong, but new phenotypes require multiple simaltaneous changes to function. This method seems very unlikely to explain changes such has bi-pedalism which requires several anatomical changes at the same time, let alone the many millions of new species in history. Highly contagious viral vectors seems very speculative.
"Try again. ID does not dispute common descent. It disputes evolution by chance & necessity."
It seems to me that this limited common descent, like evolution and healing, are all funtions which may affect a phenotype, but do not explain life's history.Peter_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

StephenB, great post (96)tribune7_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, Thanks for a most interesting reply. I agree with your first paragraph entirely, and there's a lot of food for thought in the rest. I agree with much of the second paragraph too - but given the sparsity of the fossil record, due to the low probablility of an organism being fossilised, we are never going to get the absolute record of life (i.e. organism 1 begat organism 2 begat organism 3 and organism 4 etc. etc.). It's a bit like a giant "Join the Dots" picture - the full puzzle may have a million dots, you can only see a thousand or so, but nonethless those thousand dots still let you see that it's a picture of an elephant. Just like in most court cases, there will never be absolute, slam-dunk, caught-red-handed evidence of evolution of the whole of life. My view, though, is that there is now so much evidence, from the fossil record and elsewhere, that it's been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. I appreciate you are focusing on the probablility of the mechanism and the gaps in the fossil record. I think you are right about the gaps, but I think the experience to-date suggest those gaps become less and less as more discoveries are made (although we will never have the complete picture). In that regard they are more likely to be apparent gaps rather than real reflections of the history of life. 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). Also the transcript of his cross-examination by Eric Rothschild in the Kitzmiller trial at Dover also raised big questions about his statistical analysis of microbial evolution. These raise the question of what would be considered to be "complex novelty", particular in relation to the phenotype. If that means we would expect whole new structures, like limbs, in microbes or viruses, then we will almost certainly never see "complex novelty" in our lifetime - I haven't done the analysis but I would expect it would take a huge length of time (by human standards, but not geological ones). But if "complex novelty" includes genotype changes (as I would expect) then we would see it often. Indeed, I expect we see it everytime there's a new flu outbreak or new form of HIV.Clarence_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Clarence Here's the thing about the fossil record. I consider it strong evidence of common descent and along with molecular homology in living organisms is enough to convince me beyond any reasonable doubt that all life descends from just several or fewer common ancestors beginning hundreds of millions or billions of years ago. The gaps are important because it tells us how much change occurred from one evolutionary step to the next. Darwin's theory calls for a nearly infinitesimal range of tiny steps. We don't see that in the array of organisms living today and we don't see it in the fossil record. To be sure we do see steps laid down in the expected chronological order and this IMO is enough to make the case for common descent. It's just not enough to make the case for Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory. What we're really focusing on is not the evidence for common descent but the evidence for the mechanism that caused the change between ancestors and their descendants. Our position is the steps are too big to bridge by chance mutation & natural selection. The math just doesn't add up. The statistical probability, when bounded by the number of individual opportunities for change to occur, make the odds of evolution happening by chance & necessity far too small to be credible. In support of this claim that the odds are too small to be reasonable Mike Behe examined what evolution by chance & necessity was able to accomplish in a living eukaryote that was closely scrutinized as it replicated billions of trillions of times where each replication was one opportunity for random mutation to produce a heritable change. Keep in mind that billions of trillions of opportunities for heritable change in the genome is orders of magnitude more opportunities than mammals had as they evolved from reptiles. The result of all that observed replication was essentially nil with regard to any complex novelty. No change occurred that helped the organism better survive that exceeded two or three interdependent nucleotide changes. This is exactly what the probability assumptions underlying ID predicted would be the case and is compelling evidence that those assumptions are correct. Now, given that we have made a probability claim about what chance & necessity can accomplish in the way of generating novel, functional organic complexity and we have confirmed that the estimated probabilities are sound by correctly predicting what was actually observed over billions of trillions of chances, how can anyone possibly accept the notion that the same mechanism that failed to produce any significant phenotypical change under direct observation with billions of trillions of chances somehow, in the distant past when it wasn't being observed, produced all the novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans that distinguish mammals from reptiles? Not only were those new things somehow produced, they were produced in orders of magnitude fewer opportunities. It simply doesn't follow that chance & necessity is anywhere near sufficient to have generated that much novelty with that number of chances.DaveScot_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

Pave (68) "This is a very naive view, Clarence. It’s not that simple." I'm not saying it's not messy often it is, even inefficient at times. But as a method for getting at what is going on in nature, it's unparallelled. Remember it isan't just the US doing this - it's global. Europe, Asia (including China), Africa... you name it, wherever science is done, it's done this way. "Maybe you’ve missed the point that evolutionary theory—Darwinism—predicts all kinds of intermediate forms. Where are all the other millions of intermediate forms that the fossil record was predicted, by Darwin, to contain?" There are many that have been discovered - human, whale, horse, to name the most obvious ones for which many intermediates have been discovered. Museums are awash with them. Go to a Natural History Museum and you will often see a collection of fossil skeletons showing the intermediate forms. I saw a good one on whales recently (can't remember if it was in Washington or London). "Let me add: you missed my point about the possible environmental factors that effect the genome. IOW, how can you distinguish between a genome that has adapted itself to a particular environment, and a genome that has been “produced” by the same said environment? How do you confidently distinguish the one from the other?" 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. "Conversely, how do you know that it isn’t the case of a “land-dweller” adapting itself to an intermediate environment, rather than an aquatic form adapting itself to a more terrestial environment? Remember, it’s an intermediate. Now you can see why we need lots of ‘intermediate forms’ to untangle the mess." Er, no. If a land-dweller had evolved to give rise to organisms living in a transitional environment, then the logic would have been this: there should be land-dweller fossils in earlier strata. 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? Now, if you want to make the prediction that Tiktaalik arose from land-dweller forms, then fine -but it is up to you to seek out the evidence that those land-dweller forms existed in strata from earlier times than the Tiktaalik fossil. I would just add that I wouldn't get to hung up about the term "intermediate". In a sense, every species that ever existed was an intermediate, except for those that became extinct. Hopefully homo sapiens is one too. "If He explained the answer, would you understand?" Who is "He"? I do hope you haven't prejudged who the alleged designer is! In any case, if there is a designer, I would expect the answer to be intelligible - certainly we seem to make great strides in understanding the rest of nature, so why not Tiktaalik? "More to the point: does every “design” have one, and only one, form to it? Isn’t it possible to “design” something in such a way that it takes on different forms in different circumstances?" I'm not sure that is relevant. One ccould argue that if something has a different form then it is a different design, regardless of whether the circumstances change.Clarence_{January 16, 2008
January
01
Jan
16
16
2008
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

As ID continues to prove itself researchers will become more sensitive to the notion that some things were designed for a purpose and should not be tanpered with. [1] Researchers will abandon their reckless battle cry, "anything we can do it ought to do," and replace it with the assertion, "we are moral stewards of the earth." They will stop trying to clone human beings and focus their efforts on using science to promote the common good. [2} There will be a return to the "natural moral law" as the standard for jurisprudential wisdom." When science finally confirms the wisdom of the ages and proves that all creatures are products of a thoughful design, society and culture will take the hint and think more seriously about objective morality. {3} The unnatural perception that science and religion should be radically separated will give way to the common sense fact that two disciplines are distinct but related. This will foster a much more fruitful environment for scientiic inquiry. In other words, ID will help promote the idea that science is less about using humanity and more about serving it.StephenB_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Q:
As a side note (and not to detract from the good work), I want to suggest that to confirm ID, the prediction and test should specifically disconfirm contrasting claims of evolution or other sciences. Simultaneously supporting other sciences, or being neutral to the claims of other sciences is probably insufficient.
I agree. Question is, can ID theory, as it stands, deliver?Mapou_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Greetings! I may be just crazy but evolutionary predictions have not been accurate or precise, and are usually base on three underlying assumptions universal common dessent, random mutations and natural selection... Further, they go looking for the data through that framework which in reality in a flawed approach, which really explains their failure well. Where as with ID, we can use tried and proven design principles from programming to construction and engineering to make predictions about what we might find in nature. As well as tried and proven principles of efficiency and effectiveness, in product design and manufacturing. Let's not abandon aesthetic principles for no good reason. My point is that ID is rich with actual design principles that actual Intelligent agents use frequently. These principles provide us with an excellent criteria for predictions that may be both accurate and precise without resorting to too much speculation. And all the principle I am talking about have been in use since long before me, and you and you and YOU. Everything can really be boiled down to a bunch of simple principles that govern the whole process. Both physics and chemistry can do it and do do it. Biology probably does it some where. I don't count UCD, RM, or NS, because these infringe on the observations of reality. And the only reason people take them into account is because they have be taught to look for them. I don't deny the actual processes we observe in nature, but the terms excluded are poor representation of what is actually observed. My point is if you are going to include these terms they need redefining to account for what is observed in nature, not the mis-interpreted and shallow definitions the darwinists use and are what are commonly understood to be by the public. And as I pointed out these are assumptions, and the only one that might be viable is NS. UCD is based on circumstantial evidence at best, and really can only be explained if ID is true and only if evolution was used. And the fossil record show a different picture completely contrary to UCD without using ID. The evidence is speaking, shhhhhhh, you might hear it. As for the evidence DNA might become the only evidence for UCD but only if ID is true and only if the functions for the non-coded DNA support that conclution. "IF"! RM is not viable and we all know it, it is really a divertion, and it requires a whole lot more "IF'S" than can really be given. NS requires Intelligent direction and this is done by us when breeding and the rules are different in nature. Nature balances environmental factors against an organisms adaptability, genetic constitution and flexability, and reproductive ability at the population level that results in the organisms average health and versatility. Whatever work is done in a lab is not a representation of real nature. However, the observations found in nature of speciation and hybridization shows that what we humans do with relative ease, nature does it too but not with the same efficiency or effectiveness or purpose. I guess what I mean is; in nature a rottweiler and a chihuahua don't breed, the chihuahua is food for the rottweiler. But for some insane reason we could breed them relatively easily. The same rules don't apply, and it is "assumed" that nature acts as an intelligent breeder.Unlettered and Ordinary_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Joseph, in 91, shows good style for this topic! (IMO, of course.) A prediction, at least a scientific prediction, is only as good as the paper it is written on. But providing predictions with proposed tests and a means to confirm or disconfirm the prediction, now that makes a good fit into the scientific process. Those steps of confirmation are just as important for ID to be a scientific theory as they are for any science. Kudos, joseph! As a side note (and not to detract from the good work), I want to suggest that to confirm ID, the prediction and test should specifically disconfirm contrasting claims of evolution or other sciences. Simultaneously supporting other sciences, or being neutral to the claims of other sciences is probably insufficient. For example, I don't think evolution (or other sciences) make a prediction of the comprehensibility of the universe (see 91, first prediction sub 3). Finding that the universe is comprehensible may simply be a confirmation of comprehensibility, neither advancing ID over evolution, or retarding any other science.Q_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Mapou
if the rate of degradation is known and if the average degree of degradation of a population sample can be obtained, it should be easy to calculate
An excellent observation. Clarifying, ID Predictions: 1) The average human genomic mutational load will steadily increase. 5b) The rate of increase in human genomic mutational load will provide a reliable basis for projecting back to a common ancestor. That is similar coalescent analysis that projects back. See "mitochondrial Eve", "the most recent common ancestor" - projected to be less than 200,000 years ago. Ho and Larson in " Molecular clocks: when timesare a-changin'" observe:
"However, debate has arisen about the considerable disparities between molecular and palaeontological or archaeological dates, and about the remarkably high mutation rates inferred in pedigree studies."
This exposes the difficulties of fitting evolution to the data. This promises good prospects for ID to provide quantitative models with good predictions. The quantitative data on human mutation statistics is just now being obtained in the International HapMap project. PS Armando G.M. Neves et al. in "Applications of the Galton–Watson process to human DNA evolution and demography" show that "mitochondrial Eve" could occur with an exponentially growing population.DLH_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Better late than never: Prediction: 1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters. 2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability. 3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible. Test: 1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe. 2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability. 3) Try to determine if the universe is comprehensible. Potential falsification: 1) Observe that the universe is chaotic. 2) A- Find a place that is not habitable but offers at least as good of a platform to make scientific discoveries as Earth or B- Find a place that is inhabited but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries. 3) Observe that we cannot comprehend the universe, meaning A) what applies locally does not apply throughout or B) what applies in one scenario, even locally, cannot be used/ applied in any similar scenario, even locally. Confirmation: 1) Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe.
”(S)pectroscopic observations of distant galaxies over a broad range of wavelengths verify that their atoms have the same properties as those measured in Earth laboratories. On the basis of such observations, astronomers and cosmologists feel justified in extrapolating the laws of physics from their tiny laboratories to the entire universe.” Page 323 “The Privileged Planet”
2) All scientific data gathered to date confirm that habitability correlates with measurability. 3) “The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein Prediction: If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic). Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility. Test: Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. Potential falsification: Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions. Re-animation of dead organisms- this should be easy to do if living organisms were just chemical reactions. Confirmation: Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified. Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality. Living organisms are dynamic systems which employ command & control/ regulation throughout. Conclusion (scientific inference) Both the universe and living organisms are the result of intention design. Any future research can either confirm or refute this premise, which, for the biological side, was summed up in Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92: 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systemsJoseph_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

DaveScot (#54): "If we don’t make that presumption (that the designer is no longer with us) then what was observed could be the result of a designer actively suppressing the evolution of P. falciparum." Not necessarily. The designer might merely intervene to inject new genetic information at certain points in time, and let RM & NS operate unmodified the rest of the time. This would not require any active suppressing of a natural mechanism, and not invoke front loading.magnan_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

DarelRex (#14): "If ID is compatible with the evidence, and no other theory of how life got to its present state is, then ID wins scientifically (at least for now) whether it has predictive value or not." I think this hits the nail on the head. ID has indeed made some predictions that have been fulfilled, but the demand by Darwinists that ID must have "predictive value" is a red herring. To use the SETI analogy, to observe that a signal from Tau Ceti has an intelligent signature (could not have been produced by any known natural mechanisms) has no predictive value other than that it would be a good idea to concentrate on this star for more signals, because this initial detection seems to indicate alien intelligence. The SETI astronomers wouldn't reject this observation as unscientific.magnan_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

I think we can say that ID predicts that practices and techniques that are commonly used by human intelligence in designing and engineering machines, including computing machines, will be found in biological systems. An example of this are codes (e.g, ASCII, EBCDIC). Certainly a huge component of cells that Darwin (and any purely materialistic theory) did not (and cannot?) predict but that falls easily with the realm of ID is the Genetic Code.EndoplasmicMessenger_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Accumulating genomic entropy, declining longevity, and genetic diseases point back to designed organisms with non-degraded function. DLH, thanks for the references. I was thinking that, assuming that genomic entropy is true, if the rate of degradation is known and if the average degree of degradation of a population sample can be obtained, it should be easy to calculate backwards to get an approximate creation time for a given organism. Kinda like carbon-14 dating in physics. We could then compare the date with the fossil record to see if they match. Just throwing stuff at the wall.Mapou_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

btw...why are we only talking about biology?ari-freedom_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

“Converesely, I see Tiktaalik as a negative for ID. If the designer has designed fish, and then wants to design something for the land, why bother with a transitional?” I would expect designs to live in transitional environments. There are flying fish and mudskippers but I don't think anyone claims they are turning into anything. However I think that this fish will turn out to be like the coelacanth, another lobe finned fish which was claimed to walk and hyped as the ancestor to tetrapods until it was actually discovered swimming in the ocean.ari-freedom_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Prediction: The fundamental laws of physics will be shown to preclude the possibility that life could arrise by any chance or probabilistic processes and thus REQUIRE the input of both energy and information from an intelligent agent who is in posession of both.Douglas Moran_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

DaveScot: Functional genes can certainly show up as if by magic where intelligent agency is involved. Is there a way to distinguish between human designer "magic" from other types of "magic"?Mapou_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

... or on virtue, now that I think about it LOL.PlatosPlaything_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Yo, Plaything. Who put you in charge of this blog? LOL. Patience is a virtue, you know.
This girl has never been big on patience... ;-) Flounces, Zoe.PlatosPlaything_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Genomic Entropy Per "ID’s “predictive prowess” John C. Sanford concludes:
"the genome is degenerating."

"All evidence points to human genetic degeneration".
Ch 10 Is the downward curve real? "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" (2005) Ivan Press, Elim Pub., Lima NY ISBN 1-59919-002-8 Corollary: Genomic degeneration or entropy points back to intelligent design with original full function.
"What is the mystery of the genome? Its very existence is its mystery. Information and complexity which surpass human understanding are programmed into a space smaller than an invisible speck of dust. Mutation/selection cannot even begin to explain this. It should be very clear that our genome could not have arisen spontaneously. The only reasonable alternative to a spontaneous genome is a genome which arose by design."
----------------------------- Summarizing and rephrasing Sanford's book:

All genetic evidence points to accumulating degradation of the genome.

ID predicts that organisms comprise numerous complex functions with well tuned performance.

Mutations degrade or destroy biologic functions, causing disorder, disease and death.

Mutations with selection will progressively increase genetic mutational loads, increase the frequency of genetic diseases, reduce longevity, and eventually result in species death.

Accumulating genomic entropy, declining longevity, and genetic diseases point back to designed organisms with non-degraded function.

DLH_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Yo, Plaything. Who put you in charge of this blog? LOL. Patience is a virtue, you know.Mapou_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

The fossil record is evidence for rapid change followed by relative stasis. This suggests that DNA is capable of changing radically in a short period of time. Present research demonstrates that small changes can be guided by an externally directed intelligent force. We are already doing such experiments although our methods are crude. For example recently scientists have introduced genes into various animals to make them glow in the dark. I say crude because we are simply taking an existing gene from one animal and introducing it into another… or messing with a particular gene site. We had prior knowledge gained from research that this particular gene and position coded for something that glows. Radiation may be a better alternative to causing change. We know for example that fruit flies can be mutated when exposed to random X-ray radiation, none of the mutations are beneficial because the radiation is not specified. It is well known that we use radiation in the form of laser light, or radio waves to transmit information all the time in our modern world. Prediction: If the radiation was instantiated by an intelligent agent in the correct wavelength, proportion and sequence to the DNA molecule, changes could be directed to cause informational change and new survivable body plans could be made rapidly. Furthermore the specific information content required to be carried in the radiation will rule out natural cause as a possible source. A subsequent prediction would be that parts of DNA are designed as a receptor of information… “an antennae” which can receive new instructions.DK_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

OK, enough already!! Let's all pipe down so that Prof. Dembski can get a word in here!!! I want to hear the actual list - not just everyone's pie-in-the-sky speculations! Sheesh, some people just like hearing the sounds of their own voices ;-) Smiles, Zoe.PlatosPlaything_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Nevertheless, it’s certainly a virtue of scientific proposals to be able to say what evidence would count against it. I think this is what most Darwinists are looking for, a specific experiment that can potentially falsify the ID hypothesis. Unless ID theorists can specify such an experiment, I believe that ID will not be accepted as a science. The fact that ID can be confirmed (a sudden return of the designer to the scene would do it) does not carry much weight, in my opinion.Mapou_{January 15, 2008
January
01
Jan
15
15
2008
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply