Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[Dinwar]

Only if you can do so in an example satisfactory to their arbitrary and fluid personal standards.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[AvalonXQ]

We've done that. So I take it ID has been falsified?

Where that has been done, irreducible complexity has been falsified.
After all, it's a very straightforward claim: natural selection cannot move you from A to B.
It has a straightforward response: here is a path from A to B that is traversible by natural selection.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Sure. Show the functioning intermediate stages and the steps between them.

You'll notice that randman has completely ignored the paper I posted which demonstrates how a paper he posted claiming centrioles showed irreducible complexity was false. I suspect that he will henceforth pretend he didn't post that paper in the first place by ignoring any reference to it and making none himself, but will trot the paper out in conversations in venues other than this board.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Where that has been done, irreducible complexity has been falsified.
After all, it's a very straightforward claim: natural selection cannot move you from A to B.
It has a straightforward response: here is a path from A to B that is traversible by natural selection.

And so far no path from A to B that cannot be traversed by natural selection has been found. Of course that indeed does not say that it never *will* be found, but until then natural selection remains a valid theory.

Of course, if such a pathway is ever found ID as currently practiced still is not a scientific theory since it has zero predictive value, and a theory that cannot be used to predict is no theory at all.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Of course, if such a pathway is ever found ID as currently practiced still is not a scientific theory since it has zero predictive value, and a theory that cannot be used to predict is no theory at all.

Why is there zero predictive value in ID? Wouldn't ID predict that all organisms will perform a useful function for their ecosystem and be well-suited to their environment (or something like that)?
It seems like ID has as much predictive value as, say, alternate theories about which Pharaoh built the Sphynx.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Why is there zero predictive value in ID? Wouldn't ID predict that all organisms will perform a useful function for their ecosystem and be well-suited to their environment (or something like that)?
It seems like ID has as much predictive value as, say, alternate theories about which Pharaoh built the Sphynx.

That might have useful predictive power if another, more powerful theory didn't already predict the same thing, in much more detail.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That might have useful predictive power if another, more powerful theory didn't already predict the same thing, in much more detail.

So, we're not saying that ID has zero predictive power. We're just saying that ID has less predictive power than another theory that, on the basis of the proposed hypothetical, has been proven wrong inadequate. [Edit for more precise language.]

 

[Mister Agenda]

So, we're not saying that ID has zero predictive power. We're just saying that ID has less predictive power than another theory that, on the basis of the proposed hypothetical, has been proven inadequate.

Which is the theory that has been proven inadequate? Intelligent Design? Yes, it's not that it's been proven wrong, it's that even if it is correct it isn't very useful in comparison. There's really no way to falsify Intelligent Design, if things like the human coccyx don't count as evidence against it.

 

[Dinwar]

I would say that ID has one prediction: that organisms contain systems which cannot evolve. That's a testable prediction, so I'll gladly say that ID is a good hypothesis. It's been proven wrong in every case, as far as I can tell. Therefore, the hypothesis is wrong.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Which is the theory that has been proven inadequate?

... did you somehow miss the post I was responding to?

And so far no path from A to B that cannot be traversed by natural selection has been found. Of course that indeed does not say that it never *will* be found, but until then natural selection remains a valid theory.

Of course, if such a pathway is ever found ID as currently practiced still is not a scientific theory since it has zero predictive value, and a theory that cannot be used to predict is no theory at all.

 

[A'isha]

ID isn't really comparable to alternate theories of which Pharaoh built the pyramids.

It's more comparable to alternate theories that say "there's no way that the primitive Egyptians could have built the pyramids, so it must have been aliens using unknown advanced technology."

 

[Mister Agenda]

... did you somehow miss the post I was responding to?

An irreducible pathway would not falsify evolution, at most it would show the course of evolution has been tampered with at some point. ID still wouldn't be as helpful as the TOE in making new biological discoveries in general, although such a discovery would open up one very interesting new avenue of inquiry.

I make this statement in the context of every proposal for an irreducable pathway so far presented being shown to be invalid and therefore any exception to that trend being rare. If the case was that irreducible complexity was found at every turn, THEN you would have a good case that evolution is falsified as an account of the biological history of this planet, but still not as the best source of predictions for future development if the IDer is not still interfering.

As I said, even if ID is correct it isn't very useful compared to the TOE. The TOE obeys rules. an IDer can be whimsical or have a hidden agenda, and thus would be fundamentally unpredictable. To understand biological development and speciation, one would have to understand the IDer well enough to predict its actions.

 

[AvalonXQ]

As I said, even if ID is correct it isn't very useful compared to the TOE. The TOE obeys rules. an IDer can be whimsical or have a hidden agenda, and thus would be fundamentally unpredictable. To understand biological development and speciation, one would have to understand the IDer well enough to predict its actions.

Well, yes. ID brings biology essentially into the same realm as archeology -- trying to predict the behavior of intelligent entities in order to figure out why they did what they did, and what else they might have done. And just like no amount of Achaean excavation will ever allow us to understand their culture perfectly, no amount of information about known designs will ever give perfect predictions as to what other designs may be found.
It's generally going to be easier to predict unintelligent actors than intelligent actors, but that doesn't mean that a theory that an intelligent actor is involved is therefore either completely useless or unscientific.

 

[randman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

A project where during the course of it, by random 'micro' mutations E.coli gained a function it did not have before.
In part of the experiment, indicating that this happened due to pure random chance. Only a small part of the population actually gained the function, which goes against front loading. Of course the ID/creationist argument can always be 'god/invisible super aliens made it that way because it/they wanted to'.

And there are functional intermediate stages all around you. Every single living organism alive today is a functional intermediate stage between what was and what will be.
Livestock and other animals that humans have increased selective pressure on are an even clearer indication of rapid speciation that will eventually lead to different species.

Got a chuckle out of the every species is by definition an intermediate stage. See what I mean when you guys focus so much on the theory and verbal proofs of it, that it clouds your ability to look at processes and data by themselves and get a handle on things?

On the other bolded parts, no, there is no evidence it was purely random, and no it does not conflict with front loading. Front loading does not predict all of one species would mutate the same way, etc,.....You really need to take the time to actually understand what men like Pierre Grasse and later, various front loaders, are saying before you assume something disagrees with them.

Why not just take the time to get a handle on what they are saying?

 

[randman]

Why is there zero predictive value in ID? Wouldn't ID predict that all organisms will perform a useful function for their ecosystem and be well-suited to their environment (or something like that)?
It seems like ID has as much predictive value as, say, alternate theories about which Pharaoh built the Sphynx.

Avalon, it has a lot of predictive value in a lot of areas. Most objections are general in nature and show most do not take the time to even understand what ID is and what they are saying.

ID is particularly predictive and helpful in assessing the origin of DNA and ordering of information in general, something Darwinism cannot do, nor explain.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Why is there zero predictive value in ID? Wouldn't ID predict that all organisms will perform a useful function for their ecosystem and be well-suited to their environment (or something like that)?
It seems like ID has as much predictive value as, say, alternate theories about which Pharaoh built the Sphynx.

Not when the vast history of organisms are made up of failed extinctions. This suggests a system of trial and error, and the only reason a God would need trial and error is if the God was trying to learn something the God was ignorant of, or if the God has some poetic meaning and aesthetic that just coincidentally resembles a world that has been forged through mindless trial and error.
Why does a God need a system founded on trial and error. Of what value is suffering?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

This is gene X in yeast. It is 40% similar to gene Y in mice and 35% similar to genes Z and D in humans, and its core is 23% similar to gene F in bacteria.

All have been individually crafted by an unknown intelligence, using an unknown pattern, with a plan we do not know.
What does this say about the function of any gene?

In an archeology example. Pyramids. Built and created by humans. And though they are similar, every culture used them completely differently without any similarity other than the general form.

THe TOE allows us to infer function based on predicted ancestry which in turn has led to numerous medical and biological breaktroughs.

THe only way I can think of ID would allow for similar predictions is to assume everything has been created to LOOK like its evolved from common ancestors.
And if that's the case, then why assume its been created at all?

 

[Halfcentaur]

Avalon, it has a lot of predictive value in a lot of areas. Most objections are general in nature and show most do not take the time to even understand what ID is and what they are saying.

ID is particularly predictive and helpful in assessing the origin of DNA and ordering of information in general, something Darwinism cannot do, nor explain.

"God did it"

Which God?

"My God."

 

[randman]

So, far from being something that left evolutionary science totally gobsmacked and scrambling to explain it while IDers and other creationists smugly say "we told you so", what the ENCODE project found was actually anticipated by biologists,

No, not if you go back further. This is just evidence of biologists, though many won't admit it, beginning to come around to ideas initially promoted in ID and others such as men like Pierre Grasse. Biology is likely undergoing a paradigm shift and part of that is a deemphasis on NeoDarwinian mechanisms and arguments.

That, of course, does not mean mainstream biologists are abandoning common descent.

 

[A'isha]

Well, yes. ID brings biology essentially into the same realm as archeology -- trying to predict the behavior of intelligent entities in order to figure out why they did what they did, and what else they might have done. And just like no amount of Achaean excavation will ever allow us to understand their culture perfectly, no amount of information about known designs will ever give perfect predictions as to what other designs may be found.
It's generally going to be easier to predict unintelligent actors than intelligent actors, but that doesn't mean that a theory that an intelligent actor is involved is therefore either completely useless or unscientific.

There are two problems with that. First, with archaeology, we are actually able to "predict the behavior" of the ancient Achaeans because we actually have things to compare their conjectured behavior to. We know, for instance, what amphorae were designed and used for, because we have lots of other examples of similar vessels, and humans throughout history have acted in such similar ways that extrapolation is little problem.

In contrast, we have nothing to compare the hypothetical Intelligent Designer to. We have no idea how or why it may have done the things it supposedly did. And we likewise have no way of knowing that a particular genetic expression was "designed" a certain way or why, because we have no other examples of things that we know were designed and used for a similar purpose.

Even more troublesome to ID as a viable predictive theory, though, is the fact that it says we can stop when we think we know the answer. Take the example above regarding centrioles, for instance. The Discovery Institute paper that randman linked to basically said "Yup, irreducably complex. No need to look at how that developed, since it was made that way as-is. We can stop looking into the origin of centrioles now." But, as the study that Sceptic Tank linked to shows, that's wrong. We shouldn't have stopped there, because when we did go beyond that conclusion, we learned quite a bit about how centrioles really developed, and that in itself will have further repercussions down the line as we study the related new knowledge that we gained as a result.

And that flaw in ID is fatal for any methodology that purports to be for expanding knowledge.