Some ID Questions (related to the science of it)

[Carmack]

Intelligent design advocates say ID does make predicts that include:

“(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".”

Why aren't these good predictions?


One of the intelligent design theorists, Dembski, does claim that the design hypothesis is falsifiable.

"If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one does not invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design nicely. [p.357] 1. William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.

Why isn't this considered a good falsification model?

 

[notto]

Intelligent design advocates say ID does make predicts that include:

“(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".”

Why aren't these good predictions?

Because they are not all unique to ID. Irreducibly complex structures can (and have been shown to) evolve. Their idea of 'suddenly' fits well within the predictions of evolution, and evolution also develops optimized DNA. They also do not logically lead to the conclusion of ID unless all known natural mechanisms that are currently acting on organism are discovered and ruled out. It is just a God of the gaps argument. We don't know, therefor ID.

One of the intelligent design theorists, Dembski, does claim that the design hypothesis is falsifiable.

"If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one does not invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design nicely. [p.357] 1. William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.

Why isn't this considered a good falsification model?

Because it still doesn't falsify ID no matter how much he claims it does. The claim can still be made that the intelligent designer made it look like something was not intelligently designed. After all, the claim is out there that God simply made the world look old or aged. No different. Basically the only thing that is falsified is that his idea of what is evidence for ID is wrong.

 

[Dr.GH]

Could you favor me with a reference or citation? Thanks.

1) "Irriducibly complex" systems, by the Behe deffinition, are known to exist. Behe's claim that such systems can not have evolved is not supported by evidence. Discovery of further IC systems does not address his basic error that these can not have evolved.

2) The absence of a known example of an ancestor species dose not imply that none exists, merely they have not been discovered. Further, the preservation of fossils is such that precise identification of exact ancestor-descendant relationships can not always be made (some cladistic taxonomists would say never with certainty). At some point the ancestor-descendant relationship will depend on biological features that are not fossilzed. Finally, this has been known for decades and can not be considered a "prediction" of ID for the purpose of confirmation.

3) Exact mechanisms for the lateral transfer of genes is well known, and has been well known for decades. This is not a prediction from ID, nor could it be used as a confirmation of ID.

4) This is the logical opposite of argument #2. The lack of a known function can not be asserted to mean that there is no function- one might yet be discovered. Further, some future mutation could generate function of a pseudogene, or return some past function. This is well emcompased by neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory, and is re-enforced by recent developments in evolutionary and developmental biology. Thus, this "prediction" fails to distinguish between evolutionry biology and creationism.

 

[Carmack]

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156 - for the predictions

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#test - for the falsification statement

 

[MartinM]

Of course, there's always the minor detail that, according to ID proponents, we're not allowed to say anything at all about the nature of the designer. So how do we know he'd reuse code? How do we know he wouldn't have some mysterious reason for using junk DNA? How do we know he wouldn't design in such a way that the fossil record mimics that predicted by evolution?

 

[HairlessSimian]

Intelligent design advocates say ID does make predicts that include:

“(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".”

Why aren't these good predictions?

What notto & Dr GH said.

What's more, ID would seem to predict no extinctions and no nested hierarchies, no?
Somebody?

 

[madbear]

"Irriducibly complex" systems, by the Behe deffinition, are known to exist. Behe's claim that such systems can not have evolved is not supported by evidence.

I'm not a big fan of ID, but I don't think this statement really reflects Behe's position. Ideally you should ask him to defend it rather than me, but I'll do my best in his absence

Behe's claim is that IC structures cannot evolve because they do not have simpler functional precursors. He is not saying that we don't know what they are, but that they cannot exist if natural selection works the way it is thought to. Every part of an IC structure is essential to its function -- remove any part, and you don't have anything that is any use. Something that is of no use of any kind does not give a selection advantage.

Most complex biological structures do have conceivable functional precursors, even if we don't know what they are. In an IC structure, every single protein is an essential part of the structure. For the structures put forward by Behe and his colleagues as alleged to be IC, I believe it is non-controversial that they are, indeed, incapable of losing or modifying a single protein without complete loss of function or, at least, without complete loss of that particular kind of function.

Consequently, Behe is making a logical claim -- that the structures he has identified as IC are logically incompatible with natural selection as currently understood -- not an observational one. It is therefore not his job to evidence this claim experimentally. The experimental part was identifying the structures. It is the job of someone who disputes his findings either to show that his logical reasoning is fallacious, or to provide evidence that undermines them.

The simplest analogy I could come up with off the top of my head is this. If I made measurements of the dimensions of various objects, and used a logical process that led to a proof that pi=3, then you could disprove my claim either by showing the falsity of my logic, or providing contrary evidence. A circle would do But you couldn't reasonably ask me to provide experimental data to back up my logic. You might say `provide evidence of a physical structure that shows by measurement that pi=3'. To which I would reply: `I have already shown by logic that pi=3. Disprove my logic with observation if you can'.

Behe's position is that it is now the task of his opponents to provide conflicting evidence or dispute his logic. Both have been attempted. First, examples have been put forward as candidates for the simpler functional precursors of his IC structures. At present (so far as I know) none of these have stood up to detailed experimental investigation. Second, it has been argued that his requirement for a simpler functional precursor is logically fallacious. For example, it has been argued that his structures may have `devolved', that is, degenerated from a more complex, but not irreducibly complex, structure. It has also been argued that although his IC structures have no simpler functional precursors of the same class, there are simpler precursors that provide a selection advantage in an entirely different way. The evolutionary pathway would be exaptation/cooption/coaptation -- whatever you want to call it. Behe argues that, since the burden of proof is now on his opponents, it is they who have to provide observational evidence for such a pathway.

I believe that's how the matter currently rests.

In short, I don't think it is a proper application of the scientific method to require Behe to evidence his assertion that IC structures cannot evolve. Not only is this asking him to prove a negative, which is an underhanded move at best, but it is asking him to back up a logical claim with experimental data. This is undecorous for a scientist, to say the least.

And no, I'm not a creationist or even a supporter of ID. I'm just a working biologist who believes in giving other scientists a fair crack of the whip. After all, if I discovered something bizarre and controversial, I'd want other people to extend the same courtesy to me.

Best wishes
MadBear

PS. I'm a (or, rather, was until recently) a biologist with many years' hands-on lab experience but I'm not a geneticist. There are people who claim to be able to defend Behe's assertions at the DNA level, but I'm not one of them

 

[Dr.GH]

madbear,

Behe's examples are controversial, for example the blood clotting cascade has been shown to be 'reducible.' There are biochemical cycles that are "irriducibly complex" by Behe's definition and their existance is not the issue. Behe's claim that IC can not have evolved is the issue.

And this too has been refuted by examples of scaffolding, and co-option producing IC systems.

Behe has recently begun to demand that nucleotide by nucleotide pathways be presented by scientists before he will acknowledge evolution. See Andrea Bottaro's essay, "Behe's Meaningless Complexity."

 

[Grengor]

And I won't accept ID untill every detail about the designer is revealed.

 

[gluadys]

Intelligent design advocates say ID does make predicts that include:

“(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".”

Why aren't these good predictions?

Dr. GH put his finger on it.

Because they are not unique to ID. They do not discriminate between evolution and a non-evolved design.

1. can be produced by evolution as well as by ID, so how do you tell which is which?

2. how can you tell if a form which appears suddenly in the fossil record has no precursor or an undiscovered precursor?

3. lateral gene transfer and convergent evolution can also account for this, so again, how do you know whether or not it is a result of design?

4. the genetic code does contain a lot of non-coding DNA. Whether or not it is without function is still an unanswered question, but in any case evolution does not demand that it be without function. So there is still no way to decide whether one is dealing with evolution or design.

A good scientific prediction is unique to the theory. If the theory is true certain things must follow and have no other possible explanation than the theory in question.

ID predictions do neither. In the first place ID proponents have not shown that these four predictions must follow from design. And they have not shown that they can follow only from design.

 

[madbear]

And this too has been refuted by examples of scaffolding, and co-option producing IC systems.

Behe has recently begun to demand that nucleotide by nucleotide pathways be presented by scientists before he will acknowledge evolution

But this is the crux of the problem, isn't it? Of course it is possible to argue that there is a cooption or scaffolding pathway, or something as yet unknown, that produces, for example, the flagellum; it's quite another thing to suggest that because it is possible, it must actually exist.

This isn't really an argument about science or the scientific method, it is an argument about the burden and standard of proof. Both sides are arguing that they other side bears the burden of proof, and to a higher standard that the other is comfortable with. I think that Behe's opponents kind of accept that they bear the burden of proof just now; the dispute is about what is required to discharge that burden, and whether they have, in fact, done so. I don't think that Behe's opponents discharge their burden of proof by saying ``the flagellum is a cooption because otherwise those pesky creationists are going to have a field day''. I'm not even sure that they discharge is by saying ``the flagellum is a cooption from structure XXX'' unless they can show some sort of genetic progression from the one to the other. Maybe Behe is not entitled to expect a genetic progression at the nucleotide level -- that might be setting the standard too high. But last time I looked into this (which, I accept, was not all that recently) I didn't find the Behe's opponents were even close to that point.

Of course, if you've got specific examples of structures that have given rise to Behe's purported IC structures, I'd be very happy to know more about them.

For what it's worth, if I had to bet money on this, I would bet it against Behe, on the basis that either (1) his opponents will eventually find a specific example of non-direct genetic pathway that produces any of his IC entities; or (2) everyone will lose interest in the subject, with the effect that the mainstream position will continue to be accepted by default.

I don't have any stake in this matter -- I'm not a creationist, and the rightness or otherwise of neo-Darwinism is nothing more than an interesting piece of science for me. I don't have religious convictions that rest on neo-Darwinism being proven wrong. What's more, I think the young-earthers will eventually cotton on to the fact that even if Darwinism is shown to be incomplete, it doesn't strength their own position at all.

It just makes me uncomfortable that a fellow scientist should be subject to a different burden and standard of proof merely because what he claims is uncomfortable.

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[notto]

Of course, if you've got specific examples of structures that have given rise to Behe's purported IC structures, I'd be very happy to know more about them.

http://www.nmsr.org/coral_ic.htm

All you need is one to show that Behe's claims are unfounded.

 

[madbear]

All you need is one to show that Behe's claims are unfounded.

Thank you for posting this reference. I find that since I've started visiting this forum, I've been called on more and more to defend Behe's notion of irreducible complexity -- something I'm not professionally qualified to do, and don't really have the inclincation for anyway. For what it's worth, my area of specialization was the biophysics of the cell membrane -- I don't know all that much about evolutionary microprocesses. Consequently, I suppose I ought to read the original paper before replying, but I don't have the time or the energy. So I guess what I say doesn't really have a lot of authority.

For what it's worth, I have two comments about the summary you referred me to. One is a comment on the methodology, which quite possibly follows from my ignorance of the subject area. The other is a comment on epistemology, which I know a lot more about.

My methodological objection is this: the page you referenced talked about green protein in ALL being created by irreducibly complex system, on the basis that it requires two separate stages (which they call stage A and stage B), both of which must be present for the colour generation to work. OK, fair enough. It then goes on to explain how the systems that synthesise the green/red and red variants of the protein developed from the green -- very nicely, in my opinion, with colour pictures and everything.

However, if it is the ancestral ALL protein (green) synthesis that is claimed to be irreducibly complex, then surely the challenge is to show the evolution of this system from a simpler functional precursor? The red and red/green systems may appear superficially to be irreducibly complex but, since they have a common functional ancester in the green protein, they can't be.

It seems to me that all this research shows, so far as IC is concerned, is that an irreducibly complex system can undergo evolutionary modification of its components to produce another system which appears to be irreducibly complex, so long as the whole IC system contines to operate in an efficacious way at all stages of this process.

If we apply this to the flagellum, for example, we can claim that the flagellum is an apparently-IC structure that may have undergone modification from a truly IC precursor. Nothing has shown that the flagellum could have evolved from something that is not IC.

So, if I've understood this work correctly, all it shows is we can't claim that there are IC structures with no simpler functional precursors and, to that extent, the letter of the original IC claim is defeated. But it seems reasonable to me to modify the definition of IC to the extent that a structure is IC if it has no simpler functional precursors that are not themselves IC. Behe's claim, it seems to me, is only defeated to the extent that his opponents are prepared to accept an endless chain of IC structures evolving from one another right back to the dawn of evolutionary time.

So (and I appreciate that I haven't read the original paper), it seems to me that the claim that ``A major plank of Intelligent Design "theory" has decayed to wood chips and dust'' is a bit premature, to say the least.

My epistemological comment, which I think is more cogent, has two parts.

My first point is that Behe never put forward this particular structure as irreducibly complex. The authors of this paper did this. I've no way of knowing whether Behe would agree that the authors have shown an irreducible complex system at all; the fact that they already know what its precursor is kind of mitigates against him deciding this way In short, this is just our old friend the straw man, isn't it? It's not quite as flimsy a straw man as some I've seen, but it remains the case that the authors have decided that their structure is irreducibly complex. It you want to defeat Behe's claim, surely you must actually engage with that claim, and not a different one that you already know how to defeat?

My second point is that showing a simpler precuros is not the same as showing a simpler functional precursor, that is, one that is capable of providing a selection advantage. The simpler precursors in this work were synthesized by genetic engineering. We don't have any evidence that they ever existed in nature, or that they were efficaceous even if they did. This is just assumed by the authors. However, to be fair to the authors it isn't straightforward to show the efficacy of a biological structure in the deep past, when the environmental conditions were not well known.

The article ends with the statement ``Evolution can produce complex structures, and...'' which is a resounding conclusion, but uncontroversial. Everybody, with the possible exception of the young-earthers, accepts this. But what the authors haven't shown, so far as I can see, is that an irreducibly complex system can evolve from something that is not irreducibly complex. All they've shown, if anything, is that when an irreducibly-complex system comes into existence (whatever the mechanism), it can undergo subsequent genetic mutation. I don't think this is a defeater for Behe's claim.

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[Dr.GH]

Behe's claim can never be defeated as he merely demands more "evidence" of drops one example and issues a challenge over some other "gap."

Any biochemical system that meets Behe's criteria for IC that can be shown to have evolved refutes his claim that such systems can not evolve. He could try to salvage his case by denying that the system was "really" IC has he has in fact done on occasion, or by trying to redefine IC.

If you are interested in this enough to read and write on BBs, I recommend
Matt Young, Tanner Edis (Editors), 2004 Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism Rutgers University Press

(Disclosure time: I wrote chapter 8, and compiled the appendix)

 

[notto]

My first point is that Behe never put forward this particular structure as irreducibly complex. The authors of this paper did this. I've no way of knowing whether Behe would agree that the authors have shown an irreducible complex system at all; the fact that they already know what its precursor is kind of mitigates against him deciding this way In short, this is just our old friend the straw man, isn't it? It's not quite as flimsy a straw man as some I've seen, but it remains the case that the authors have decided that their structure is irreducibly complex. It you want to defeat Behe's claim, surely you must actually engage with that claim, and not a different one that you already know how to defeat?m

Behe's claim is that IC cannot evolve. To have Behe be the judge of what is IC and what is not isn't really a scientific position. If he can't put forth criteria for IC that others can analyze, test, and duplicate on other structures, then he isn't doing science and is simply looking for things that we have yet to explain - simple God of the gaps as it where. Your position would also give him a big whole to hide in yet (as he seems to do by making statements without understanding the reseach that is available).

I can see no reason why the coral systems would not be considered to be IC because they pretty much match the criteria Behe puts forward to claim that blood clotting is IC. The analysis also shows that Behe's premise is incorrect.

Behe's claim that any precursor to an "irreducibly complex" system must be non-functional has been disproven. The precursors to the complex red-producing protein didn't produce red, but they were fully functional, producing green with just a hint of red. They provided the "scaffolding" that ultimately led to the complex red protein.

 

[madbear]

To have Behe be the judge of what is IC and what is not isn't really a scientific position.

I'm not sure I agree. Behe defined the property IC and postulated structures which he said exhibited that property. Anybody else is free to define IC in any other way he or she sees fit, but if he then undermines that property, he's undermining his own definition, not Behe's definition.

If he can't put forth criteria for IC that others can analyze, test, and duplicate on other structures, then he isn't doing science and is simply looking for things that we have yet to explain - simple God of the gaps as it where.

Surely it's for people who support the notion of irreducible complexity to put their purported structures up for analysis by people who don't? If people who oppose IC choose which structures to test, what possible reason do they have for chosing sound ones? Isn't that just an invitation to create straw men? Behe would need a haystack for this approach

Your position would also give him a big whole to hide in yet (as he seems to do by making statements without understanding the reseach that is available).

Well, again, this is a question you should address to Behe, not me. I don't know how familiar he is with current research. A lot more familiar than I am, I shouldn't wonder. I think what he would say is that people keep putting forward examples of experiments that are claimed to demolish IC but, on closer inspection, they don't. The example you posted does not, in my view, demonstrate an IC structure evolving from a non-IC one. It shows an IC structure varying over time from another IC structure, if it even shows that much.

I can see no reason why the coral systems would not be considered to be IC because they pretty much match the criteria Behe puts forward to claim that blood clotting is IC.

OK. One possible objection is that the clotting cascade is significantly more complex than the coral protein example you sent. However, since we're talking about a theoretical position here, I suppose that doesn't really make much difference. A more significant example is that, since the coral protein synthesis mechanism has only been shown to to have a potential precursor that is itself IC, the most we can claim about the clotting cascade is that it has a potential precursor that is itself IC. We haven't seen any how the clotting cascade comes from something that is not IC. All we've done is put the unexplained mechanism further back in the evolutionary sequence.

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[notto]

I'm not sure I agree. Behe defined the property IC and postulated structures which he said exhibited that property. Anybody else is free to define IC in any other way he or she sees fit, but if he then undermines that property, he's undermining his own definition, not Behe's definition.

I think we can both agree that there should be more structures that match Behe's definition of ID than the few he has put forward. If others can put forward structures that match behe's defintion, then they should be valid. They should not have to go back to Behe for judgement. I guess I'm not sure what you seem to be suggesting. If it is that Behe's IC definition is too subjective that then he is the only one who can judge and the only one that can put forth ideas about it, then I would suggest again that this isn't science that he is doing. His assertion is about ID in general, not just the specific examples he uses. To suggest that his examples are the only ones that match the criteria he puts forth weakens his position, not strengthens it. There should be dozens (if not hundreds) of others that match the criteria and scientists should be coming accross them every day. I guess I can only see Behe's position as a rather weak one if this is not the case and that he is the subjective judge on what is or is not IC.

Surely it's for people who support the notion of irreducible complexity to put their purported structures up for analysis by people who don't? If people who oppose IC choose which structures to test, what possible reason do they have for chosing sound ones? Isn't that just an invitation to create straw men? Behe would need a haystack for this approach

If the structures match the same criteria, it is not a strawman.

Well, again, this is a question you should address to Behe, not me. I don't know how familiar he is with current research. A lot more familiar than I am, I shouldn't wonder. I think what he would say is that people keep putting forward examples of experiments that are claimed to demolish IC but, on closer inspection, they don't. The example you posted does not, in my view, demonstrate an IC structure evolving from a non-IC one. It shows an IC structure varying over time from another IC structure, if it even shows that much.

Behe's claim isn't that IC needs to develop from non IC. It is that any precursors to and IC structure would not have function. This example shows an IC system where that is not the case. It demonstrates that Behe's entire premise is wrong, therefor his conclusions will be as well.

OK. One possible objection is that the clotting cascade is significantly more complex than the coral protein example you sent. However, since we're talking about a theoretical position here, I suppose that doesn't really make much difference. A more significant example is that, since the coral protein synthesis mechanism has only been shown to to have a potential precursor that is itself IC, the most we can claim about the clotting cascade is that it has a potential precursor that is itself IC. We haven't seen any how the clotting cascade comes from something that is not IC. All we've done is put the unexplained mechanism further back in the evolutionary sequence.

So we can conclude that IC systems can evolve from other IC systems? This demolishes Behe's conclusions.

Best wishes
MadBear

And to you.

 

[madbear]

So we can conclude that IC systems can evolve from other IC systems? This demolishes Behe's conclusions.

Maybe it does; but it doesn't demolish the spirit of his contention, which is that there are things which cannot evolve through Darwinian processes. I don't think Behe is contending that evolution -- in the plain sense of genetic variation over time -- cannot create IC structures. As I understand it, his contention is that something other than environmental factors is responsible for IC.

To say that an IC structure can evolve from an IC structure, and not a non-IC structure, if true. is to say that the very earliest lifeforms must have been IC. While, arguably, this is a different thing from Behe's main contention, it would still be an interesting conclusion if it were true.

Anyhow, I've reached the limit of my ability to defend Behe's position. As I said, my intention is only to encourage the scientific method to be applied rigourously even when an individual's claims are unpalatable, and this isn't really my field anyway. I'd like to think that, even if somebody purported to be able to prove that the earth was flat, I would still give him or her a fair hearing

Best wishes
Kevin