ID and Evolution mutually exclusive?

[diychristian]

While Michael Behe's book sits in line to be read I seems he believes in Common Descent (correct me if I'm wrong). This got me thinking are Evolution and ID really at odds or can they be coalesced? Cognitive Scientist and former biophysicist Palmarani pointed to the need for an additional mechanism for evolution to work b/c N.S. seemed insufficient. Would an actual intelligence be out of the question? If so, isn't that usually fueled by close minded thinking? These 2 views are often contrasted, but perhaps they can be concerted. In which case the debates between the two are rather moot.

 

[Paulos23]

While Michael Behe's book sits in line to be read I seems he believes in Common Descent (correct me if I'm wrong). This got me thinking are Evolution and ID really at odds or can they be coalesced? Cognitive Scientist and former biophysicist Palmarani pointed to the need for an additional mechanism for evolution to work b/c N.S. seemed insufficient. Would an actual intelligence be out of the question? If so, isn't that usually fueled by close minded thinking? These 2 views are often contrasted, but perhaps they can be concerted. In which case the debates between the two are rather moot.

I don't know who this Palmarani is, but how is natrual selection insufficient?

Without more info, it sounds like a personal incredulity fallacy.

 

[Tomk80]

While Michael Behe's book sits in line to be read I seems he believes in Common Descent (correct me if I'm wrong). This got me thinking are Evolution and ID really at odds or can they be coalesced? Cognitive Scientist and former biophysicist Palmarani pointed to the need for an additional mechanism for evolution to work b/c N.S. seemed insufficient. Would an actual intelligence be out of the question? If so, isn't that usually fueled by close minded thinking? These 2 views are often contrasted, but perhaps they can be concerted. In which case the debates between the two are rather moot.

There are some problems with this idea, as far as I can see.

The first problem is that if an intelligence is responsible for some of the changes, tweaking evolution "on the way", why is there no violation of the twin-nested hierarchy? This would at least go some way in showing that such a "mechanism" is necessary as an explanation in the first place.

I don't know the precise context in which Palmarani made his comments. Did he mean that we need additional mechanisms than just natural selection? Because other mechanisms have been observed and posited for a long time already (sexual selection, cultural selection, group selection etc), some with less, some with more controversy surrounding them. But all these mechanisms have evidence in favor of them actually existing. And that is where positing an intelligence is quite problematic. You'll need to show some actual evidence of this intelligence existing and acting on the natural world in order to use it as a viable explanation. This is one of the many points where Behe fails (ignoring for a moment his lack of knowledge on the topics he writes about, which is a whole topic in and of itself).

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Nope. Not compatible.

SM starts with a question. ID starts with a statement. Big difference.

 

[essentialsaltes]

While Michael Behe's book sits in line to be read I seems he believes in Common Descent

At one extreme, and Behe often treads there, ID is indistinguishable from theistic evolution.

 

[diychristian]

I don't know who this Palmarani is, but how is natrual selection insufficient?

Without more info, it sounds like a personal incredulity fallacy.

Mossimo palmarani and Jerry Fodor both atheist evolutionists wrote a book called "what darwin got wrong" they made a very long argument giving examples of 'select for' problemsof natural selection. How during mutations several phenotypic changes can occur and ns is not able to select for as stephen jay gould put it the spandrels from the arches.

 

[sfs]

While Michael Behe's book sits in line to be read I seems he believes in Common Descent (correct me if I'm wrong). This got me thinking are Evolution and ID really at odds or can they be coalesced? Cognitive Scientist and former biophysicist Palmarani pointed to the need for an additional mechanism for evolution to work b/c N.S. seemed insufficient. Would an actual intelligence be out of the question? If so, isn't that usually fueled by close minded thinking? These 2 views are often contrasted, but perhaps they can be concerted. In which case the debates between the two are rather moot.

It may depend on what you mean by ID and by evolution. At any rate, common descent and an important role for natural selection are compatible with some kind of non-natural divine intervention at points in the history of life. There also isn't any physical evidence that would rule out intervention in a basically evolutionary framework.

Scientifically, however, there's also no obvious reason to propose such interventions. I don't know who Palmarani is (nor does Google), but I'm not aware of anything in the history of life that looks like it poses an insoluble problem for evolution.

 

[diychristian]

There are some problems with this idea, as far as I can see.

The first problem is that if an intelligence is responsible for some of the changes, tweaking evolution "on the way", why is there no violation of the twin-nested hierarchy? This would at least go some way in showing that such a "mechanism" is necessary as an explanation in the first place.

I don't know the precise context in which Palmarani made his comments. Did he mean that we need additional mechanisms than just natural selection? Because other mechanisms have been observed and posited for a long time already (sexual selection, cultural selection, group selection etc), some with less, some with more controversy surrounding them. But all these mechanisms have evidence in favor of them actually existing. And that is where positing an intelligence is quite problematic. You'll need to show some actual evidence of this intelligence existing and acting on the natural world in order to use it as a viable explanation. This is one of the many points where Behe fails (ignoring for a moment his lack of knowledge on the topics he writes about, which is a whole topic in and of itself).

As far as no violation of twin nested hierarchy it seems that there are. One example off the top of my head isduckbilled platypus. While it has bird,mammalian and reptilian features it is genetically a bird and mammal not reptilian. Also isn't phenotypic featur.
es more in the eye of the beholder and really a forced paradigm onto living organisms

Bringing the convo back to the point. Is intelligence a possible agent within evolution?

 

[diychristian]

Nope. Not compatible.

SM starts with a question. ID starts with a statement. Big difference.

What is the question? And what is the statement?

 

[Strathos]

Even the YECs at the creation museum posit something that would be referred to as "macroevolution", with all of the various "kinds" of animals on the arc diversifying in only a few thousand years to the millions of species living today.

 

[diychristian]

I

Even the YECs at the creation museum posit something that would be referred to as "macroevolution", with all of the various "kinds" of animals on the arc diversifying in only a few thousand years to the millions of species living today.

I don't see macroevolution as one of the yec's arguments they usually speak against it. And they usually speak against one kind changing into another kind. "Kind" is usually equated to genus or another classification or higher.

How does this tie to the compatibility of id and evolution?

 

[Tomk80]

As far as no violation of twin nested hierarchy it seems that there are. One example off the top of my head isduckbilled platypus. While it has bird,mammalian and reptilian features it is genetically a bird and mammal not reptilian.

The duckbilled platypus has no bird features, sorry. The "reptilian" features are not reptilian, but rather features that would have been shared by the common ancestor of reptiles and mammals, as would be expected.

Also isn't phenotypic features more in the eye of the beholder and really a forced paradigm onto living organisms

Only partially, but that is also why we have the twin-nested hierarchy (or triple since genetics). Morphology is tricky, but genetic sequencing and protein structure are a lot less up to interpretation.

Bringing the convo back to the point. Is intelligence a possible agent within evolution?

That is the wrong question. The right question is "What reason do we have to posit an intelligent agent?" The answer to that question is, we don't have a reason to so, so we don't.

 

[quilbilly]

.......

 

[Strathos]

I

I don't see macroevolution as one of the yec's arguments they usually speak against it. And they usually speak against one kind changing into another kind. "Kind" is usually equated to genus or another classification or higher.

How does this tie to the compatibility of id and evolution?

I was trying to say that even though they deny it, most YEC worldviews at least tacitly acknowledge that some form of evolution took place.

 

[diychristian]

The duckbilled platypus has no bird features, sorry. The "reptilian" features are not reptilian, but rather features that would have been shared by the common ancestor of reptiles and mammals, as would be expected.

Well that's what i get for reciting something off the top of my head. It turns out that the genome shows reptilian and mammallian DNA in platypus.
2008 Release: Duck-Billed Platypus Genome Sequence Published

What common ancestor is that?

Only partially, but that is also why we have the twin-nested hierarchy (or triple since genetics). Morphology is tricky, but genetic sequencing and protein structure are a lot less up to interpretation.

Since morphology is tricky triple nested heirarchy is dubious.

That is the wrong question. The right question is "What reason do we have to posit an intelligent agent?" The answer to that question is, we don't have a reason to so, so we don't.

Naturl selection is often thrown out to refute the statement of Time+Matter+Chance is not = Life. Of course this doesn't really offer a solution N.S. is useless if it has nothing to act on that is what Palmarani and Fodor talk about in their book, mutations themselves are random and in fact whether something might mutate is itself random. They state that there must be a random propensity in the cell to be able to mutate then the enviroment must randomly act to mutate that part of the cell. Then and only then can N.S. start to act.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As far as no violation of twin nested hierarchy it seems that there are. One example off the top of my head isduckbilled platypus. While it has bird,mammalian and reptilian features

It has no bird or reptilian features - its bill is not a duck's bill, its claws are not a reptile's claws.

it is genetically a bird and mammal not reptilian.

Err... source? Duck-billed platypuses are genetically mammals, not birds.

Bringing the convo back to the point. Is intelligence a possible agent within evolution?

Of course, but there's no evidence for it.