Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)

Richard Forrest wrote:

Wall Of Sleep wrote:

Richard Forrest wrote:

Wall Of Sleep wrote:


Richard Forrest wrote:


Wall Of Sleep wrote:



Richard Forrest wrote:




Wall Of Sleep wrote:

Just to point out a few responses which have been ignored...

WoS:You are grossly oversimplifying things. I can only assume you
haven't
read any of Behe's answers to his critics.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp
I can only assume as well, that your knowledge of the case for ID is
cursory.

RF: The is Michael Behe, who conceeded under oath that ID is not
science.
You evidently disagree with him.


I've read those transcripts. Basically, if you're going to define
"science" as "naturalism", ID *is not* science. It's a narrow definition
that purposely excludes ID.



It's not a "narrow definition". It is the definition of science as it
has developed over the past four centuries, and the discipline within
which all scientists in all fields operate. It doesn't "purposely
exclude ID". The rest of the scientific world has not decided to change
the basis on which it operates because a few religious cooks make
noises.


Tell me in your own words what disqualifies ID as science.



ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence.

You are flat out wrong. The testable hypothesis is that *only*
intelligence can produce the specified complex functions we find in
nature from "scratch".



That isn't a testable hypothesis. It's an unfounded assertion.
What set of observations or measurements could demonstrate that a
"specified complex function" is *not* the product of an "intelligence"
when the term "specified complex function" *presumes* the involvement
of an intelligence?

It's the logical fallacy of presuming the consequent.


The term "specified complex function" does *not* presume the involvement
of intelligence. It's merely been observed that intelligence has
produced all known examples of this outside of nature. Who (or what)
produced the functions in nature is still debatable. The fact that
intelligent design (among humans) has produced these types of functions
is just evidence that intelligence *can* produce such things. It's no
more a stretch than the standard evolutionary argument that - although
there's no proof that evolution did produce it, there's ample evidence
that it can (or so you say). Both are testable.



The main
argument presented by ID is a potentail falsification of evolution by
small incremental steps - exactly the test of his theory proposed by
Darwin!

In science one does not support one hypothesis by falsifying a
completely different one.


That's part of the argument. If it can be shown that evolution *cannot*
produce new complex specified functions (without losing another
function), then evolution *cannot be* the mechanism by which de novo
functions were built up over time.



So what? Even if evolution by small incremental steps were falsified,
that would not provide one iota of support for the assertion that an
"intelligent designer" did it. One cannot support one hypothesis by
falsifying a different hypothesis. It's a scientifically incoherent,
and logically invalid argument.

If I were on trial for murder, you couldn't prove my guilt by proving
your innocence.


That's true. But if not evolution, then what?




I suggest that you take up the argument on whether or not ID is science
with Behe.


WoS: ID is more logical than evolution
RF: It is? It explains anything, predicts nothing and cannot be
falsified. It's scientifically valueless

WoS: and has a mechanism

RF: What mechanism? It specifically avoids any speculation on the
nature of the designer or the mechanism.


The mechanism is intelligent agency. This mechanism is more observed
than mutation.


Have you observed an intelligent agency manufacturing a flagellum for a
bacterium?
If so, publish the results in NATURE.

The assertion of ID is that some structures can only be explained by
the intervention of an intelligent agency, but they are very, very
quiet on the matter of the mechanisms involved.


That's because the *other* mechanisms don't matter.


Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. Science
proposes mechanisms to explain observation in a way in which they can
be tested. This is why Darwin's (and Wallace's) theory of natural
selection was so successful - it proposed a hypothetical mechanism, and
tests which could falsify the hypothesis.


There are *so many* things evolution cannot explain.


Perhaps so, but it's the best theory we have.


I don't think it's the "best".



It only succeeds in
the most general sense - when looking at the surface of things.


It succeeds at the level of genetics and biochemistry. That not just
"looking at the surface of things."


It doesn't really. At those levels, most "evidence" for evolution is
purely speculative.




But it
breaks down in the details. It's quite easy to stand back and say that
eyesight developed from a light sensitive spot, or that the heart
developed from an enlarged artery, or that bat wings developed from
mammalian forelimbs, or that protein synthesis is a natural progression
from RNA based "life" - but when asked to (in the classic evolutionary
retort) "Show your work", the evolutionist is left with nothing more
that "maybes" and "we don't knows". The eye is much more that a light
sensitive spot with a few random rods and cones thrown in. It's a
complex specified system that would require an intelligence far greater
than ours to design. Yet, you so easily assume it could develop from
random corruptions of the DNA sequences that produced the original light
sensitive spot. Of course the explanations offered are either very
general or they appeal to the development of the eye within the embryo -
as if *that* somehow shows us random mutations and natural selection at
work. Please!


I suggest that you remedy the deficiencies of your education before
making such a silly assertion. There exists in nature a progression of
forms of the eye from simple light-sensitive cells to the complexities
of the vertebrate eye. Darwin described them in detail in the "Origin
of the Species".


With no realistic pathway between them. Sure, you can point to different
forms of eyes and *assume* a progression, but you must *explain* how one
became the other. That has not been done - other than with many
*glossings over* of critical developments necessary for one eye to
become another.



So what are these "tests" that evolution passed?



Genetics, the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of all living
organisms. A rabbit in the pre-Cambrian would falsify evolution. A dog
giving birth to a cat would falsify evolution. The discovery of a
mammal with feathers, or a bird which suckles its young would falsify
evolution. Evolutionary theory is tested every time a new fossil is
found, every time a genome is sequenced, and every time a new species
of living organism is described.



Nobody has observed
the creation of novel life of any sort


What would you call speciation? It has been observed in nature, and
replicated experimentally in the laboratory.


I would call speciation a kind of microevolution that cannot explain the
buildup of features over time.


You might call it that, but biologists (who are the people who have
actually *studied* the subject) call speciation a macroevolutionary
event. Why are you changing terms to suit your argument?


Show me an observed case of speciation
that has produced a net gain of features in an organism.



What on earth do you mean by a "net gain in features"?


I mean where a new feature evolves without causing the loss of another
feature. You know - the thing that has to happen for evolution to
produce the net gain of features in life from the beginning until now.



- so how about us just dropping
that whole argument? It's pretty pointless to fire those kinds of shots
back and forth wouldn't you agree?




It is likely that novel life forms will be created in the laboratory
before long. When that happens will you conceede that ID is nothing
more than the fantasy of creationists?



No. I will concede then that intelligent agents can manipulate DNA.
Still your mechanism has nothing to do with intelligent agency. Your
mechanism is random corruption of existing DNA sequences - remember?



That's not the mechanism of evolution, and completely misreprents the
modern synthesis. Gene duplication or polyploidy is not "random
corruption". They are the mechanisms whereby "new information" is added
to the geneome, and have been studied in exhaustive depth.


"Polyploidy is when the number of chromosomes in a cell becomes doubled.
This can happen by a mutation that simply makes two copies. It can also
happen when the chromosomes from two different species are mixed.
One obvious consequence is that the resulting creature has no one it can
breed with."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polyploidy.html

Hmmm... No one it can *breed* with? How is this "new information" then
passed on? Unless the organism is a plant or an earthworm, this
mechanism is useless to the standard evolutionary requirement for
natural selection - namely *breeding*!!!

Gene duplication also produces no new information. Redundancy is not an
increase in information content.




WoS: that has been observed

RF: So you are asserting that the "intelligent designer" has been
observed
fiddling with DNA to create a flagellum on a bacterim?
I must of missed the publication of this extraoridinary event in
NATURE.



That's as preposterous as me asking if evolution has been observed
creating bat wings out of mammalian forelimbs.


We have plenty of evidence from morphology, the fossil record, genetics
and develpmental biology to show how the forelimbs of a mammalian
ancestor can be transformed into the wings of a bat.

"Plenty of evidence"? To my knowledge, no one has explained how this
could happen other than to say, "Look here's a mammalian forelimb and
here's a bat wing. They look similar - so the wing came from the forelimb."



Well you need to read the literature on developmental biology in that
case. There is ample evidence for the homology of the elements of the
bat's wing, and the genetic and develpmental processes which can
control the evolution. It's called evo/devo in the trade, and is one of
the hottest fields in science.


That's the stretch where it's assumed that embryonic development mirrors
random mutation and natural selection right? Tell me, what does one have
to do with the other?


Selection act on the variation produced by mutation. They are
intimately linked.


I was asking what *embryonic development* has to do with the mutation
and selection - not what mutation has to do with selection.



Essentially you're taking a pre-existing system whereby pre-programmed
functions develop and using it to try to prove that random mutation and
natural selection can produce said pre-programmed features. The problem
with this is that the information required for all of the organisms
features is *already present* within it's DNA before the process begins.



What about gene duplication and polyploidy? That is how "new
information" is added to the genome.


Sorry - no good - doesn't work.


Where is the random mutation? Where is the natural selection? Aren't
*those* your mechanisms?
Is your mechanism so lacking that you have chosen to abandon it?



You are ignoring it. I've descibed the processes by which "new
information" is added to the genome. Natural selection acts on mutation
in the duplicated sections of the genome to produce novel structures.


Is this observed or assumed?


This scenario
makes predictions which can be tested against genetics and the fossil
record. It's not preposterous at all: it's the best explanation for the
evidence.


So where is the genetic evidence or the fossil evidence for the
"development" of the bat wing?


Do a google scholar search for genetics and bats. You'll find numerous
reseach papers.


Apparently evolution has more explaining to do. Bats not only have
complex specified auditory navigational systems, they also have
touch-sensitive receptors built into their wings that allow them to
"feel" the air and "help them maintain their flight path and snag their
prey"
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=35065

On the supposed evolution of the bat:

"The oldest known skeleton, supposedly 60 million years old (Wilson p.
79), is a fully-formed bat which apparently could echo-locate (UCMP
Berkeley).
When you ask an evolutionist to show you the ancestor of a bat, he will,
in all likelihood (as does the ZooBooks volume on "Bats"), show you a
mythical creature with elongated limbs connected by stretched skin
gliding from branch to branch like a modern flying squirrel.



Yes, it's called "forming an hypothesis" in science, and one which can
be tested against the fossil evidence.


It will
have paws on all four limbs, and may be seen perching on a branch with
skin folds hanging down (Wood and Rink, p. 6). What the evolutionist
will not show you is any kind of transition between paws used for
standing and running, and hand-wings used for flying.


He can show you the "flying frogs" which do just that: the gliding
membrane in these frogs is the webs between the toes - just as is the
case in the bat's wing.


He won't show you
because there is no fossil of such a creature,


Such a creature would have been small, fragile and unlikely to become
fossilised.



and he can't imagine what
one would look like.


Excuse me? The author has just given a reference to a descrition of
what such a creature would look like.


He also can't explain how "survival of the
fittest" would produce it.


He can explain it perfectly well. Small increases in gliding ability
give slightly increased chances of reproductive success. The
accumulation of such small increments over time leads to an increase in
gliding abilty. Muscular control of the gliding surfaces gives more
maneoverability, and increased the chances of reproductive success.
Incremenal increase in the size and power of these muscles leads to the
development of powered flight rather than gliding.

Seems a pretty good explanation to me.


At some point elongating front toes would
interfere with quadrupedal (four-footed) movement long before they could
become the ribs of functional wings.


Bats can move on the ground using four feet pretty well.


And why and how upside-down?


Because it frees the wings.


Birds perch very well right-side up.


So what? Birds are not bats, and have acheived flight by a different
evolutionary path. They are descended from bipedal dinosaurs, not
mammals with a quadripedal gait.


How does "survival of the fittest"
turn an animal upside down, with all the physiological changes necessary
for maintaining that position?


What physiological changes?


Try swallowing while hanging
upside-down.


Bats don't feed when they are hanging upside down. They feed on the
wing.


And what happens to your blood after a while?


Not a problem if you weigh only a few ounces. It's a scaling factor
thing.


Yet bats
eat,


No, they eat on the wing.


sleep, and mate upside down,


Nope, they mate on the wing.
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Lasiurus_borealis.html


Your "evidence" for the development of the bat wing is still just an
assertion that it could happen - with no logical reason why it should or
any real evidence that it did.



and many also give birth in that
position."
http://www.creationism.org/batman/bats.htm

Now before you point me to a bunch of papers where they ignore these
arguments, how about trying to explain them for yourself?


I have done so, and also pointed out the logical errors and ignorance
of basic information in the passage.


If your theory
is so lacking in any real explanatory power, why hold to it?



It isn't "lacking in any real explanatory power".
More to the point, you are not offering any alternative with any
explanatory power.



Your mechanism has not been observed doing anything like that - yet you
are perfectly willing to extrapolate that it is able to do so - based on
the limited changes evidenced by observable mutation.


What "limited changes"? Nothing in genetics has suggested that there
are any limits to the change. What we find in the genome and the fossil
record is a finely graded succession of form with no discontiunities.

There is absolutely no evidence of limtations to genetic changes
through mutation. It's reasonable to suppose that there are none, as
all the evidence suggests that this is the case.


Mutation has never been observed to add to the overall number of
features in the genome.


What on earth do you mean by this? Polyploidy has been observed,
especially in plants,
leading to significant morphological differences. Gene duplication has
been observed. Mutations on duplicated sets of genes have been tracked
down to show that the modified copies change developmental processes.


OK. Show me a real world example of an added feature that wasn't added
at the expense of another.


Gene duplication.
Polyploidy.
They are mechanisms which add new features.


Asserted and assumed.




*ALL* observed mutations are *at best* a trade
off of features. One feature is lost, another is gained. How does this
explain the buildup of features over time?


Another post has just drawn attention to the development of electric
organs in fish in different continents, and shown that they use
different genetic resources to do the same job. This is the gaining of
a new feature, and occuring on more than one occasion.



First off, this is not *observed* evolution, it is conjecture based on
the study of fish genetics.


So what alternative theory of equal explanatory power can you present?
It's consistent with all that we know of genetics, evolutionary theory,
morphology and biochemistry.


The fact that non-electric fish have both
genes expressed in their muscles and the electric have only one, is not
conclusive evidence that one evolved into the other.


So what alternative theory of equal explanatory power can you present?


That these systems were designed.


Once again, when examined more closely, there remain many problems with
this evolutionary scenario:

"According to Zakon, the effect of hormones on frequency response poses
an evolutionary puzzle. In both groups of fish, the frequency of
discharge depends on modulation not only of the electric organ but also
of a pacemaker nucleus in the central nervous system. In each individual
fish, the sensors that receive the signal are precisely tuned to the
typical frequency emitted by that individual's electric organ. Thus,
different organs in different parts of the individual's body are
required to be precisely tuned to one another-which means they must all
respond to hormone levels in a coordinated way.

"It's like Darwin's famous puzzle about the evolution of the eye," Zakon
says. "An eye is a complex of separate cells, which somehow must have
evolved together to form a functional unit. How do incremental changes
in different sets of cells result in a tightly coordinated system?"
http://cns.utexas.edu/publications/focus/sp97/electric.html

He goes on to say that these electrical systems are "so simple", they
aught to be able to figure it out. We'll see.


And what alternative theory of equal explanatory power are you
offering?


Design. The evidence being that these systems are "finely tuned". Finely
tuned systems are known to be produced by intelligence - therefore these
systems could have been produced by intelligence. If finely tuned
systems were *known to be* produced by natural means - you could argue
otherwise.




Nevertheless, even if it *did* evolve, it fits well within my hypothesis
for "built in" variation among designed families.



You don't have a "hypothesis" for "built in variation". All you have is
an assertion.

How do you propose to test your hypothesis? There is no evidence in
genetics or morphology for any boundaries to variation between families
- a term which, as I have pointed out before, is one of pragmatic
convenience which cannot be defined clearly in biological terms.


The boundaries are there. Whenever an organism crosses the boundary - it
dies or cannot breed. Do you deny this as well?




The mechanism of intelligent agency has been observed designing *all
known* instances of complex specified information (outside of nature),


"Complex specified information" is a falacy! It presumes the consequent
- i.e. that complexity needs to be specified.

Complexity does not need to be specified. No one has ever made that
argument in support of ID.


Well in that case, why is the word "specified" used?


I didn't state that very clearly. I meant that complexity can come into
existence without being specified. A random sequence will be complex.
The longer it is, the more complex it is.


You need to educate yourself on the nature of complexity to avoid
making statements such as this one. Complexity itslelf is a complex
concept, and there are several differnt definitions of the term in
mathematics and information theory.


OK, what part of "complexity" did I get wrong?



This is *not* the standard
used to determine design. Complexity must be specified to perform a
biological function.


And this is the unsupported assertion on which you build your argument.
Why must such complexity be "specified"?


Random complexity won't do.


"Random complexity" is a meaningless term.


No it's not. Complexity does not *require* specificity. A random string
can be complex. In fact a random string is generally more complex than a
specified one. However, in order to produce a *function*, a random
string will not do. *That* requires a specified string.
Why are you acting so dense about this?




But, in order to *function*, processes generally *must be* specified.


Why? That is simply an unsupported assertion. Weather systems which
produce hurricanes are complex. Nobody has suggested that they need to
be "specified".


We're talking about biological functions.


And this is relevant why, exactly?
All you are doing is asserting that biological functions *must* be
specified.


I'm saying they are specified. If you know of some that aren't, please
enlighten me.




If
these processes are complex, then that is specified complexity.


Which is the falacy of presuming the consequent!



What we find in

mathematics and physics is that complex outcomes can arise from simple
systems, with no need at all to invoke the presupposition of
specification.


So what? Complexity can arise out of random processes - no one's denying
that. But can function? That's the question.


What is function? Again, this is presuming the consequent. One may as
well argue that the ability of wind to carry objects is the function of
the wind.


The function of the eye is sight.


How is this different from arguing that the function of wind is to
carry objects?


The function of the wing is flight.


How is this different from arguing that the function of wind is to
carry objects?


The function of the heart is circulation.


How is this different from arguing that the function of wind is to
carry objects?


These functions are specified


Again, this is simply an unfounded assertion.


and complex. How did that come about?



By evolution.
What better testable explanation do you have?


Please go into a little more detail than just "by evolution".



Biological systems are complex.

No, biological systems are not *only* complex, they are specified as well.


And your evidence to support this assertion is what?
How do you propose to test the assertion?


I've been over this again and again. Complexity is a function of length
and aperiodicy.


That depends on which definition of complexity you use.


Name one that does not depend on these elements.


Specificity is a function of exclusiveness. If a DNA
sequence is aperiodic (they all are - AFAIK)


If by "aperiodic" you mean that the same sequences are not repeated
several times, you are flatly wrong. There are large sections of the
genome which consist of the repetition of the same sequence many times.


OK.


and exclusive (IOW it can't
be modified without causing a loss of function),


DNA functions can be modified without causing a "loss of function".
Within the human genome there are many examples of modified versions of
genes providing the same function. The genome is not a rigid as you
would like to imagine.


I never said it was rigid. I said it was specified and complex and it
conveys information. The degrees of these qualities vary - but they are
there.



it is an example of
specified complexity.
I'm sure that some sequences can be modified and still retain their
function, that points to a lesser degree of specified complexity. It's
the amount of modification a sequence can withstand that determines it's
specificity - and it's length which determines it's complexity.



I suggest that you learn something about genetics.



That does not mean that they have to be

designed. They have, after all, had 3,500 million years to develope
that complexity.


Time is no explanation. It first has to be explained how it is even
possible.


Why? The fact that we are here shows that it is possible.

No, that shows nothing of the sort.


You can
assert that life can only originate through the action of a
supernatural entity,

I never said "supernatural"


So what are you suggesting? An entitity which evolved by natural
selection on another planet, and came here to earth to fiddle with
normal evolutionary processes?


Maybe.


If this was not a supernatural entity, why don't we find the
laboratories and factories in which large-scale modifications of the
genome were made in the geological record?


Why would large scale factories and labs be required?



but that assertion is no more testable that
someone else's assertion that the world was created last Thursday with
all the appearance of a great age.


That's all irrelevant. It's whether life was designed or not we're
discussing here - not the "appearance of age".


The point it that the assertion that life was "designed" is untestable.
If you think that it is testable, please suggest a test which could
potentially falsify the assertion that it was designed.


If it can be shown that complex specified information arises naturally -
where it didn't previously exist - that would falsify it.


I'd think that the numerous examples of poor design in nature -
starting with my bad back - are evidence enough that even if a designer
were involved, he sure as hell was not very intelligent (or if
intelligent, a vindictive ***).


You know your intelligence level is nowhere near the level required to
design and create life, yet you presume that - because the design is not
"perfect", any designer is a fool. It's really kind of pathetic.




it is just as logical to extrapolate from this that an intelligent
agency could have designed life.


It's not logical at all, as it is founded on a logical falacy.


Complex specified information (outside of nature) is *always* the result
of intelligent agency.


So what?


It's an *observed* phenomenon.


Why does that mean that it has to be extended to include phenomena in
living organisms?


It doesn't - only that it can be.



That is observed. You either have to deny that
biological systems have CSI, or make the case that random processes can
build CSI.
Good luck!


No, you have to explain this non-sequitur. Why does the fact that
humans specify and manufacture complex systems mean that all complex
systems have to have specified? This is an elementary logical fallacy.
It's no more that the old "All mackerel are fish, therefore all fish
are mackerel."


That would be the case if I said "Humans specify and manufacture complex
systems - therefore all complex specified systems are made by humans".
That's not what I'm saying though. I am saying that intelligence is the
*only* mechanism which has been observed producing complex specified
systems.



What about complex systems in nature?
Your agument is
1) Humans specify and manufacture complex systems
2) Humans are intelligent
3) We observe complex systems in nature
4) Therefore those complex systems have to be made by intelligent
beings.


Could have been. If you've got evidence to the contrary - please present it.


This assumes that because intelligent humans manufacture complex
systems, all complex systems have be manufatured by intelligent beings.
It is exacly the same logical falacy as the mackerel example.


Evolution: Because evolution produces changes in systems, and because
life's systems are different, evolution produced these systems.
Same fallacy.



Naturalism?


Yes. Or perhaps you can point out some branch of science which operates
on the basis of "God did it"?


There are plenty of branches of science which say "Intelligence did it".
Anthropology, archaeology, forensics, and SETI to name a few.


No, they recognise the products of human manufacture, based on a
knowledge of the processes involved.

SETI does that?

Until we had studied the methods
used to knap flint tools, it was hard to distinguish between naturally
broken flints and those which were the product of human manufacture.

It is only by understanding the processes involved that we can conclude
that "intelligence did it".


That's part of it. But what about objects for which we don't know the
process? Can the process be learned *from the object*?
I think it can.




2) ID offers no mechanism

Intelligent agency *is* a mechanism.


No, and agency is an agency. Saying something was "designed" by an
"intelligent designer" tells us absolutely nothing about the mechanism.
I have designed buildings. That tells you nothing about how those
buildings were build.


It tells me they were designed. I'm not making any case beyond that.


It's an empty assertion, and doesn't alter the fact that design is not
a mechanism.


Intelligent agency is.



I'm sorry, but "intelligent agency" is not a mechanism. The
"intelligent agency" may design the mechanism and use it to manufacture
the product, but it is not a mechanism in itself.

I am an "intelligent agency", but I am not a mechanism.


You are able, using only intelligent agency and your voice, to create
great and moving words which can change history. The same voice, without
intelligent agency, would only be capable of unintelligible grunts and
would achieve nothing. The *only* difference between the two is
*Intelligent Agency*.




3) ID makes no predictions

It predicts that *only* intelligent agency is capable of producing
life's building blocks and most of it's features (allowing for a limited
evolution within families - as has been observed).


That's not a prediction. It's the old "God of the gaps" argument, and
offers no predictive value at all. If, as asserted, there is only
evolution within families (which is, incidentally a taxonomic
convenience which cannot be rigidly defined), we should expect to see
genetic and morphological discontinuities between families.
We don't.


Why should we "expect" that?


Because you assert that there is limited evolution within families. Or
were all those famlies created with the evidence of their relationship?
Science works on the basis of testing hypotheses. If you think that
evolution is limited to variation within families, how do you propose
to test that assertion?


Look at the evolution that's been observed and test if it's able - given
it's known limitations - of producing all of life's features. I think
you'll find it's not.


I'm confident that it can.

You made the assertion that evolution is limited to changes within
families. If you think that this is the case, how do you propose to
test that hypothesis?


By the observed evidence that any big changes in the DNA of an
individual result either in death or the lack of ability to breed. Big
changes are needed to get from family to family. It's never been shown
to be possible.




4) ID cannot be falsified


Yes it can. Just give me a believable evolutionary pathway for protein
synthesis.


That is not a falsification of ID. It's offering evidence in support of
evolution by small incremental steps.

To falsify ID you need to propose a phenomenon which ID *can't*
explain. I can' t think of any possible phenomenon which could not be
explained by the assertion that an "intelligent designer", of
unspecified but possibly supernatural powers interferes in an
unspecified but possibly supernatural manner with normal evolutionary
processes. Perhaps you can, but until you do so you can't claim that ID
can be falsified.


Using your logic, I have already falsified the ToE - since no one can
explain how evolution produced protein synthesis. If evolution *can't*
explain it - it's falsified.


Genes synthesise proteins! That's what genes DO.


And how did this process come about? Where did genes come from? It's
awfully fortunate that the whole process of DNA being transcribed into
RNA, and then edited down to just the useful codons, which are then
translated into amino acids, which produce proteins - just "popped" into
existence somehow, wouldn't you say?


It didn't, and nobody has ever suggested that it did. RNA replication
has been suggested as a precursor to DNA replication. It's a testable
hypothesis which is supported by evidence.

Read about the "RNA world".


It's also just an assumption.




What is evident that you can offer no alternative scenario which is
testable by science.

Biogenesis and biochemistry is not my field - I'm a vertebrate
palaeontologist working on marine reptiles. However, a brief search
using google scholar produces large numbers of papers formulating
hypotheses in the subject.
Here's one:
http://laplace.compbio.ucsf.edu/~voelzv/research/papers/pdf_files/yockey1999.pdf


Why not read it, and then come up with another hypothesis which can be
tested, and is supported by evidence, not assertion?


Reading it now.
It's interesting so far that he mentions such concepts as "specificity",
"complexity", "information" and "meaning" when referring to the genetic
code - yet you seem to imply that it cannot be described in those terms.


Where did I say that?
It's the unsupported assertion that the involvement of an intelligent
agency is needed to explain that complexity that I'm arguing against.


You seem to have great difficulty understanding how these terms apply to
genetics.



Just finished it.
He basically takes the position, after discussing the fallacies of most
of the abiogenesis theories, that we may never know the answer.


Quite so. Science does not claim to know all the answers, and to find
out what happened to fragile organic molecules 3.5 billion years ago is
something which may well be impossible to determine.

This is why research into abiogenesis is working on different lines of
enquiry.


OK. But you offered this paper as an explanation of the origin of
Protein Synthesis. Where is the explanation?



He examines all the "non-intelligent agency" theories and finds them
wanting. He does not discuss ID, but it's the obvious "elephant in the
room" IMO.


Why? It's an untestable assertion, and scientifically useless.
What predictions does ID make which can be tested against the evidence?
And please, don't repeat the canard of "specified complexity", because
that is an assertion which presumes the intervention of an intelligent
agency.


If you've already closed your mind to the evidence, I won't bother
restating it.



I found particularly interesting his discussion of the error correcting
mechanism inherent in protein synthesis. He described it as a "curious
phenomenon" that such a "proofreading" mechanism exists.

This curious phenomenon is an expected one for ID.


There is nothing which ID does not "expect"!
Is there any possible phenomenon which could theoretically *not* be
explained by ID?


Yes. Fish that suddenly became lizards, or any observed large scale
evolution that did not result in the death or sterilization of the lifeform.



Lets just start
with protein synthesis...


What's your problem with protein synthesis? That's what genes do -
synthesis proteins.


My "problem" is that you all assert and imply that evolution produced
all the features of life - yet no one can explain how it happened. I
just picked protein synthesis at random.


What part of "genes synthesise proteins" don't you understand?


The part where you come up with a rational theory as to how evolution
produced this mechanism.



Read about the "RNA world"


I will.


I could probably pick any
biological system and get the same results.


Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of living organisms on the
planet. It is observable, testable, and potentially falsifiable. All
you can offer is basically "God did it". This is an "explanation" which
cannot be falsified, and can explain anything. Believe it if you like -
but don't kid yourself that it is science.


Here's a guy who has no answers as to how evolution produced *even one*
of life's basic building blocks accusing *me* of having no explanations.
Interesting.


As I have said, this is not my field. People working in the field of
abiogenesis have several testable hypotheses as to how this came about.
There was a recent paper in Nature on the subject.


Testable? How so?



I *do* have an explanation BTW. Such things as transcription processes,
proofreading mechanisms, and translators of information from one form to
another, are clear hallmarks of intelligent design.



More unfounded assertion.
How can your "explanation" be falsified?
Is there any imaginable phenomenon which your "explanation" could *not*
account for?
I have given you examples of observations which could falsify
evolutionary theory.
What observations could falsify ID?




What original research has been done in support of ID, and where has it
been published? Meyer's paper was a based on a literature review, which
is not original research.


Pretty much the entire Yockey paper you had me read was the same type of
paper. I assume most are similar. How far does your double standard extend?



That was one paper. I'm not denying the existence of review papers in
science. I'm working in one myself. But you miss the point. There are
hundreds of thousands, if not millions of papers out there which
describe original research. None of them are the product of ID
research.

So why not answer my question: what original research has been done in
support of ID, and where has it been published?



As a scientist working outside the USA in the evolutionary sciences I
can confirm that m assertion is true.


Perhaps it's the company you keep.



That of other evolutionary scientists on the whole.



Oh, please! Try visiting a university and look in the library.

And perhaps you can tell me where the IDers have published their
research. The DI is very coy in the subject.


I have several books on my shelf.



So what? Which of them publish original research?
By the way, books are not the way in which research is published.
That's what academic journals are for.


I claim that no research to support ID is being done.

I'm sure the The International Society for Complexity, Information, and
Design would beg to differ.
http://www.iscid.org/

As would many others.



So what original research have they published which supports ID?


If by "published" you mean only in peer-reviewed journals, then only a
few papers have been published. If however by "published" you're
allowing for books on the subject, then many many have been written.



Spetner, Lee M., "Errors in power spectra due to finite samples,"
Journal of Applied Physics (May 1954)


Try
Spetner, L.M. (1968). "Information transmission in evolution," IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. IT-14, pp. 3-6
and
Spetner, L.M. (1970). "Natural selection versus gene uniqueness,"
Nature, vol. 226, pp. 948-949


No answer here?



Which of these papers provided support for ID?
It would be curious if they did because they were published before the
term was invented.


They don't directly mention ID. They are more along the lines of the
impossibility of evolution increasing the information content in a genome.


That's a ridiculous analogy.
Buildings are manufactured objects. Every detail of a building show
evidence that it was manufactured. It shows evidence of design in the
purposeful arrangements of its parts,

Organisms have this.


That is what you assert.


the lack of redundancy in its

systems,

Designed systems don't incorporate redundancy? How many bathrooms in the
buildings you design? How many toilets in each? How many windows? Doors?
I hope the answer to all these questions is more than "one"!



That's not redundancy. That's response to a brief. Redundancy would be
builing a wall and then knocking it down again for no reason.


Why does redundancy require the destruction of it's first product?


and the balance between cost and function in its construction.

Organisms have this as well. They are very efficient self-sustaining
systems.


So why do human embryos grow tails and then reabsorb them? That's not
very efficient.
When I get cold, the thin hairs on my skin erect and form pimples,
which increases the surface area of my skin so that I loose heat more
quickly. That's not very efficient.


Why do cars break down? Why don't they fly? Why do headlights only point
straight ahead?



Living organisms grow from a single cell. They are not manufactured.
They contain many structures which are redundant and inefficient.
During development, the human embryo grows, and then rebsorbs a tail.
Our genes still contain those which can grow a tail - occasionally
people are born with tails. We also still contain genes which can grow
scales if activated - a rather rarer phenomenon. The tubes through
which we breathe and the tubes through which we eat cross each other:
this is why we can choke to death on food. If a designer is involved,
he is catastrophically stupid and inefficient.


It's interesting that you would consider any designer smart enough to
design life (for which you in your "wisdom" have no plausible
explanation)


You don't have a *scientifically* plausible explanation. Your
"explanation" could explain anything at all. It has no scientific
value. All you can offer is basically "God did it". This is an
"explanation" which cannot be falsified, and can explain anything.
Believe it if you like -but don't kid yourself that it is science.


"catastrophically stupid and inefficient". If the designer
of life's systems is catastrophically stupid and inefficient, what does
that say about us?


So what is your explanation for the catastrophically stupid and
inefficient "designs"?


Do you honestly believe our designs are *better* than "Nature's"?


In many cases, yes. Nature is rather poor at "designing" internal
combustion engines, for example. Or wheels for that matter.


And man is poor at designing cells and protein synthesis.



We
haven't figured out how to make a three dimensional camera system which
can process and send high speed images to a complex computer system able
to analyze them and categorize them into useful information - oh, and
fit it into roughly the space of a football - yet we can categorically
say that if someone did - they'd be "catastrophically stupid and
inefficient" because this system contains a "blind spot" (which is
unnoticed to the user)?


So why did this designer equip us with a retina which is wired so that
the nerve cells block part of the light reaching it, whereas he equiped
squid with more efficient eyes which are wired up from the back? And
please don't point me at that stupid AiG article which claims that it
is to protect us from ultra-violet radiation: most vertebrates live in
the same environment as squid, and all have inverted retinas.


I don't know why the designer designed it that way. If you've got a
better idea, how about getting to work designing a better eye. I'm sure
you could make a bundle!



Come on man! Get over yourself!



If I look at a building, I know it was designed because I can see
"LONDON BRICK COMPANY" stamped on the bricks. There are some geological
structures which can be mistaken for designed objects because they show
regularities of structure similar to those of man-made objects. They
are the stock-in-trade of cooks who think that the earth was visited by
alien civilisations. We know that they are not man-made because we have
an understanding of the processes which formed them, and can test the
hypothesis of their formation against the evidence.

So if you want to assert that biological structures are designed, you
need to present an hypothesis of their formation which can be tested
against the evidence, and which involves a designer.


I've done that.


No you haven't. You have made the assertion that complexity demands
design, and that therefore complexity is evidence for design. You have
presented no hypothesis whatsoever of how they were made.


Not complexity, *specified* complexity. Big difference.



Let me ask you another question:
How would you determine if an artifact found on Mars was designed?


By looking for evidence of manufacture, and forming hypotheses of
manufacturing processes which can be tested against the evidence.


That's it? No other evidence such as "structural purpose of components"?
No considering of features?
Please?


.

Quantcast