The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

The conceptual alchemy of ID, transmuting baseless assertions into scientific predictions

Posted 21 April 2011 by Jack Scanlan

[Republished from Homologous Legs]

A well-accepted characteristic of a scientific hypothesis is that it must generate predictions about the world against which tests can be run - confirming or falsifying those predictions and thus supporting or not supporting the hypothesis in question. Understandably then, intelligent design proponents need to demonstrate that ID can produce predictions if it is to be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis and alternative to evolutionary theory.

Historically (as much as I can say "historically" in the context of such a new movement), this has not been a major goal of ID proponents. Most of their previous efforts have gone into either arguing against evolution (see Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box) or trying to justify ID in a pseudomathematicophilosophical 1 way, bypassing the normal scientific process (see William Dembski's design inference/explanatory filter). Neither of these routes have been very successful, as much as ID proponents will try to tell you otherwise, and combined with a substantial amount of scientific and philosophical attack against the ideas of the ID movement, they have begun to change tactics a little bit, and talk about predictions and testability has crept back into discussions about ID, both online and in books.

Stephen C. Meyer's epic tome Signature in the Cell, which I am currently finishing reading and formulating a series of posts about, is one such book, and contains an appendix where predictions of ID are the focus. The reasons as to why that particular topic couldn't be worked into the main body of the book still eludes me, as I see it as on par with, if not more important than, the other topics touched upon. Did Meyer think that his audience would not care to read about it, or does he himself not care? Either way, it's clear that he didn't find it of very much importance.

But the predictions in Signature is not the focus of this post - I'll deal with it separately: instead I want to talk about a recent post on Uncommon Descent by Jonathan M, entitled, appropriately, "Does ID Make Testable Scientific Predictions?", which is basically a "brainstormed" list of fourteen predictions that he thinks ID makes about the world. He notes that, as the post was jotted down rather hastily, the list is probably non-exhaustive and there may be other possible predictions out there, but judging by what I've seen of other such lists both online and in Signature, it covers pretty much all the same points as they do. If more predictions exist, nobody in the ID movement has thought of them yet.

So, what are these predictions that Jonathan puts forward, and how valid are they? As will hopefully become clear fairly quickly, predictions need to be grounded within the hypothesis and must flow from it naturally if they are to be productive and allow for a way to test the hypothesis they are being linked to - and ID proponents seem to have a hard time doing this.

(Note that I won't be touching on the two astronomical/cosmological predictions Jonathan gives, as they don't have anything to do with biological intelligent design, which is what I focus on. Cosmological ID and biological ID are not related and shouldn't be conflated, as doing so makes things confusing.)

ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.

This is almost a non-prediction, as it's probably impossible for life to exist without being both specified and complex in some senses of the words. It's analogous to trying to explain the origin of a rock and saying that your hypothesis predicts that the rock is made of atoms - it's already assumed and is unhelpful as a test of that hypothesis. If this turns out to be the only "valid" prediction in this list, it shows that ID has virtually non-existent predictive power.

ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life's operations.

This, again, is a fairly basic semi-prediction, but it's the first one that makes me ask: why? Why does ID predict this? As I mentioned in a recent TWiID involving Casey Luskin's attempt at some ID predictions, if an analogy between human design and "ID" design is being made 2, it's fairly clear that humans, as intelligent agents, don't always make things as complicated as possible or increase the complexity of objects in every circumstance. Of course, it's possible that Jonathan isn't making an analogy to human design, but if he isn't - how is he justifying this prediction? Where is it coming from?

ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems.

I didn't know that there was a non-DNA-centric view of living systems to compete with genetics 3, but even if there was, why does ID predict that it is accurate? Again, this isn't justified.

ID predicts that complex molecular convergence will happen routinely.

Again, why? What part of the ID hypothesis lead Jonathan to this conclusion?

ID predicts the presence of irreducible complexity with respect to macromolecular systems and organelles.

I'm feeling like a broken recor- recor- recor- record, but again: what part of ID predicts this?

Okay, it's possible that he's drawing upon an argumentative strategy employed by Stephen C. Meyer in Signature in the Cell - inference to the best explanation (IBE). Under this strategy, evidence against evolutionary theory becomes evidence for ID, due to a current lack of other hypotheses to oppose ID, making it the "best explanation". It conveniently allows for the vagueness of ID to work in its favour: since it is hypothetically able to explain any data set, any time the prevailing scientific ideas fail, ID can sneak in there and plug the gaps, exclaiming that it explains the data better than no explanation at all. It's not hard to see why IBE isn't a great argument.

Applying IBE to irreducible complexity yields that, if evolutionary theory cannot explain it and ID can, it is evidence of ID - in a sense. The problems with this argument are numerous and I'll touch upon them later in my posts about Signature, which revolves around IBE as the single method of supporting ID as a scientific hypothesis. For now, I'd much prefer Jonathan justify this particular prediction without mentioning IBE: if it's possible.

ID predicts that the prevalence of functional protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space will be extremely small.

This prediction is related to the irreducible complexity one above, in that it could be invoking IBE as its justification. But if not, it doesn't fare any better. What Jonathan is referring to is the work of Douglas Axe, a pro-ID biochemist who has conducted experiments that, he and the ID movement claims, prove that protein evolution is impossible. Thinking clearly about this for a while leads one to a single question: irrespective of the legitimacy of Axe's conclusions about his research, why would ID predict that protein evolution is impossible? Life could have been designed by a Designer with the ability to evolve - this possibility is at least as probable as the opposite scenario, that life was designed not to evolve. But without any knowledge about the Designer, how can one scenario be given more probabilistic weight than the other? This prediction, like the others above, doesn't follow from ID.

ID predicts that evolutionary pathways to new protein functions will require multiple co-ordinated non-adaptive mutations (more so than likely to be achieved by a random process).

This is virtually the same prediction as the previous one: protein evolution is impossible. As such, it does not follow from ID.

ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.

Another appeal to the human design analogy? Possibly. If so - and I also mentioned this whilst addressing Casey Luskin's predictions - you have to consider that human designs are not perfect, flawless things. They contain compromises and non-functionality all the time, and these characteristics are often the product of laziness and factors unrelated to the functional goal of the design process, such as economics, politics and social considerations. If ID is being modeled on what humans frequently do, the fact that junk DNA could have been part of the original design (or accumulated naturally over time due to oversights in the original design) is not outlandish. Where does that leave this prediction?

ID predicts delicate optimisation and fine-tuning with respect to many features associated with biological systems.

"Optimisation" and "fine-tuning" are words that could mean a lot of things and Jonathan doesn't give them a rigorous definition. They could, in fact, under many definitions, be as useless as "specified complexity" when talking about predictions, as biological systems like metabolic pathways must be "fine-tuned" to turn specific molecules into other specific molecules. Could life exist without this definition of "fine-tuning"? Probably not. If so, this is hardly a useful prediction. But it remains to be seen what definitions Jonathan was using, so I'll leave it there.

ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).

Why would this be the case? Again, no justification.

ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.

Is this a reference to the Cambrian explosion/radiation? Probably. But why would ID predict this? If human design is the analogy, we don't always design in this way. Sometimes designs can come from the same source and share a common design ancestor, and gradually diverge in function over time. An random example off the top of my head would be the evolution of house plans: thousands of years ago, houses (more accurately called "structures") would have had only one living space, combining the necessary functions for living into that space, such as sleeping and cooking. Over time, more rooms appeared as building techniques improved and the single room divided into multiple, separating sleeping, cooking, eating, entertainment, etc. Those multiple rooms were not always there in the design of the house, they came later.

Of course, designs do also happen where new things are completely added from scratch, but to claim that all design must have proceeded in that way is dishonest or just plain not thought out.

This all assumes that an analogy to human design is being made, of course, something that Jonathan never clarified.

ID predicts saltational, or abrupt, appearance of new life forms without transitional precursors.

This is so closely related to the prediction above that no further comment should be needed, I think.

And that's it! All twelve (biologically relevant) predictions. As you've seen, none of them have been especially helpful in testing ID, either because they haven't been sufficiently justified or they aren't very useful predictions. While Jonathan's list was self-described as not necessarily being all of the possible predictions of ID, what was there was pretty representative of the consensus of ID proponent-thought on the matter, in my experience. In order to be taken even the slightest bit seriously as a possible scientific hypothesis, ID needs to justify these predictions or generate new ones that are also justified. Whether or not this will be done remains to be seen.

---

1. Let it be known that I coined this soon-to-be-widespread word in this very blog post.

2. An analogy that has never been justified, just to let you know. Analogy without justification is easily and legitimately labeled an argument from analogy, a logical fallacy.

3. Could he be talking about epigenetics? If so, that's a misunderstanding of the implications of the field.

62 Comments

The Curmudgeon · 21 April 2011

Excellent post! But "Darwinists" can also make predictions about ID, and I have done so. My fearless ID prediction is that when funding for the Discovery Institute eventually dries up, the "theory" of ID will swiftly wither away.

mrg · 21 April 2011

As I mentioned in a recent TWiID involving Casey Luskin’s attempt at some ID predictions, if an analogy between human design and “ID” design is being made 2, it’s fairly clear that humans, as intelligent agents, don’t always make things as complicated as possible or increase the complexity of objects in every circumstance.
Actually, having an engineering background, it is an engineering dictate to make machines as simple as possible. It means a machine that is cheaper, more reliable, easier to make, and easier to maintain. The mantra is "reduce parts count". It's not just a question of reducing size and the number of things that can go wrong. It also means not having to procure so many parts to build something, it means not having to fuss so much on the assembly line, it means not having to stock so many parts for service replacements. This leads to the interesting question of how "complexity" is defined. Is a modern handheld calculator more complex than an old mechanical calculator? From a manufacturing standpoint, no, it's got far fewer assemblies and is much easier to put together.

rossum · 21 April 2011

One tactic I have found useful when faced with an ID proponent making "predictions" is to ask why the opposite is not possible for the designer.

If, say, they predict that there will be a function found for Junk DNA then ask why the designer cannot design an organism with large amounts of useless DNA.

So far I have not had a real answer, as opposed to evasion.

rossum

TomS · 21 April 2011

Does anyone have an example of something which is not "intelligently designed"?

An example would help to understand the difference that "intelligent design" makes.

Is there something which ID could not, would not, or will not do, or just didn't do?

It could be just a hypothetical example. Something which does not happen to exist. Like a shmoo, a roc, or a flying carpet. Those are bad examples, because those are all "intelligently designed".

(Thinking about this leads me to this digression: Anything which we can imagine but doesn't exist - doesn't that mean that it is "intelligently designed"? If true (even if only sometimes true), doesn't that mean that ID is not enough to account for existence? Maybe that tells us something about the difference that ID makes. But that is a digression.)

harold · 21 April 2011

I think you're being a bit to generous toward some of this. However, it does seem as if some of these predictions can be reformatted into standard, intelligently expressed English. And in those few cases, they have already failed. The rest just seems to be semantic garble or attempts to claim that ID predicts something which is already known to be true and compatible with mainstream evolutionary biology.
ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.
Life has the subjective appearance of what anyone might call "specified complexity" already, as you note. But that's a worthless observation. I could accurately say "the theory of evolution predicts the presence of wondrous beauty in living systems". That's certainly true from my perspective. But to make this a prediction, he needs to 1) precisely define "specified complexity" so that it can be measured in a reproducible way, 2) Explain why its presence is compatible with ID but not ToE, 3) Since he implies that it is being sought, explain why his colleagues who claim to have already found it are wrong (this should be easy, but needs to be done)
ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations.
1) Complexity has to be defined such that it can be reproducibly measured in the systems in question for this to be a worthwhile statement. His failure to do so from the start implies bad faith. 2) It isn't clear what the statement means - whether some lineages will become more complex over time (and scientific research will also progress) or whether he means that more research will uncover more complexity. In either case, taking a Kolmogorov view of complexity, ToE would predict the same things. 3) If he means that ID requires all lineages to always increase in complexity, then by that standard, ID is already proven wrong by the failure of this prediction.
ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems
This looks like straight up straw man creation. What is a "DNA-centric view of life"? Why invent a stupid-sounding, undefined term, and then falsely imply that it describes the views of others?
ID predicts the presence of irreducible complexity with respect to macromolecular systems and organelles.
1) It's already trivally accepted that irreducible complexity exists in biological systems. This is compatible with ToE. 2) If he refers to Behe's claim that IRC can't evolve, that's been shown to be wrong. If that was what he meant, and it seems to be, then this prediction has already been shown to be false.
ID predicts that the prevalence of functional protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space will be extremely small.
Word salad. 1) Define what you mean by "protein folds with respect to combinatorial sequence space" and how this can be measured. This can probably be done, but do it if you're advancing such a claim. 2) Define "small". 3) Explain why this would favor ID over ToE.
ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all.
1) Straw man creation - it is not a universal claim of mainstream biologists that all non-coding DNA is not "functional" in any sense of the word. 2) The origin of much non-coding DNA is well understood and is compatible with ToE and not with ID, e.g. ERVs. 3) If it were relevant I would say "define functional", but this it isn't. 4) Important note - the presence of non-adaptive features argues against ID/creationism. The converse is not true, of course. The predomiance of adaptive features not only does NOT argue against ToE. This is a common creationist trick.
ID predicts delicate optimisation and fine-tuning with respect to many features associated with biological systems.
1) Under a common sense reading, already observed and compatible with ToE. 2) For a serious challenge, the terms would have had to be quantitatively defined, and a strong logical explanation for why some quantitative level of these features is compatible with ID/creationism, and not with ToE, advanced. But it doesn't matter, because ToE predicts and explains why these features would be present, under almost any conceivable quantitative treatment.
ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading).
1) Take away the words "front loading" and this is already trivially true. 2) If "front loading" means that ancestor lineages literally contain all alleles that will ever exist in descendant lineages, it's already trivially false, and indeed, impossible. ID fails again.
ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.
Self-contradictory. What is the difference between "disparity" and "diversity"?
ID predicts saltational, or abrupt, appearance of new life forms without transitional precursors.
The only honest member of the list. Yes, it does predict this. It predicts magical creation of biological systems, intact, from nothing. Well, the opposite is observed (see "Louis Pasteur"). ID fails again. The items on this list are written in educated, seemingly articulate English. A tone of confidence and a mimickry of technical jargon are employed. Yet upon examination they are, to the non-naive observer, transparently false or meaningless. I am forced to the sad conclusion that the author of this work was intelligent enough to see the flaws in his own logic and language. I cannot interpret this as other than a deliberate attempt to deceive. I don't mean that the author here was consciously aware of being deceptive. I can't rule that out, but more likely, he was simply driven by emotional biases to "say anything to contradict evolution". Either way, the result is a sorry piece of work.

DS · 21 April 2011

"ID predicts that organisms will exhibit in-built systems which promote evolvability (e.g. front loading)."

Great, a prediction which is in no way different from that expected from natural evolution. If you want to test competing hypotheses, that is really what you need. Ditto for all of the above predictions.

"ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity."

Great. But did it "predict" it BEFORE the pattern was observed? Also, what does this even mean?

"ID predicts saltational, or abrupt, appearance of new life forms without transitional precursors."

So then, a single example of a "transitional form" would be sufficient to falsify ID. Great. Now all we have to do is argue over the definition of "transitional" and find some way to exclude all examples. Of course "transitionals" are not required, intermediates also falsify ID. Funny they didn't mention that.

This is fun. I predict that some stuff will happen in the future and that some of it will be a complete surprise. I also predict that no matter how much evidence is discovered that is consistent with the theory of evolution, that those who refuse to be convinced by evidence will not be convinced.

john Stockwell · 21 April 2011

ID is nothing more than natural theology, which is the game of
interpreting nature through the lens of a particular theology. Before
we had science, that was a common approach to understanding
the world. Being a philosophy rather than science, the notion of
natural theology assumed the ontological structure supplied by
the theology, and all observations were forced to fit in a procrustean
way.

Indeed, the attempt to make "predictions based on ID' is done in
the same way. Search through natural examples and then figure
out the "prediction" that fits what is seen.

If your interest is philosophical comfort, then that is it. If you are interested in learning about the world, then you will do nothing
productive.

The important thing is to not get trapped in the apologist game of the ID proponent.

We do not detect "design", nor to we identify "effects" for assumed
"causes". In science, we model processes, we do not identify or
argue from causes. We, in fact do not now, nor have we ever "identified design". Instead, we model the process of origin of objects. Part of that modeling relies on our familiarity with technologies, materials, and method. It is in this context that the class of objects that are "manufactured' are identified as being so.

There is no intrinsic "manufacturedness" or "marks of intelligence".
There may be marks of the manufacturing processes that were used to manufacture an item in question, but it will be a process of modeling and in many cases experimental investigation that is engaged in, that will help us decide if certain objects are manufactured. The process is the thing, not "design" or a "designer".

mrg · 21 April 2011

What is particularly ironic about ID is that none of its most prominent proponents have ever designed anything of consequence, much less have qualifications as designers.

And the associated irony that anybody who has designed something knows the resemblance between an organism and a manufactured product is painfully slight.

harold · 21 April 2011

mrg said: What is particularly ironic about ID is that none of its most prominent proponents have ever designed anything of consequence, much less have qualifications as designers. And the associated irony that anybody who has designed something knows the resemblance between an organism and a manufactured product is painfully slight.
However, they do have a small army of troll followers who claim, often falsely, and usually at best exaggeratedly, on rare occasions accurately, to be "engineers" or "computer scientists". Of interest, I haven't seen any claims even among these of "design" of anything other than lines of software code.

Les Lane · 21 April 2011

Relativity predicts that the sun is massive enough to bend light. Classical mechanics predicts that the sun will not bend light.

How many of the ID predictions unambiguously distinguish it from evolution?

Terenzio the Troll · 21 April 2011

Am I the only one with the strange feeling that something is missing from those "predictions"?
I.e.: numbers.
None of the 12 statements is in any way quantitative, nor there is an easy way to make it so. How is anyone expected to test the outcome of a prediction (in a scientific sense), if there are no figures whatsoever, nor there is a way even to define the appropriate dimensions for the involved entities?

Following the question posed by TomS, does any one have an example of a unintelligent design?
I mean, even to design something utterly stupid or flawed requires a dose of ingenuity, so why the need to stress the intelligent part of the design?
It seems that this bit tells a story.
The designer, even if not openly mentioned, of course is God.
Which is perfect and almighty.
In turns, it would be somewhat disrespectful to imagine a flawed design by a perfect designer. If one starts from this simple, unstated, assumption, most of the 12 predictions make sense, at least to a limited degree (that is, in so far as one is willing to call a prediction something that does not come with a way to measure it degree of truth: see above).

I dare say those "predictions" are more of a test of a certain idea of the deity, than of design in itself.

william e emba · 21 April 2011

Jack Scanlan wrote, quoting some IDiot:
ID predicts the presence of specified complexity in living systems.
This is almost a non-prediction, as it’s probably impossible for life to exist without being both specified and complex in some senses of the words.
Why? Why can't it just be uncomplicated goo?
It’s analogous to trying to explain the origin of a rock and saying that your hypothesis predicts that the rock is made of atoms - it’s already assumed and is unhelpful as a test of that hypothesis.
If you are going to invoke this mysterious IDer that works outside the known sciences, then more details are needed before anyone rational can believe the supposed theory predicts a known science phenomenon. Even the fact that rocks are made of atoms.
If this turns out to be the only “valid” prediction in this list, it shows that ID has virtually non-existent predictive power.
So far as I can tell, it doesn't even get this far.

Science Avenger · 21 April 2011

john Stockwell said: ID is nothing more than natural theology, which is the game of interpreting nature through the lens of a particular theology.
Indeed, this is so basic to what they do that it is only our cultural familiarity with that theology that keeps obvious objections from jumping right out at us. For example, why, given no presuppositions about The Designer, would we expect any kind of changes in the nature of life at all? Why would we expect any complexity? Why any evolution, micro or macro? Why any death? Why any procreation? Couldn't the designer have created simple, perfect, unchanging and immortal life forms? Of course He could have, but not if He is the god of Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed. Strip away that assumption, and none of Jonathan M's predictions has the slightest justification.

John Harshman · 21 April 2011

This seems to be a general pattern with ID and creationist "science": it mimics certain surface features of science, but that's as far as the resemblance goes. These predictions are not genuine scientific predictions, which must predict observations that both a) will be made if a hypothesis is true and b) will not be made if that hypothesis is false. That is, a prediction, in order to be a test, must distinguish among hypotheses. In addition to the flaws you note, mostly that there is no justification for supposing (a), there is also no real attempt at justification for supposing (b). Isn't natural selection, for example, supposed to produce something like "delicate optimization and fine-tuning"?

What explains this to me is that IDers want the prestige associated with looking all sciency, but have no interest in actually doing science. There may be various reasons for that: they know the truth already so there's no need to look for it; they have no idea how to approach their hypotheses scientifically; real science requires concrete hypotheses, which would expose them to close examination they don't want; they realize real science would not validate their ideas; perhaps others.

There's another clear case in baraminology. Barminologists spend much of their time inventing fancy terminology and science-like methods. But they seem to spend no time justifying the methods, i.e. arguing for or testing the ability of those methods to do what they are used for. For example, they spend much time clustering taxa, looking for gaps. But they spend no time reasoning out why clusters should be considered baramins, or gaps divide them.

This all suggests to me that they're all just going through the motions.

mrg · 21 April 2011

There's a certain schizophrenia in the theatrics, in that by all indications creationists of all flavors despise the sciences, but at the same time they really want to get the sciences on their side.

If they just said: "Science is bunk!" -- there wouldn't really be much to argue with them about any more.

Flint · 21 April 2011

There’s a certain schizophrenia in the theatrics, in that by all indications creationists of all flavors despise the sciences, but at the same time they really want to get the sciences on their side.

Well, I think it would be accurate to say that they covet the public respect science has earned, but reject specific theologically unpalatable scientific findings. The best way to grab the respect while rejecting the results is simply to SAY they are scientific. This is done, as we've seen, by means of a comprehensive public relations campaign including debates, legal cases, lists of "opposing" scientists, books and articles and letters to the editor and intimidation of school administrators and campaigns to elect/appoint congenial school boards, legislators, judges and so on. And it's all facilitated by a pervasively poor public understanding of what science is or how it works, a poor understanding these PR efforts are intended to make even more pervasive. People generally tend to view science from a political perspective, and are sympathetic with demands to "allow academic freedom" and "teach the controversy" and "present both sides fairly" by highlighting the "balance" inherent in "strengths and weaknesses." All of these implicitly impose a political framework onto the scientific enterprise. And if science can be positioned as politics, and creationists position their theology as a political position, then perhaps the respect science has earned CAN be co-opted to the Cause, without the annoying theories.

vel · 21 April 2011

hmmm. How can we have this "ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems." and then this "ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all."???

Wayne Robinson · 21 April 2011

From memory, Stephen Meyer predicted that Design will be shown to be be perfect. If it isn't, then it will be due to the Fall and Original Sin. I don't really want to hunt up my list of his 12 predictions in his notorious appendix A. I've listed the 12 predictions to the readers who give 'Signature in the Cell' 5 stars on Amazon for its rigorous science, and no one has ever answered.

Flint · 21 April 2011

vel said: hmmm. How can we have this "ID predicts an increase in evidence for the non-adequacy of the DNA-centric view of living systems." and then this "ID predicts that DNA, which was once considered to be junk, will turn out to be functional after all."???
Simple. The first quote promotes the basic underlying notion that there is a critical supernatural component to living organisms, and that natural understandings will never be sufficient to recognize it. The second quote rests on a model of how their Designer operates. That Designer isn't permitted to be wasteful, slapdash, satisficing, or careless. He doesn't Design junk. Accordingly, EVEN IF "junk DNA" is eventually allocated some functionality, however indirect, it STILL won't be good enough to explain life.

Carolyn James · 21 April 2011

What predictions does random mutation make?

Flint · 21 April 2011

What predictions does random mutation make?

In a contextual vacuum, none. But within context, with environmental constraints selecting random mutations according to survivability, it predicts that organisms will tend track a dynamic environment.

Carolyn James · 21 April 2011

I'm not sure what you mean by "tend [to] track a dynamic environment" Could you elaborate? Plus, how do you define dynamic?

harold · 21 April 2011

Carolyn James said: What predictions does random mutation make?
I'd like to answer this, but first we have a small problem. I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "random mutation". In fact, I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "random" or the meaning of the term "mutation". I don't mean to be rude. I'm just getting that sense from your posting. We'd need to clear that up before proceeding. Why don't you explain to me what you think those terms mean. If you turn out to be wrong, I'll explain what they mean and explain some basic predictions that we can make. If you turn out to correctly explain them, I'll just launch into the predictions. Does that sound reasonable?

Flint · 21 April 2011

I’m not sure what you mean by “tend [to] track a dynamic environment” Could you elaborate? Plus, how do you define dynamic?

By dynamic, I mean that environments gradually change over time. These are very slow changes from the yardstick of a human lifetime, but evolution is also slow. Now, elaboration? Let's say the planet gradually warms or cools. Both have happened many times in the past. And both trends tend to favor organisms better adapted to warmer or colder climates. If any mutations should favor survivability within the changed climate, those mutations are likely to be adopted. They are useful, whereas if there were no warming or cooling, such mutations wouldn't help (and might hinder) survivability. And so as mutations useful to a changing environment are adopted for this reason, the lineage of those organisms is said to track the environmental changes. Generally, this takes the form of the branching off of new species which deal better with the changing climate.

John_S · 21 April 2011

Wayne Robinson said: From memory, Stephen Meyer predicted that Design will be shown to be be perfect. If it isn't, then it will be due to the Fall and Original Sin.
But if it wasn't, then it's Satan's fault. But if it wasn't, then God left the defects in there to "test" us. But if he didn't, then the defects have a hidden divine purpose. But if they don't, then it's God's mystery ...

Olorin · 21 April 2011

Quoth mrg:
Actually, having an engineering background, it is an engineering dictate to make machines as simple as possible. It means a machine that is cheaper, more reliable, easier to make, and easier to maintain.
This would seem to be a major obstacle to analogizing life to human designs. Why do people not emphasize this more? An increasing number of devices are being designed by evolving them with genetic algorithms. Although the results are sometimes better and sometimes worse than the usual method, one salient characteristic of the evolved systems is that they are almost always more complex for an equivalent function than are conventionally designed systems. That is, even when done by humans, evolutionary systems produce more complexity than do conventionally-designed systems. So complexity per se is actually an argument against ID.

mrg · 21 April 2011

Relative to ID in general if not this specific item (forgive me, Jack), I was looking over the articles circulating on the blogosphere about humans having three distinct classes of symbiotic bacterial microecologies, and somebody posted:

Did is occur to anyone that humans exist merely as a substrate for bacteria?

While it's not what I'd think of as an inspiring outlook on our existence, the amusing thing is that as good a case in the evidence can be made for it as any other.

Vaguely reminiscent of one of the few things that Charles Fort ever said that I admired: "If there is a Universal Intelligence, must it be sane?" I'm perfectly willing to concede the possible existence of higher powers in the Universe -- but I also wonder if we might be lucky to have nothing to do with them.

mrg · 21 April 2011

Olorin said: An increasing number of devices are being designed by evolving them with genetic algorithms. Although the results are sometimes better and sometimes worse than the usual method, one salient characteristic of the evolved systems is that they are almost always more complex for an equivalent function than are conventionally designed systems.
I like the point, but I kind of doubt it -- like I said, the engineering goal is to make things as cheap and simply as possible to meet spec, and for a practical product such criteria would be incorporated into the evolutionary algorithm as desired end goals. Anyway, the point about engineered simplicity has been made elsewhere. Mark Perakh had a tale of a ping-pong ball thrown among pebbles: we would clearly recognize the ping-pong ball as designed and the pebbles not, but in that case the criteria would be organized simplicity, the ping-pong ball being simpler in dimensions and constitution than the pebbles. Another example is road networks. Try to drive around a relatively old city and the road network is a complicated nightmare thanks to historical contingency. Go to a more modern city and it's often a tidy rectilinear grid that's easier to navigate. Which is better designed, the complicated road network or the simple one?

Olorin · 21 April 2011

Another example is road networks. Try to drive around a relatively old city and the road network is a complicated nightmare thanks to historical contingency.
Exactly. The old city "evolved" while the new onw ws designed. Both have equivalent function, but the evolved cty is ore complex.

DavidK · 21 April 2011

Predictions?

Predictions In Astronomy/Cosmology

•ID predicts that the Universe had a beginning.

Isn't this already assumed? Other than Hoyle and a few others, the Steady-State universe model went away, the Big-Bang is here to stay. So what is actually being predicted?

•ID predicts an increase (and not a decrease), as science progresses, in the number of finely-tuned parameters pertinent to the laws and constants of physics.

Well, as science progresses there is likely to be more information gathered about the universe and the "constants" that define and control it. Thus this "prediction" really says nothing.

I found this one particularly interesting:

•ID predicts saltational, or abrupt, appearance of new life forms without transitional precursors.

So ID proponents are saying that if you watch the garbage dumps, likely more sooner than later you'll see a bevy of, very complex mind you, Boeing 474's taking to the air as they abruptly appear, and certainly quite plausible as the 747 is not even close in complexity to a life form, or even people popping out of thin air!

Wheels · 21 April 2011

...an argumentative strategy employed by Stephen C. Meyer in Signature in the Cell - inference to the best explanation (IBE). Under this strategy, evidence against evolutionary theory becomes evidence for ID, due to a current lack of other hypotheses to oppose ID, making it the “best explanation”.
That's funny, the abductive reasoning in real Inference to the Best Explanation usually involves taking some ideas that have merit and comparing them because there are infinitely many conceivable explanations but we're only interested in the probable ones. Intelligent Design has been pretty well shown to lack merit entirely and the dearth of firm, exclusive predictions being generated by it should tell us not to use it in abduction. Otherwise all you're doing is saying "Not-A is always evidence for B, even if there are other options." What IDists instead do is take a bunch of things that "Darwinists" had already figured out (i.e. not all junk DNA is irrelevant) and try to take credit for it as if it were the product of their own intellectual investigations. "See? We predicted that! Us! Yep, that's totally our prediction, no way you could get there from a conventional angle. Even though there's tons of mainstream literature about it that appears years before we said anything on the subject..."

fnxtr · 22 April 2011

mrg said: (snip) Did is occur to anyone that humans exist merely as a substrate for bacteria? (snip) I'm perfectly willing to concede the possible existence of higher powers in the Universe -- but I also wonder if we might be lucky to have nothing to do with them.
Cool. Vonnegut and Lovecraft in one post.

harold · 22 April 2011

Carolyn James said: What predictions does random mutation make?
You were too rude to have a dialog with me about the meaning of the terms "random" and "mutation", but now, for the benefit of others, I will answer this question anyway. 1) Random mutation is not an anthropic entity and does not "make predictions"; it is an observed scientific fact. Together with recombination (in eukaryotes) and lateral transfer, it is one of the major reasons for genetic variability between individuals. These observed facts lead to the following logical predictions. The predictions have been known to be accurate for some time now. 2) All individual organisms (indeed, all individual cells) have an individual genotype, which is almost never identical to the genotype of their immediate ancestor(s). 3) In fact, virtually all individuals, and indeed, cells, differ in phenotype from their immediate ancestor(s) as well. Some of the phenotypic differences are due to purely environmental factors, but in many cases, genetic variation makes a contribution. 4) Now we need to pause for another fact. Organisms exist within an environment. Local terrestrial environments change over time. Within a given environment, some phenotypes are statistically more likely to reproduce more. 5) Now for some predictions - alleles associated with the phenotypes that are "selected for" (reproduce more) should increase in frequency in the population. Alleles associated with the phenotypes that are "selected against" (reproduce less) should decrease in frequency in the population. Although selection is about reproduction, successful harvesting of environmental resources is closely, although not perfectly associated with survival to and success in, reproduction. We would therefore predict that populations in should show adaptation to the environment over time. Another prediction we could make would be that, if a trait is associated with mildly reduced "survival" as measured by, say, longevity, but if it adds strongly to reproductive success, we might sometimes see alleles associated with traits like that increase in the population. 6) These prediction are accurate. Understanding of random mutation, in the correct context, leads to accurate predictions. 7) There is more to the theory of evolution than this, but this is a major part of it.

DS · 22 April 2011

Carolyn James said: What predictions does random mutation make?
I don't know. What predictions does soup make? Wait, ... what? Oh, you meant, if the hypothesis to be tested is that mutations are random, what predictions would be made that could be used to test the hypothesis? Was that it? OK. If that was it, then you first have to define what you mean by "random". If you define random as every type of mutation is equally likely, then no, that hypothesis is falsified. If you define random as every base is equally likely to mutate, then no, that hypothesis is falsified. If you you define random as every environment is equally likely to produce the same rate of mutations, then no, that hypothesis is falsified. If you define random as every individual of every species has the same overall rate of mutation, then no, that hypothesis is falsified. If you define random as meaning random with respect to the needs of the organism, then yes, by that definition the hypothesis is consistent with all available evidence. And of course, this is the really important one with respect to how evolution works. So you see, real scientific hypotheses make real predictions that can really be tested and can really be falsified. ID does not, it's worthless scientifically. That's why real scientists do real research and ID proponents sit around throwing poo all day long.

Vaughn · 22 April 2011

harold said: 7) There is more to the theory of evolution than this, but this is a major part of it.
An excellent summary, Harold. I would suggest only one modification. What you summarized is best called the theory of natural selection, as "evolution" is an observable phenomenon of nature, not a theory. This suggestion follows Ernst Mayr's lead. He wrote in What Evolution Is, "It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact."

John Stockwell · 22 April 2011

Carolyn James said: What predictions does random mutation make?
Well,right off, "random" or "undirected" mutations combined with natural selection will yield populations of descendants, exhibiting traits that are modifications of previous generations traits.

mrg · 22 April 2011

fnxtr said: Cool. Vonnegut and Lovecraft in one post.
Well, so it goes.

harold · 22 April 2011

Vaughn said:
harold said: 7) There is more to the theory of evolution than this, but this is a major part of it.
An excellent summary, Harold. I would suggest only one modification. What you summarized is best called the theory of natural selection, as "evolution" is an observable phenomenon of nature, not a theory. This suggestion follows Ernst Mayr's lead. He wrote in What Evolution Is, "It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact."
I agree with this. Random mutation is an observed fact. Natural selection is an observed fact. Evolution is an observed fact. The theory of evolution ("theory" in the sense of "powerful, strongly supported central thesis that explains and ties together many disparate observations") is the idea that genetic variability, and the interaction of diverse genomes and phenotypes within terrestrial environments, appear sufficient to explain the common descent, relatedness and diversity of life on earth. What I meant by point 7) is that the processes described in my post are major, but not the only, components of biological evolution.

alias Ernest Major · 22 April 2011

ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.
Self-contradictory. What is the difference between "disparity" and "diversity"?
I find the distinction (due to Gould?) between disparity and diversity useful. Disparity is the overall spread in morphological (or biochemical, or whatever) space. Diversity is the number of different types of organisms. Gould claimed that morphological disparity preceded diversity (the "diminishing cone"). I think that he was wrong.

harold · 22 April 2011

alias Ernest Major said:
ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.
Self-contradictory. What is the difference between "disparity" and "diversity"?
I find the distinction (due to Gould?) between disparity and diversity useful. Disparity is the overall spread in morphological (or biochemical, or whatever) space. Diversity is the number of different types of organisms. Gould claimed that morphological disparity preceded diversity (the "diminishing cone"). I think that he was wrong.
I found a discussion of this here on PT, in fact. I stand corrected. It's a concept I had not heard of before. It seems to be grounded in some finely tuned decisions about taxonomy, as it forces the decision as to whether individual organisms that are dissimilar are in the same taxonomic bracket. However, at any rate, the ID/creationist claim here is still worthless. Clearly, the prediction is not specific to ID. It's just another example of the "take something that mainstream scientists predict and claim that ID predicts it, too" type of claim which the list contains a few other examples of.

John Kwok · 23 April 2011

Wayne Robinson said: From memory, Stephen Meyer predicted that Design will be shown to be be perfect. If it isn't, then it will be due to the Fall and Original Sin. I don't really want to hunt up my list of his 12 predictions in his notorious appendix A. I've listed the 12 predictions to the readers who give 'Signature in the Cell' 5 stars on Amazon for its rigorous science, and no one has ever answered.
As a former paleobiologist I regard as utterly risible, useless, and moronic, his claim that we can test for "deviations" from a "perfect" Design via the fossil record. Unfortunately he has ignored - or forgotten (but I'm betting on the former rather than latter) - the relevance of prior phylogenetic history as constraints acting upon the evolution of one or more lineages as seen in the fossil record.

John Kwok · 23 April 2011

harold said:
alias Ernest Major said:
ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.
Self-contradictory. What is the difference between "disparity" and "diversity"?
I find the distinction (due to Gould?) between disparity and diversity useful. Disparity is the overall spread in morphological (or biochemical, or whatever) space. Diversity is the number of different types of organisms. Gould claimed that morphological disparity preceded diversity (the "diminishing cone"). I think that he was wrong.
I found a discussion of this here on PT, in fact. I stand corrected. It's a concept I had not heard of before. It seems to be grounded in some finely tuned decisions about taxonomy, as it forces the decision as to whether individual organisms that are dissimilar are in the same taxonomic bracket. However, at any rate, the ID/creationist claim here is still worthless. Clearly, the prediction is not specific to ID. It's just another example of the "take something that mainstream scientists predict and claim that ID predicts it, too" type of claim which the list contains a few other examples of.
Gould was making this distinction with respect to the so-called "Cambrian Explosion", but he did not live long enough to see data being collected for what is known as the Mid Ordovician Biodiversification Event - or something phrased like that - which began in the Middle to Late Ordovician Period. One could view that as a second great "pulse" or taxonomic origination following the "Cambrian Explosion".

John Kwok · 23 April 2011

John Kwok said:
harold said:
alias Ernest Major said:
ID predicts the observed pattern of the fossil record whereby morphological disparity precedes diversity.
Self-contradictory. What is the difference between "disparity" and "diversity"?
I find the distinction (due to Gould?) between disparity and diversity useful. Disparity is the overall spread in morphological (or biochemical, or whatever) space. Diversity is the number of different types of organisms. Gould claimed that morphological disparity preceded diversity (the "diminishing cone"). I think that he was wrong.
I found a discussion of this here on PT, in fact. I stand corrected. It's a concept I had not heard of before. It seems to be grounded in some finely tuned decisions about taxonomy, as it forces the decision as to whether individual organisms that are dissimilar are in the same taxonomic bracket. However, at any rate, the ID/creationist claim here is still worthless. Clearly, the prediction is not specific to ID. It's just another example of the "take something that mainstream scientists predict and claim that ID predicts it, too" type of claim which the list contains a few other examples of.
Gould was making this distinction with respect to the so-called "Cambrian Explosion", but he did not live long enough to see data being collected for what is known as the Mid Ordovician Biodiversification Event - or something phrased like that - which began in the Middle to Late Ordovician Period. One could view that as a second great "pulse" of taxonomic origination following the "Cambrian Explosion".
Sorry harold, but I spotted a typo in my last sentence, which is now corrected (see above).

Mike Elzinga · 23 April 2011

Carolyn James said: What predictions does random mutation make?
Interestingly, random variations are what allow the richness in the evolutionary process. If it were not for such variations, nothing could adjust to the inevitable changes that occur in the environment of an organism. However, it goes much farther than this. Random variations allow many physical systems to adjust to even the slightest changes in the environment in which it is embedded. You already know that fine adjustments can be made and that you can get a system to follow very slight variations placed on it just by jiggling it gently. The fundamental physical principle behind this is applying small random forces to systems whose constituents sit in shallow potential wells. Biological systems are like that; as are many other non-living systems. One of the most frequently used techniques in statistics is random sampling of a system in order to pick up small changes in the averages of distributions. The more random samples one takes, the more sensitively the sample averages track small changes in the system being sampled. In other words, when complex systems such as living organisms are allowed to vary randomly, the more likely such replicating systems will be able to track small changes in their environments, and the more likely there will be a descendant – or a distribution of descendants - that will find a niche in a constantly shifting environment. Without random variation, the fate of most organisms would be extinction. We can predict that random variations in complex physical systems will allow such systems to track their environments more sensitively, and that systems that cannot adjust by random variations will eventually find themselves so “out of whack” with their environment that they break apart and go out of existence.

John Kwok · 24 April 2011

Carolyn James said: What predictions does random mutation make?
Carolyn, Flint, John Stockwell and Mike Elzinga have all made excellent points explaining how "random" mutations are the "stuff" from which Natural Selection and other evolutionary processes act within populations of organisms that may lead eventually to branching events (speciations) in which one or more "daughter" populations will split off from the original, ancestral population (as Flint himself noted.). Mutations are by themselves not really "random" because they are constrained by the prior phylogenetic (think geneaological if you don't know biology) history of the population in which such mutations occur. They are also constrained by the physical and biological factors acting on the population; these could be viewed as part of a complex web of interactions.

John Kwok · 24 April 2011

Made a typo, which is corrected below:
John Kwok said:
Carolyn James said: What predictions does random mutation make?
Carolyn, Flint, John Stockwell and Mike Elzinga have all made excellent points explaining how "random" mutations are the "stuff" from which Natural Selection and other evolutionary processes act within populations of organisms that may lead eventually to branching events (speciation) in which one or more "daughter" populations will split off from the original, ancestral population (as Flint himself noted.). Mutations are by themselves not really "random" because they are constrained by the prior phylogenetic (think geneaological if you don't know biology) history of the population in which such mutations occur. They are also constrained by the physical and biological factors acting on the population; these could be viewed as part of a complex web of interactions.

Dale Husband · 24 April 2011

Stop making typos and preview EVERYTHING, like I do.
John Kwok said: Made a typo, which is corrected below:
John Kwok said:
Carolyn James said: What predictions does random mutation make?
Carolyn, Flint, John Stockwell and Mike Elzinga have all made excellent points explaining how "random" mutations are the "stuff" from which Natural Selection and other evolutionary processes act within populations of organisms that may lead eventually to branching events (speciation) in which one or more "daughter" populations will split off from the original, ancestral population (as Flint himself noted.). Mutations are by themselves not really "random" because they are constrained by the prior phylogenetic (think geneaological if you don't know biology) history of the population in which such mutations occur. They are also constrained by the physical and biological factors acting on the population; these could be viewed as part of a complex web of interactions.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 24 April 2011

You were never a paleobiologist, John. You were a student. If you'd stop claiming to be things you never were, we might take you more seriously.
John Kwok said:
Wayne Robinson said: From memory, Stephen Meyer predicted that Design will be shown to be be perfect. If it isn't, then it will be due to the Fall and Original Sin. I don't really want to hunt up my list of his 12 predictions in his notorious appendix A. I've listed the 12 predictions to the readers who give 'Signature in the Cell' 5 stars on Amazon for its rigorous science, and no one has ever answered.
As a former paleobiologist I regard as utterly risible, useless, and moronic, his claim that we can test for "deviations" from a "perfect" Design via the fossil record. Unfortunately he has ignored - or forgotten (but I'm betting on the former rather than latter) - the relevance of prior phylogenetic history as constraints acting upon the evolution of one or more lineages as seen in the fossil record.

Just Bob · 25 April 2011

...and don't bother correcting every typo by reposting the whole damn thing.

...and when replying, don't repost the whole damn original.

Just Bob · 25 April 2011

How about this for a generalized prediction from random mutation: Something will survive and reproduce.

Or, as Dr. Malcolm would say, Life will find a way.

John Kwok · 25 April 2011

Rilke's Granddaughter said: You were never a paleobiologist, John. You were a student. If you'd stop claiming to be things you never were, we might take you more seriously.
John Kwok said:
Wayne Robinson said: From memory, Stephen Meyer predicted that Design will be shown to be be perfect. If it isn't, then it will be due to the Fall and Original Sin. I don't really want to hunt up my list of his 12 predictions in his notorious appendix A. I've listed the 12 predictions to the readers who give 'Signature in the Cell' 5 stars on Amazon for its rigorous science, and no one has ever answered.
As a former paleobiologist I regard as utterly risible, useless, and moronic, his claim that we can test for "deviations" from a "perfect" Design via the fossil record. Unfortunately he has ignored - or forgotten (but I'm betting on the former rather than latter) - the relevance of prior phylogenetic history as constraints acting upon the evolution of one or more lineages as seen in the fossil record.
Sorry RG, I did my share of professional service for the field in the past, so am entitled to refer myself as such. Or are you just as delusional as the GNUs posting elsewhere here?

Rolf Aalberg · 26 April 2011

I keep returning to Laughlin’s ”A Different Universe”. One of the chapters begins with an Eddington quote: “The mathematics is not there until we put it there.” With the culture war always lurking just below the consciousness threshold, this time it connected: Dembski put it there! I’ve never thought there was much of value in Dembski’s attempt at using math to ‘prove’ the impossibility of what we have all the reason in the world to consider true; the evolutionary process. I don’t believe in harnessing nature with mathematics the way Dembski does it. The next chapter contains this gem that I find very relevant. I hope the length of the quote is acceptable:

Simplicity in physics is an emergent phenomenon, not a mathematically self-evident state from which any deviation is a worrisome anomaly. It is somewhat easier to explain and defend this assertion if you substitute the word random for complex. Thus you roll a die and the number three comes up at random. This statement means that you did not know ahead of time which face would come up, that it is something unpredictable, and that the degree of unpredictability is measured by the number of possible outcomes, in this case six. There is nothing random about the number three itself once it has been selected. It makes no sense for any particular die face to be "random." Similarly, it makes no sense for an isolated shape to be "complex." Only the selection of one shape out of many, a physical process, can be complex. When we say a shape is complex we really mean that the physical process by which it formed is unstable and with a slight nudge could have generated one of many different shapes. Similarly, we say a shape is simple if it is guaranteed to be formed by a physical process the same way every time, even when nudged fairly violently. Once you understand that simplicity in nature is the exception, rather than the rule, it becomes easy to imagine that lifelike patterns might emerge if the microscopic circumstances were suitable. It is not possible to prove that they emerge, but it is possible to prove that their emergence is reasonable and does not violate common sense.

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

mrg · 26 April 2011

Rolf Aalberg said: I’ve never thought there was much of value in Dembski’s attempt at using math to ‘prove’ the impossibility of what we have all the reason in the world to consider true; the evolutionary process.
The sort of overcomplicated arguments favored by the ID crowd always seem to render down to: "I can't show that I am right in practice -- but I can prove you are wrong in theory." I have said this to creationists a dozen times and all I've ever got is a blank stare.

harold · 26 April 2011

Rolf Aalberg -
I’ve never thought there was much of value in Dembski’s attempt at using math to ‘prove’ the impossibility of what we have all the reason in the world to consider true; the evolutionary process.
I would certainly hope not! Dishonestly using flawed mathematical or "logical" arguments to "disprove evolution from above" is a cheesy game that long predates Dembski. The mathematical and logical games are always either irrelevant (often based on a straw man one-line version of "the theory of evolution"), or outright internally incorrect, or both. And they often display a lot of projection, frequently actually arguing against some impossible magic leap from one state to another - which is actually what creationism, and not the theory of evolution, argues in favor of.
I don’t believe in harnessing nature with mathematics the way Dembski does it
Harnessing mathematics to understand nature is a great thing to do. Dembski doesn't do this. He abuses mathematics in an attempt to dissemble against a strong scientific theory, without actually engaging any of the real evidence in support of the theory.

teach · 26 April 2011

"ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations."

Um, if complexity increases over time and it was initially irreducible, doesn't that mean that any subsequent complexity also has to be irreducible which means that the previous complexity was not? Or am I just dense?

Just Bob · 26 April 2011

teach said: Um, if complexity increases over time and it was initially irreducible, doesn't that mean that any subsequent complexity also has to be irreducible which means that the previous complexity was not? Or am I just dense?
That's the kind of stuff that you're supposed to shut up and not ask about.

386sx · 29 April 2011

So ID predicts things by fiat. Just like a prophet would. :P Nah, nothing about religion here folks. Move along...

386sx · 29 April 2011

386sx said: So ID predicts things by fiat. Just like a prophet would. :P Nah, nothing about religion here folks. Move along...
I should have said fortune teller instead of prophet. It would have looked less slippery slope-ish in making the connection to ID and religion. (Note to self: brush up on rhetoric skills.) "Prophet" just sounds stupid anyways. "Fortune teller" has a more romantic quality to it. Prophets, dumb as a box of bricks. Fortune tellers, dumb but with some wiles and more Hollywood movie cred.

Cubist · 29 April 2011

teach said: "ID predicts that, as scientific research progresses, biological complexity will be seen to increase over time, and information will have a more and more central role in the governing of life’s operations." Um, if complexity increases over time and it was initially irreducible, doesn't that mean that any subsequent complexity also has to be irreducible which means that the previous complexity was not? Or am I just dense?
Dense? Naah. More like "unclear on the concept of IC" -- which you can hardly be faulted for, given the ID movement's general lack of clarity. For starters, there's at least two versions of the 'irreducible complexity' concept floating around ID. There's the version pushed by Behe, that being "every component part is a critical failure point", and there's the version Dembski came up with, that being "no simpler system exists which can perform the system's function". These two versions of IC are strikingly different from one another, and systems which are IC according to one version may well not be IC according to the other. Case in point: The humble three-legged stool. Under Behean IC, a three-legged stool is IC, because you can't sit on it if any one of its four component parts (i.e., the three legs and the seat proper) are missing; under Behean IC, a three-legged stool isn't IC, because it's got four component parts, and you can just as easily sit on a one-component-part block of wood. But I digress. Under Dembski's concept of IC, an IC system can stay IC when you add complexity to it, as long as the added complexity makes the system able to perform at least one function it wasn't capable of previously. If the system-plus-added-complexity doesn't perform any functions that the original system couldn't, the original system is by definition a simpler system which can perform all the functions of the system-plus-added-complexity, right? So as long as you add function when you add complexity, the system can remain IC indefinitely. Under Behe's concept of IC, adding complexity to a system can yield a 'new' IC system if the new complexity does not involve any components in whose absence the system can perform its functions.

DavidK · 30 April 2011

Wheels said:
...an argumentative strategy employed by Stephen C. Meyer in Signature in the Cell - inference to the best explanation (IBE). Under this strategy, evidence against evolutionary theory becomes evidence for ID, due to a current lack of other hypotheses to oppose ID, making it the “best explanation”.
That's funny, the abductive reasoning in real Inference to the Best Explanation usually involves taking some ideas that have merit and comparing them because there are infinitely many conceivable explanations but we're only interested in the probable ones. Intelligent Design has been pretty well shown to lack merit entirely and the dearth of firm, exclusive predictions being generated by it should tell us not to use it in abduction. Otherwise all you're doing is saying "Not-A is always evidence for B, even if there are other options." What IDists instead do is take a bunch of things that "Darwinists" had already figured out (i.e. not all junk DNA is irrelevant) and try to take credit for it as if it were the product of their own intellectual investigations. "See? We predicted that! Us! Yep, that's totally our prediction, no way you could get there from a conventional angle. Even though there's tons of mainstream literature about it that appears years before we said anything on the subject..."
That's somewhat the argument here (http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/InterData_Fact_Sheet.pdf?docID=2481) that is being suggested for inclusion in supplemental materials in Texas biology classes.

teach · 2 May 2011

DavidK said: That's somewhat the argument here (http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/InterData_Fact_Sheet.pdf?docID=2481) that is being suggested for inclusion in supplemental materials in Texas biology classes.
David K, I've been waiting for someone to show me exactly what IDers propose that I teach my high school students. Now that I've seen it, I'm going to go somewhere and cry.

junk car prices · 18 May 2011

This really answered my problem, thank you!