Can ID be disproven?

[Taffer]

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.

What about flies that have legs instead of antennae?

 

[Taffer]

Nice try.

So you have no evidence that a design is required? Colour me surprised...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul says 'no'. I tend to say 'yes'; that would to me be a prediction that ID should make.

ID does not have a crisp definition of what is "designed." That is why I said it makes no predictions about designs. ID does have a squirrelly definition of "irreducible complexity" and claims such biological mechanisms cannot evolve. Perhaps I am splitting hairs.

Apparently, not every one shares your view that nylon digesting bacteria are evidence for evolution

Yes, the IDers will say it's adaptation instead of evolution.

I noted in another thread in the politics forum that a lot of people who criticize ID haven't read anything written by an ID supporter, only by ID detractors. The same is true of evolution's detractors. Most of them only read anti-evolution material.

I have read Dembski's No Free Lunch.

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.

Dembski has an explanatory filter that tries to identify biological objects with "complex specified information." He claims these cannot come into existence by any naturalistic means. However, the only object he analyzed was the flagellum, and only by treating it as a discrete combinatorial object. I have never seen an analysis of the probability of an object coming into existence by an evolutionary means.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

.

I have read Dembski's No Free Lunch.

~~ Paul

Sorry. Wasn't clear. I suspected that you had read that or other ID works, and that the "they" in my post wasn't meant to refer directly to you.

Nevertheless, I think ID supporters would predict a different outcome of the experiment than would evolution supporters. I think ID is testable, but it would take a long time to run the test.

There is one sense in which it is not truly testable. Suppose we ran the fruit fly test and some new, highly unlikely, structure appeared. The ID crowd might very well say that God just did that because he wanted to trick you. After all, "thou shalt not put the Lord your God to the test."

My point is that it is theoretically testable, and therefore we shouldn't be hostile to mentioning it in a science class. "Ok, class. There are some people who think this:....but since we can't run the experiment, that won't be on the test. Meanwhile, genes mutate and plants and animals change over time. That has been tested experimentally, and you will be tested on those experiments. Class dismissed." The fact that there is extreme hostility toward even allowing a teacher to say that demonstrates that there is more going on here than a debate about science.

 

[Taffer]

ID is in no way theoretically testable, for one simple reason. ID'ers say "God made the world as if evolution happened". (Taking the general stance, here, not the "evolution is false" stance). They then make a prediction, using evolution. We then test it and find that the prediction was wrong. Evolutionists say "well, our theory must be wrong", and go about making it 'right'. ID'ers say "oh well, God made the world as if evolution happened, except here". See? ID can never be wrong.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Meadmaker: So you're saying that ID is testable by running an experiment where we watch to see if evolution can produce a structure that is ... what? Irreducibly complex? Not a structure we would "expect" on a fruit fly? The source of a speciation event?

Pick one. Then tell me exactly how ID predicts that your chosen event could not happen, and fails if it does. Make sure you get the details right, because I wouldn't want any IDers to say that you'd chosen a goalpost that has nothing to do with ID.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

ID does not have a crisp definition of what is "designed."

Reminds one of the definitional difficulties we find in The Theory, huh?

ID is in no way theoretically testable, for one simple reason. ID'ers say "God made the world as if evolution happened". (Taking the general stance, here, not the "evolution is false" stance). They then make a prediction, using evolution. We then test it and find that the prediction was wrong. Evolutionists say "well, our theory must be wrong", and go about making it 'right'. ID'ers say "oh well, God made the world as if evolution happened, except here". See? ID can never be wrong.

Nominated for best strawman of the decade....

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker: So you're saying that ID is testable by running an experiment where we watch to see if evolution can produce a structure that is ... what? Irreducibly complex? Not a structure we would "expect" on a fruit fly? The source of a speciation event?

Pick one. Then tell me exactly how ID predicts that your chosen event could not happen, and fails if it does. Make sure you get the details right, because I wouldn't want any IDers to say that you'd chosen a goalpost that has nothing to do with ID.

~~ Paul

For the sake of arguement, I'll take the question, although it would be better to ask Behe or Dembski, but since they aren't here, I'll go for it.

Not a structure we would expect on a fruit fly. ID predicts that such a change would take a series of steps, but that the intermediate steps would not result in positive selection pressure, and therefore it wouldn't evolve. ID says that if we want fruit flies with mosquito-like beaks that could get the fruit out of deep, narrow, holes, we would have to design them.

Oh, by the way, while we are here, you might as well predict exactly what evolution predicts would happen during the experiment, and make sure you get the details right. That way we can compare the relative predictive quality of the two hypotheses.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not a structure we would expect on a fruit fly. ID predicts that such a change would take a series of steps, but that the intermediate steps would not result in positive selection pressure, and therefore it wouldn't evolve. ID says that if we want fruit flies with mosquito-like beaks that could get the fruit out of deep, narrow, holes, we would have to design them.

ID doesn't predict that. ID says that if the result is irreducibly complex, then there were intermediate steps that had no selective advantage. It doesn't predict that any particular result will be IC. However, Dembski has recently backed away from this stance and now says that one has to determine that there were no possible evolutionary pathways to the object. This is, of course, impossible.

Oh, by the way, while we are here, you might as well predict exactly what evolution predicts would happen during the experiment, and make sure you get the details right. That way we can compare the relative predictive quality of the two hypotheses.

What experiment? Exactly how are you going to apply pressure on these fruit flies?

Nominated for best strawman of the decade....

How do you figure? With ID, evolution is just fine except when they pick a sacred object and claim it could not have evolved. Do they choose the sacred objects based on a theory of ID? No, they just pick objects they think are cool.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

What experiment? Exactly how are you going to apply pressure on these fruit flies?

However you like, Paul.

The point is that someone said ID wasn't scientific because it makes no predictions. That isn't true. ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex. Therefore, given an opportunity, complex structures won't evolve. Evolution, or perhaps I say unguided evolution, will sometimes end up creating complex structures if selection pressure creates an advantage for those structures and their intermediates.

The point of my question about predicting what happens when evolutionary pressure was applied to fruit flies was to demonstrate that making such predictions in more than the vaguest terms is very close to impossible. No biologist alive today can predict exactly what will happen or how long it will take. Therefore, demanding that ID people do the same is rather silly.

If I subject fruit flies to selection pressure, in whatever manner I choose to, evolution predicts that eventually I will end up with something that isn't a fruit fly, and has a form that is very well suited to its new environment. Intelligent Design predicts that you will end up with a bunch of dead fruit flies, because they can't adapt to their environment quickly enough without the hand of a designer. It's not that difficult to grasp.

 

[bagtaggar]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Evolution is a robust, thoroughly tested theory supported by mountains of observational and laboratory data.

There are dozens of known examples of observed speciation occuring within the span of a couple hundred years, the Feroe Island field mouse is one such example.

The genetic code of many species testifies to the presence of evolutionary processes, as predicted by the theory. We have endogenous retroviruses, retroposons, pseudogenes, LINEs and SINEs that match the fossil record for known evolutionary changes.

We observe daily how bacteria, through rapidly accelerated evolution (due to their incredible reproduction rates), develop resistance to anti-biotics, adapt to new harsh environments, and find creative ways to take advantage of changing resources.

The fossil record very strongly supports evolution. Whatever holes in the record there are, they are more than made up for by any of the above evidences, and are still the subject of research.

I could go on and on. Evolution is a strong theory. It makes accurate predictions. It is supported by mountains of evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines. Every single componant of the theory, natural selection, speciation, variation, mutation, etc has been thoroughly demonstrated and proven in many different redundant ways.

Intelligent Design consists of two things. A list of complaints about philosophical elements of the theory of evolution, and a strong religious componant that invalidates any notions of objectivity.

I can't for the life of me see why there is even a debate. This is so silly.

 

[davefoc]

I don't want to put words in Meadmakers mouth but I believe he is saying that theoretically ID makes predictions that are testable. Whether as a practical matter they are or not is a different question. Further I do not think he is saying that even if a test was devised that tested ID that an IDer would accept the results or not attempt to weasel around the results.

Meadmaker wrote:

..ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex.

I think what is meant by this sentence is that irreducibly complex structures can not arise through a process of evolution. I take this to mean that things like eyes and wings aren't generated by a process of evolution because there would be no point to even a very simple eye unless it worked so an organism is not going to all of a sudden sprout the simplest of eyes through a random mutation process.

So the only testable prediction is that an organism won't all of a sudden evolve an irreducibly complex body part or process. It seemed like the digestion of nylon was a perfect example of a violation of a ID prediction. But alas it wasn't. At least not to an IDer who explained it by just claiming that the ability to adapt to different environments already was designed into the bacteria, so digesting nylon was really nothing new.

 

[bagtaggar]

Ah ok.

The problem I guess is that there are no known irreducibly complex pathways/systems. Behe (the biggest proponant of the idea) attempted to convince his readers, for example, that systems like the immune system, blood clotting, and the photon receptor process in the eye are example of irreducibly complex systems. He failed however to provide more than a foggy suggestion as to why these systems are irreducibly complex, and his book has never been successfully peer reviewed.

In fact, the vast majority of the biology community fail to see how any of the systems he mentions are irreducibly complex. I know I've run across more than a few papers talking about how the blood clotting system is actually very redundant, and I think I've mentioned in another thread that pharmaceutical companies perform genetic knock-out tests that demonstrate how supposedly irreducibly complex biochemical pathways manage to function after one or more of their componants has been removed.

So, ID basically has a hypothesis. It is not a theory. The hypothesis that an irreducibly complex system would demonstrate intelligent design is somewhat reasonable (although it's very debatable, and, quite the cop-out). However no such irreducibly complex system has yet been discovered.

Thus, it's just a hypothesis, it's not a theory.

 

[PatKelley]

However you like, Paul.

The point is that someone said ID wasn't scientific because it makes no predictions. That isn't true. ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex. Therefore, given an opportunity, complex structures won't evolve. Evolution, or perhaps I say unguided evolution, will sometimes end up creating complex structures if selection pressure creates an advantage for those structures and their intermediates.

The point of my question about predicting what happens when evolutionary pressure was applied to fruit flies was to demonstrate that making such predictions in more than the vaguest terms is very close to impossible. No biologist alive today can predict exactly what will happen or how long it will take. Therefore, demanding that ID people do the same is rather silly.

If I subject fruit flies to selection pressure, in whatever manner I choose to, evolution predicts that eventually I will end up with something that isn't a fruit fly, and has a form that is very well suited to its new environment. Intelligent Design predicts that you will end up with a bunch of dead fruit flies, because they can't adapt to their environment quickly enough without the hand of a designer. It's not that difficult to grasp.

Testing the ID paradigm. That would involve actually creating some positive testable statements.

Okay, I'm an ID proponent, and to prove intelligent design, I would say that it requires a falsifiable hypothesis. Saying Evolution hasn't created life is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

To prove an intelligent creator, I would say that organisms do not get all of their instructions from DNA or related molecules, but from another source. To falsify this, I would have to show that no other source provides instruction preferably by breeding organisms that have all one type of gene, subjecting them to selective pressures, and showing that mutation had occurred, use this DNA and only this DNA (No other part of the original organism) to replace the nuclear material of another organism, and subject it to the same selective pressures. If it still survives, ID falsified. If it does not, it only shows that DNA is not the only possible mechanism of inheritence and survivability.

 

[drkitten]

Testing the ID paradigm. That would involve actually creating some positive testable statements.

This has been done. Meadmaker's suggestion is very close to the mark. Behe's recent testimony in the ID case provides another one -- put a whole bunch of bacteria that do not have flagellae into a test tube and see if over several thousand generations, they evolve one. The position of ID is that they will not.

Unfortunately, this is a test, not of ID vs. evolution, but of ID vs. a pale shadow of evolutionary theory, since the position of evolutionary theory is that the bacteria probably will not evolve flagellae, either. There aren't enough bacteria in a normal test tube, the thousands of generations aren't long enough for an expected event of such magnitude, and we have no idea what sort of evolutionary pressure would be appropriate to apply.

The real problems are twofold. First, even if a bacterium "evolved" a flagellum, that could simply be the mark of the Designer at work, so even a "negative" result (from the ID perspective) wouldn't disprove ID. And second, as the attorney pointed out in his closing arguments, no one from the ID side of the debate is actually interested in running such a test.

 

[uruk]

However you like, Paul.

The point is that someone said ID wasn't scientific because it makes no predictions. That isn't true. ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex. Therefore, given an opportunity, complex structures won't evolve. Evolution, or perhaps I say unguided evolution, will sometimes end up creating complex structures if selection pressure creates an advantage for those structures and their intermediates.

The point of my question about predicting what happens when evolutionary pressure was applied to fruit flies was to demonstrate that making such predictions in more than the vaguest terms is very close to impossible. No biologist alive today can predict exactly what will happen or how long it will take. Therefore, demanding that ID people do the same is rather silly.

If I subject fruit flies to selection pressure, in whatever manner I choose to, evolution predicts that eventually I will end up with something that isn't a fruit fly, and has a form that is very well suited to its new environment. Intelligent Design predicts that you will end up with a bunch of dead fruit flies, because they can't adapt to their environment quickly enough without the hand of a designer. It's not that difficult to grasp.

So what would call it when a strain of bacteria or virus under the pressure of vaccines and antigen turn into a strain that becomes resistant or jumps species as has been observed on numerous occasions?

 

[davefoc]

I think there is a third problem with this test drkitten suggests.

Just because an organism doesn't have a particular body part doesn't mean that the organism doesn't have the genetic code for that particular body part.

Lately there seems to have been an increased understanding how the expression of genes is controlled. It is certainly conceivable that the bacteria in question just needs to have the flagellum genes turned on to get a flagellum. So what would the generation of a flagellum prove? Perhaps not more than a single mutation occurred that allowed the flagellum to develop.

I suppose it is theorectically possible to analyse the genes that control the development of the flagellum and decide whether they represent something completely new or they just represent an expression of genes that were previously inactive. If they were completely new that would be a pretty strong case for the idea that some mechanism previously believed to have been irreducibly complex by an ID advocate could be created through a mechanism of mutation and natural selection, but I also have a gut feel that something as complex as a flagellum is not going to be created through evolution in anything like the the span of a human life.

 

[uruk]

The thing I noticed about I.C. is that they look at a complete functioning system with all it intricate parts and get dumbfounded that it could have developed over time. It's like looking at a fine rolex watch and marveling over the intricate gears and figuring that the watch could not have evolved from a simpler design since when you remove one part the watch stops working. they forget that chronometers first started out as a stick in the ground.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As Bagtaggar said, let's have the ID folks demonstrate, empirically or logically, that some particular biological mechanism is irreducibly complex. Then we can start the experiment to see if we can evolve the mechanism in a really big test tube.

Until then, the goalpost of irreducible complexity is moving about as if some MIT students are using it for a football prank.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

Davefoc,
Quite right. I don't feel like words have been placed in my mouth.

So, ID basically has a hypothesis. It is not a theory. The hypothesis that an irreducibly complex system would demonstrate intelligent design is somewhat reasonable (although it's very debatable, and, quite the cop-out). However no such irreducibly complex system has yet been discovered.

Also quite right. When talking about ID, I frequently call it a hypothesis, or I talk about a "theory", including the quote marks. It is a genuine theory, in that it is a framework that explains the available evidence, but it lacks experimental confirmation.

My interest in the topic comes from my experience back in the days when I was a Christian. Back then, I believed in both evolution and intelligent design, although the word had not yet been coined at least in the popular press. I believed that God formed the world and created laws of physics and all of that stuff. Then, he guided the process of evolution with his own direction. When he needed it, he would introduce a "random" mutation here and there so that life evolved under His direction in the manner He wanted.

I don't believe that anymore, but I abandoned that belief based on theological musings, not scientific ones. In fact, I think that belief is completely and totally compatible with all science as we know it. In other words, ID and evolution are not contradictory.

So why the hostility? Why the debate?

I think the only explanation is that the most vocal people on both sides are talking about religion. On the ID side of things, the loudest proponents are basically creationists, who think that God made whole fish all at once complete with scales. On the evolutionary side, there are an awful lot of people who absolutely refuse to accept the possibility that God interferes with the process, even though that lack of intervention is in no way provable.

Neither position is scientific. Creationism is inconsistent with physical evidence, and unguided evolution is beyond what science can confirm, and yet there are people who will hold to either side and insist that they are totally and completely scientific. They aren't.

Meanwhile, ID goes a bit beyond what I believed when I was a Christian. It asserts that the biological evidence absolutely contains evidence of design, that certain structures could not happen by chance and selection pressure alone. That is a scientific claim, but testing it is very, very, difficult. As such, it is in the category of an unproven, untested, hypothesis.

I have no problem with science teachers saying, "Some people believe X, but we haven't tested that, and we aren't sure how to do it. Meanwhile, we have tested a lot of the following things, like the age of this rock, and they will be on the test. Please study." I think if teachers were allowed to openly discuss the religious implications of the theories of the origin of life, and then debate the evidence that actually exists, the average student would be smart enough to sort out the nonsense from the good stuff. What are we afraid of?