Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

If one can not test whether something could not have possibly evolved how can one claim that something evolved?

Without a lot more information, we may never know with how the bacterial flagellum evolved with much confidence. That's ok. "I don't know" is certainly an option in science. At the same time, scientists will continue to look for evidence of an evolutionary pathway because the theory of evolution has proven to be a fruitful and useful theory. ID hasn't.

What you don't see at scientific conferences and in scientific journals are scientists trying to argue that Intelligent Design is false, and using that lack of evidence as an argument that the bacterial flagellum did evolve without any evidence to back it up. And yet, that is exactly the behavior of ID proponents. They argue and argue and argue against evolution hoping that casting doubt on that theory will somehow lend support to their theory. That isn't how it works.

At the end of the day, you expect to see a mountains and mountains of evidence for a mutation by mutation evolution of the bacterial flagellum which evolved perhaps hundreds of millions of years ago, with no fossil record and a poor genetic record to work from. Lacking that evidence, you stand firm on a position that has no evidence and is taken on faith. Surely you can see the double standard that you and your fellow ID proponents are using. Until you start demanding equal evidence for your own position, you don't have the high ground in this discussion. The one difference being that scientists are really doing research to figure out how these systems evolved. What research are ID proponents doing to look for evidence of how these systems were designed?

 

[bhsmte]

Without a lot more information, we may never know with how the bacterial flagellum evolved with much confidence. That's ok. "I don't know" is certainly an option in science. At the same time, scientists will continue to look for evidence of an evolutionary pathway because the theory of evolution has proven to be a fruitful and useful theory. ID hasn't.

What you don't see at scientific conferences and in scientific journals are scientists trying to argue that Intelligent Design is false, and using that lack of evidence as an argument that the bacterial flagellum did evolve without any evidence to back it up. And yet, that is exactly the behavior of ID proponents. They argue and argue and argue against evolution hoping that casting doubt on that theory will somehow lend support to their theory. That isn't how it works.

At the end of the day, you expect to see a mountains and mountains of evidence for a mutation by mutation evolution of the bacterial flagellum which evolved perhaps hundreds of millions of years ago, with no fossil record and a poor genetic record to work from. Lacking that evidence, you stand firm on a position that has no evidence and is taken on faith. Surely you can see the double standard that you and your fellow ID proponents are using. Until you start demanding equal evidence for your own position, you don't have the high ground in this discussion. The one difference being that scientists are really doing research to figure out how these systems evolved. What research are ID proponents doing to look for evidence of how these systems were designed?

What you explain in your middle paragraph, is a sure sign of desperation, from the ID folks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If one claims to know who the designer is, they'ld better be able to support that claim to knowledge somehow....

The identity is not really necessary in a scientific sense. Why would we need to identify the agent of design to conclude design? I always argue for the Christian God and feel what we see in the universe is what we should see as the Bible makes the claim that His work (creative hand) is seen in the things he created.

But lacking that, evidence for design would be a good start.
So far, the only thing you seem to have is that it "looks" designed.

Many things "look" like things they aren't.
If "looks" count as evidence these days..... then my girlfriend is Hayden Panettiere, because she "looks" like her.

And many things that are design have that appearance of being designed and are recognized as design.

Arguments become illogical when they are supported by evidence? When they are made to match to the evidence?
That's news to me.

Like I said to RickG, a chair has all those inanimate parts as its physical makeup based on the laws of physics as well and we know it is designed.

No, that has nothing to do with it.
It's rather a conclusion based on understanding how chemistry works, how atoms and molecules interact.

How does the chemistry and laws of physics differ in a chair's makeup and the makeup of the organism? All physical matter has the same makeup whether inanimate or not.

And when it comes to evolutionary biology, it's a conclusion based on understanding how hereditary changes accumulate over generations, filtered by the natural phenomena of natural selection - and how a combination of those two things will make an organism fit his environment like a glove, automatically and inevitably.

Provide evidence that this combination will make an organism fit "his" environment life a glove, automatically and inevitably.

You... you claim that organisms are designed for 2 reasons only:
- you already believe that (by faith), as it is a dogmatic tenent of your religion
- you point to organisms fitting their environment well and conclude that "they must have been made for that environment", completely ignoring the fact that we actually know and understand why they look that way. You know... the part you keep on ignoring.

You...claim I believe that by faith, the evidence shows that organisms show being design with a purpose. I don't have to go on faith because life forms provide evidence for Design.
You...believe that evolution somehow and someway provides this appearance of design, although you have no evidence to show that evolution could or did provide the illusion of design.
You... believe this due to dogmatic belief in the materialistic worldview you hold.
You...misunderstand the entire argument, it is not that they appear designed due to them fitting into their environment. The environment could have a variable smorgasbord of differences and the complexity, function and purpose of the cell will be the same.

Which actually means that superficially, they might "appear" designed for their niche. But upon closer inspection, it is seen that no - they aren't. They are rather "molded" to fit their niche through the very real and very demonstrable process of natural selection.

You are confused as to what Dawkins, Crick, other biologists and I are referring to when claiming life forms appear designed.

Then why don't they?
As previously mentioned, upon closer inspection it is clearly seen that they aren't designed at all. They are rather "molded" by a natural process overtime, through incremental small changes over generations.

Yes, you have used this general hand waving without providing any evidence for how even just the cell which is a very purposeful part of life forms has evolved to include all its functions, can become different body parts and organs and is universal to all living things. Would you care to provide that evidence?

Okay.
So far, you have shown that superficially, life has an appearance of design.

It is hardly superficial to provide all functions within an organism and have those functions work simultaneously with other parts all within the whole.

Let's ignore that on closer inspection, this falls apart. You ignore it anyway, so why bother... Let's just go ahead and assume that biology as a scientific field hasn't been discovered yet.
Now.... all you still have is "it looks designed". Just like my girlfriend "looks like Hayden".
But now, you have added 2 additional parameters here.... "purpose and planning".

Does respiratory systems have a purpose? Did a process that has no plan or purpose produce the purpose?

Okay....
Please share your evidence that supports "purpose and planning".

Do cells have purpose, do they plan when they become different type of cells in the body?




How did science test for "purpose and planning"?[/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

Without a lot more information, we may never know with how the bacterial flagellum evolved with much confidence. That's ok. "I don't know" is certainly an option in science. At the same time, scientists will continue to look for evidence of an evolutionary pathway because the theory of evolution has proven to be a fruitful and useful theory. ID hasn't.

A very honest and concise reflection from you Loudmouth and I appreciate that. I understand your mindset as well, you see the evidence for evolution (genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations) and believe that even with no specific evidence besides this general depiction to account for all elements of life that evolution alone produces it all.

What you don't see at scientific conferences and in scientific journals are scientists trying to argue that Intelligent Design is false, and using that lack of evidence as an argument that the bacterial flagellum did evolve without any evidence to back it up. And yet, that is exactly the behavior of ID proponents. They argue and argue and argue against evolution hoping that casting doubt on that theory will somehow lend support to their theory. That isn't how it works.

Lets take a look at this. If there is a hypothesis that an agent designed life forms and that evolution alone is not sufficient to explain certain elements of these life forms is it not part of the process to look for evidence that those life forms could not have been produced by evolution alone? ID proponents are not anti-evolutionary as you and others believe. They do understand evolution is a real component to living forms. What they are claiming is that evolution alone is not sufficient to explain all aspects involved in life.

Casting doubt on evolution is not what ID is all about.

At the end of the day, you expect to see a mountains and mountains of evidence for a mutation by mutation evolution of the bacterial flagellum which evolved perhaps hundreds of millions of years ago, with no fossil record and a poor genetic record to work from. Lacking that evidence, you stand firm on a position that has no evidence and is taken on faith. Surely you can see the double standard that you and your fellow ID proponents are using. Until you start demanding equal evidence for your own position, you don't have the high ground in this discussion. The one difference being that scientists are really doing research to figure out how these systems evolved. What research are ID proponents doing to look for evidence of how these systems were designed?

The purpose of Science Loudmouth is to explore, try to explain and to understand the natural world. You don't see your own double standard. You say that there is a lack of evidence for the BF and materialists should not be expected to provide evidence for evolution when there are millions of years between then and now, that there is a poor genetic record to work from and it has no fossil evidence but on the other hand you claim that ID proponents are not doing the research to determine if they were designed. Yet you call all research they are doing as pseudo-science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Isn't this the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
'If life forms were designed by an intelligent agent they should appear as if they were designed.'
Life forms do appear as if they were designed.
Therefore life forms were designed by an intelligent agent.

How so?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What you explain in your middle paragraph, is a sure sign of desperation, from the ID folks.

Hobby Doctor bhsmte strikes again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sounds like an argument from Willy Craig. Make assumptions and off we go.

Rather than mocking people perhaps you could provide what logic in this equation is faulty.

 

[Loudmouth]

A very honest and concise reflection from you Loudmouth and I appreciate that. I understand your mindset as well, you see the evidence for evolution (genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations) and believe that even with no specific evidence besides this general depiction to account for all elements of life that evolution alone produces it all.

We have very specific evidence for evolution elsewhere in biology. We have yet to see an intelligent designer producing the same changes.

Lets take a look at this. If there is a hypothesis that an agent designed life forms . . .

A hypothesis has to be testable and falsifiable. ID is neither.

and that evolution alone is not sufficient to explain certain elements of these life forms is it not part of the process to look for evidence that those life forms could not have been produced by evolution alone?

You don't look for evidence for non-existent mechanisms. You look for evidence of the mechanisms that did cause change. When the orbit of Mercury disproved Newtonian gravity, we didn't go with the claim that it was the hand of God moving planets about. Scientists didn't say "God must do it", close their labs, go home, and end their careers as astrophysicists. Instead, they looked for what was really causing Mercury to have that precession in its orbit. Out of it came Einstein's Theory of Relativity, one of the great scientific discoveries of the 20th century.

ID proponents are not anti-evolutionary as you and others believe.

Then show me a single research paper where the main component of their argument is not an attack on evolution. Show me a single research paper where they propose mechanisms of design, construct hypotheses, and then test those hypotheses.

What they are claiming is that evolution alone is not sufficient to explain all aspects involved in life.

Where is their positive evidence for the mechanisms of design?

When scientists discuss the evolution of a specific function or feature, they don't mention creationism or ID once. Why do ID/proponents have to have evolution as a fundamental part of their argument?

Casting doubt on evolution is not what ID is all about.

You haven't shown us anything to make us doubt that casting doubt on evolution is what ID is all about.

The purpose of Science Loudmouth is to explore, try to explain and to understand the natural world. You don't see your own double standard. You say that there is a lack of evidence for the BF and materialists should not be expected to provide evidence for evolution when there are millions of years between then and now, that there is a poor genetic record to work from and it has no fossil evidence but on the other hand you claim that ID proponents are not doing the research to determine if they were designed. Yet you call all research they are doing as pseudo-science.

Yet scientists continue to look for evidence of how the bac flag evolved.

"Elucidating the origins of complex biological structures has been one of the major challenges of evolutionary studies. The bacterial flagellum is a primary example of a complex apparatus whose origins and evolutionary history have proven difficult to reconstruct. . . These results show that core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through the successive duplication and modification of a few, or perhaps even a single, precursor gene."
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.short

What I am saying is that not having evidence for how something came about means that we don't know how it came about. Ignorance is not evidence for any theory, including ID. What we do see is scientists using the theory of evolution and being productive in trying to elucidate the evolutionary pathway of these features. We don't see the same thing in the ID camp. Can you name a single paper that describes the step by step design of the bacterial flagellum?

 

[RickG]

The identity is not really necessary in a scientific sense. Why would we need to identify the agent of design to conclude design?

You are the one suggesting that the design is by an agent (entity). If the suggestion is true, then the identification of the entity is required. Correlation is only valid with the affirmation of causation. Are you familiar with the correlation fallacy comparing the decline in pirates with the increase of global average temperature (GAT)? The rise in GAT is in good correlation with the decline of pirates, thus global warming is due to the decline of pirates. Correlation must have causation. Saying something looks like it was designed with a purpose suggest a designer is correlation without causation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And many things that are design have that appearance of being designed and are recognized as design.

That only reinforces what I said....

That all you have is "hey, it looks designed..."

Like I said to RickG, a chair has all those inanimate parts as its physical makeup based on the laws of physics as well and we know it is designed.

More importantly... we know what a chair is because we humans invented it.
That's how we recognize it and also how we know what its origin is.
Furthermore, we understand how humans manufacture products and on a chair, we can see clear signs of such manufacturing (like bolts, nails, glue, unnatural fabrics etc - not to mention a label saying "made in taiwan").

There is nothing even remotely similar to such things found in nature.

Provide evidence that this combination will make an organism fit "his" environment life a glove, automatically and inevitably.

http://boxcar2d.com/

It's like an optimisation loop. It's what it does.
What do you want me to tell you?

- fitness test (ie: the "best fitting" pass, the rest die)
- reproduce with mutation (the mutations of the best fitting accumulate through the hereditary nature of reproduction, making the off spring ever more fitting)
- repeat

It's not rocket science....

You...claim I believe that by faith, the evidence shows that organisms show being design with a purpose. I don't have to go on faith because life forms provide evidence for Design.

No. "it looks like" is not evidence.

You...believe that evolution somehow and someway provides this appearance of design

No. Not "somehow and someway". It's not mysterious. See above.

, although you have no evidence to show that evolution could or did provide the illusion of design.

It is exactly what evolution theory explains...

You... believe this due to dogmatic belief in the materialistic worldview you hold.

I hold no such view.

You...misunderstand the entire argument, it is not that they appear designed due to them fitting into their environment. The environment could have a variable smorgasbord of differences and the complexity, function and purpose of the cell will be the same.

- complexity = argument from ignorance
- function/purpose = teleological fallacy

You are confused as to what Dawkins, Crick, other biologists and I are referring to when claiming life forms appear designed.

No, I'm not.
What I said about "fitting" goes for the large scale (the flower and the bee) as well as the small scale (the inner workings of the cells).

Through natural selection, better working cells will outcompete the other cells.

Yes, you have used this general hand waving without providing any evidence for how even just the cell which is a very purposeful part of life forms has evolved to include all its functions, can become different body parts and organs and is universal to all living things. Would you care to provide that evidence?

See above. It's like an algoritm. A loop. You can test it yourself. You can even do it manually if you don't trust computers.

There's a reason why Genetic Algoritms have plenty of practical applications in automated optimisation modules. And that reason is not because the mechanism doesn't work :facepalm:

It is hardly superficial to provide all functions within an organism and have those functions work simultaneously with other parts all within the whole.

Does respiratory systems have a purpose? Did a process that has no plan or purpose produce the purpose?

It has a role in the larger system, yes.
Yes, the proces of evolution produced it.

Do cells have purpose, do they plan when they become different type of cells in the body?

No, they don't plan. That's more of a giant chain reaction.
In Neil deGrass Tyson's words: "life is like the most extreme expression of complex chemistry".

How did science test for "purpose and planning"?

You didn't answer this question I see.

 

[justlookinla]

You are the one suggesting that the design is by an agent (entity). If the suggestion is true, then the identification of the entity is required.

No, it's not required. Assuming you conclude the following is designed, one doesn't need to know the identity of the designer to conclude it's designed.

 

[RickG]

No, it's not required. Assuming you conclude the following is designed, one doesn't need to know the identity of the designer to conclude it's designed.

The correlation of the mechanical devise pictured with human construction is quantifiable. Looking at a rose bush as and concluding it must have been designed by an entity is not quantifiable, unless such processes can be observed and attributed to said designer.

 

[justlookinla]

The correlation of the mechanical devise pictured with human construction is quantifiable. Looking at a rose bush as and concluding it must have been designed by an entity is not quantifiable, unless such processes can be observed and attributed to said designer.

Sooooo.....the identification of the designer is not required to determine the item in the photo was designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sooooo.....the identification of the designer is not required to determine the item in the photo was designed.

We can use evidence in the designed object to determine the techniques and mechanisms used to design the object. We can find tool marks. We can measure isotope and atomic ratios to determine how the metal was made and even what quarry it came from. We can determine if it was cast or forged.

So where is the equivalent evidence for life? What were the techniques and tools used to design life?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We have very specific evidence for evolution elsewhere in biology. We have yet to see an intelligent designer producing the same changes.

Here you go again, evidence for evolution is not evidence for all elements of all living things and the molecular machines and functions therein. ID does not claim evolution is not a factor in the adaptability of living things. It is whether or not evolution's mechanisms are sufficient for what we find in living things.

A hypothesis has to be testable and falsifiable. ID is neither.

What do you mean testable and falsifiable? You don't see any historical science being able to be tested and you have shown that even evolution has a problem with falsifiability. If you can't show (test) how something arose but claim evolution is the answer how does that allow falsification?

You don't look for evidence for non-existent mechanisms.

That is why ID's hypothesis is that evolution alone (existent mechanisms) are not sufficient to explain certain systems or features in living things.

You look for evidence of the mechanisms that did cause change. When the orbit of Mercury disproved Newtonian gravity, we didn't go with the claim that it was the hand of God moving planets about. Scientists didn't say "God must do it", close their labs, go home, and end their careers as astrophysicists. Instead, they looked for what was really causing Mercury to have that precession in its orbit. Out of it came Einstein's Theory of Relativity, one of the great scientific discoveries of the 20th century.

Exactly, that is why ID's hypothesis looks for elements that require more than just evolutionary mechanisms to exist.

Then show me a single research paper where the main component of their argument is not an attack on evolution. Show me a single research paper where they propose mechanisms of design, construct hypotheses, and then test those hypotheses.

See above.

Where is their positive evidence for the mechanisms of design?

One hypothesis that can be used and is looking promising is that life forms have an ability engineered within them to adapt to conditions they find themselves in.

When scientists discuss the evolution of a specific function or feature, they don't mention creationism or ID once. Why do ID/proponents have to have evolution as a fundamental part of their argument?

Answered above.

You haven't shown us anything to make us doubt that casting doubt on evolution is what ID is all about.

I hope you understand that now.

Yet scientists continue to look for evidence of how the bac flag evolved.

On both sides of the issue.

"Elucidating the origins of complex biological structures has been one of the major challenges of evolutionary studies. The bacterial flagellum is a primary example of a complex apparatus whose origins and evolutionary history have proven difficult to reconstruct. . . These results show that core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through the successive duplication and modification of a few, or perhaps even a single, precursor gene."
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.short

What I am saying is that not having evidence for how something came about means that we don't know how it came about. Ignorance is not evidence for any theory, including ID. What we do see is scientists using the theory of evolution and being productive in trying to elucidate the evolutionary pathway of these features. We don't see the same thing in the ID camp. Can you name a single paper that describes the step by step design of the bacterial flagellum?

Yes, we see scientists on both sides of the issue researching the question and do you think that would have happened if ID had not provided the motivation on the materialist side they would have even concerned themselves with it? Probably not, so ID does stimulate Science and always has.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The correlation of the mechanical devise pictured with human construction is quantifiable. Looking at a rose bush as and concluding it must have been designed by an entity is not quantifiable, unless such processes can be observed and attributed to said designer.

It is the fact that living things have elements that do have this design inference and design like features that humans recognize as design.

Why would the entity need to be identified? There is no reason that in the far far future that if all records were unavailable to those observing that they would need to know who the artist was for Mount Rushmore to know it was designed.

 

[HitchSlap]

There is no reason that in the far far future that if all records were unavailable to those observing that they would need to know who the artist was for Mount Rushmore to know it was designed.

How do you know Mt. Rushmore is designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Here you go again, evidence for evolution is not evidence for all elements of all living things and the molecular machines and functions therein.

I agree. However, it is a good reason to expect evolution is the mechanism behind other changes, and that is why biologists spend time looking for those evolutionary pathways.

ID does not claim evolution is not a factor in the adaptability of living things. It is whether or not evolution's mechanisms are sufficient for what we find in living things.

Like I said, all they do is try to disprove all other theories without trying to support their own.

What do you mean testable and falsifiable? You don't see any historical science being able to be tested and you have shown that even evolution has a problem with falsifiability.

Here are 29+ tests and potential falsifications for evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Once again, your argument comes down to arguing against evolution, and misrepresenting the facts as they apply to evolution.

That is why ID's hypothesis is that evolution alone (existent mechanisms) are not sufficient to explain certain systems or features in living things.

All that would show is "not evolution", just as the precession in Mercury's orbit demonstrated "not Newtonian gravity". You still need positive evidence to back ID.

Exactly, that is why ID's hypothesis looks for elements that require more than just evolutionary mechanisms to exist.

Again, that is an argument from ignorance. A God of the Gaps.

One hypothesis that can be used and is looking promising is that life forms have an ability engineered within them to adapt to conditions they find themselves in.

How does this differentiate ID from other hypotheses?

Yes, we see scientists on both sides of the issue researching the question and do you think that would have happened if ID had not provided the motivation on the materialist side they would have even concerned themselves with it? Probably not, so ID does stimulate Science and always has.

Where is the ID research?

 

[The Cadet]

You have while claiming that Behe's hypothesis was fundamentally unfalsifiable and untestable just proven that evolution is unfalsifiable and untestable.

Behe's hypothesis that any given biological mechanism couldn't evolve is probably falsifiable; what he hasn't done is provided any mechanism. Indeed, the problem here is not unfalsifiability, but rather that as soon as one example is debunked, he can turn around and say, "Well how about Y?" There's no criteria here, other than "this system looks complex".

You fail also to understand that the existence of an Intelligent Designer has been established for billions of people, far more than those who lack that knowledge.

This is not a good argument. For many, their reasons for believing are things others have no access to, and in many cases, when explained, these things are trivially not evidence for a designer or any supernatural cause - completely indeterminate from natural events that the believers held up as proof. Not to mention that the single reliable correlates for religious faith are the religion of your local culture and of your family.

On one hand you claim that ID is unfalsifiable and untestable and then you shift and claim that it has been tested and found false. Which is it?

My post was poorly constructed. Intelligent Design is fundamentally based on an unfalsifiable claim: that there was some as-of-yet undetected intelligent designer responsible for extant life on earth. Beyond that, everything else is just so much evolution-bashing.

I didn't see anything in your video that shows each step would be advantageous to the organism? I will look that up on my own.

Each step serves a clear function with its own benefit in certain environments.

The tasks a system does to provide certain functions in an organism. The tasks of the inner cell for instance.

So that's a purpose but HIV's self-replication is not?

Casting doubt on evolution is not what ID is all about.

Really? Given that the core of the theory is unfalsifiable, virtually everything I have seen from the ID community is based around, well, how evolution couldn't have happened. Am I missing anything here? What have they brought out that isn't simply weakly asserting "evolution could not happen"?

Also, re: "evidence for the evolution of system X not needed". Do we require evidence that Pluto obeys Kepler's laws of orbital mechanics, and Newtonian physics? Do we need to measure its mass, velocity, and centrifugal force to establish that these laws apply?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We can use evidence in the designed object to determine the techniques and mechanisms used to design the object. We can find tool marks. We can measure isotope and atomic ratios to determine how the metal was made and even what quarry it came from. We can determine if it was cast or forged.

So where is the equivalent evidence for life? What were the techniques and tools used to design life?

Do you recognize the similarity between the two?