What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

savedbyjesus · Jan 15, 2009

Predictions are found here.

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=546

Place the usual world wide web at the front.

Kind regards,

Paul

atomweaver · Jan 15, 2009

savedbyjesus said:
Predictions are found here.

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=546

Place the usual world wide web at the front.

Kind regards,

Paul

Thanks Paul, but all of the points raised by your link were addressed at least 5 years ago at pandasthumb. Frex, your link cites the bacterial flagellum as an example of an irreducibly complex structure. The OP was looking for new, unrefuted content.

Is there nothing else new under the ID umbrella?

Hespera · Jan 15, 2009

savedbyjesus said:
Predictions are found here.

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=546

Place the usual world wide web at the front.

Kind regards,

Paul

What, something about the movie "expelled"?

sbvera13 · Jan 15, 2009

From the above link.

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a
specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and
without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in
different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called junk DNA will turn out to perform valuable functions.

1. Well, duh. We call that biodiversity. Enxt.
2. Havn't found any such thing. Ever. Any idea where to look for them?
3. Again, havn't found any such thing. Ever.
4. Junk DNA never was junk, that was a term poorly chosen by people other than geneticists. Most of "junk" dna has been explained recently as regulatory, that is they turn other genes on and off and don't directly code for proteins. Interestingly, evolution predicts this as well, since a non-functional gene would be lost due to lack of selection.

Anything else? Like, anythign with evidence in it's favor, or anything that isn't also explained by evolution?

atomweaver · Jan 15, 2009

Hespera said:
What, something about the movie "expelled"?

Nawp, just old news; Link summarizes ID claims, circa 2004. Ancient history...

savedbyjesus · Jan 15, 2009

sbvera13 said:
ID doesn't make predictions. It just runs around looking for things we havn't explained yet and tries to convince us to stop looking.

I posted a link that makes predictions and some people here claim that they have been falsified so irreducible complexity has fulfilled the criteria for a hypothesis.

Does any one still disagree that irreducible complexity is a valid hypothesis?

Kind regards,

[FONT=&quot]Paul[/FONT]

JBJoe · Jan 15, 2009

savedbyjesus said:
Predictions are found here.

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=546

Place the usual world wide web at the front.

Kind regards,

Paul

Interesting. Addressing point #3:

Consider flight in 3 different genera:
* Birds
* Mammals (bats)
* Insects

ID predicts we would see convergence, but we don't. Doesn't this mean we should modify or abandoned ID?

Hespera · Jan 15, 2009

savedbyjesus said:
I posted a link that makes predictions and some people here claim that they have been falsified so irreducible complexity has fulfilled the criteria for a hypothesis.

Does any one still disagree that irreducible complexity is a valid hypothesis?

Kind regards,

[FONT=&quot]Paul[/FONT]

Well I dunno. If ID predicts lottery winners, and never got it right.
I would not say they had a valid hypothesis.

If a person could find such a thing as irreducible complexity, maybe it would prove something.

Might just prove that if a person cant SEE how a thing could be less complex and still work, that may say more about them than about the thing they are looking at.

The object is to try to prove that developmental stages could not have existed. That hasnt been done any more than the accurate lottery predictions.

Split Rock · Jan 15, 2009

savedbyjesus said:
I posted a link that makes predictions and some people here claim that they have been falsified so irreducible complexity has fulfilled the criteria for a hypothesis.

Does any one still disagree that irreducible complexity is a valid hypothesis?

Kind regards,

[FONT=&quot]Paul[/FONT]

Points of Failure:
1. Does not consider scaffolding (which includes the loss of a previously required part).
2. Does not consider change in function or shape of any one part, or entire system.
3. Behe has yet to identify any one specific system which is indeed I.C.
4. I.C. is a negative argument. "If we cannot figure out how nature can produce this system, then it must have been designed by default."

Is that enough?

Split Rock · Jan 15, 2009

JBJoe said:
Interesting. Addressing point #3:

Consider flight in 3 different genera:
* Birds
* Mammals (bats)
* Insects

ID predicts we would see convergence, but we don't. Doesn't this mean we should modify or abandoned ID?

One quibble... these are not "genera."

Also, you can add Pterodactyls to the list and make it 4. (Wings in pterodactyls are supported mainly by one finger, unlike bats and birds.)

savedbyjesus · Jan 15, 2009

Split Rock said:
Points of Failure:
1. Does not consider scaffolding (which includes the loss of a previously required part).
2. Does not consider change in function or shape of any one part, or entire system.
3. Behe has yet to identify any one specific system which is indeed I.C.
4. I.C. is a negative argument. "If we cannot figure out how nature can produce this system, then it must have been designed by default."

Is that enough?

[FONT=&quot]So you agree it was a hypothesis and you have falsified it?

Regards,

Paul[/FONT]

atomweaver · Jan 15, 2009

savedbyjesus said:
I posted a link that makes predictions and some people here claim that they have been falsified so irreducible complexity has fulfilled the criteria for a hypothesis.

Only parts are falsifiable; irreducible complexity is already falsified.

Another of the 'predictions' (Table 2 (2)) makes use of information as a quantifiable, measurable property of living things, and yet fails to show how this information is defined and measured. Without that, the claim;

(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.

...is not falsifiable.

What's more, this prediction seems to imply that the fossil record is adequate to quantify the amount of novel information a form will have. If all you need is fossilized remains (usually only a minor fraction of the total mass of a creature), then the issue of quantifying novel information should be a trivial one to address.

Dang, that is wordy... sorry. Try this, instead;
I would like to measure and compare the novel information content of two animals. How do I do that?

ragarth · Jan 15, 2009

savedbyjesus said:
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=546

A basic prediction this article makes is that designing something leaves marks of the designing/building process. The article then gives 4 possible methods of falsifying this prediction:

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called junk DNA will turn out to perform valuable functions.

#1 has been consistently disproven every time behe et al. have produced something. If you remember, when I made OP for this, I mentioned them: the eye, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting model. All three have been shown to be reducible. Then provided a link: http://pandasthumb.org where you could find the information on this. So #1 is debunked.

#2 This is about as much a red herring as you can get. The process of decay destroys the overwhelming majority of skeletons before fossilization can take place. When we look at the fossil record, we get snap shots of the flora and fauna that existed in that region at that time, and so you will see 'organisms suddenly appear' in the fossil record even if speciation is gradual. This is akin to having a film to represent the advance of a species from dinosaur to bird. Each frame is a gradual transition, but a fire happens, representing the decay of dead corpses and only a handful out of the thousands of frames is left, which represents what's been preserved by fossilization. Therefore #2 is without support.

#3 Without knowing what luskin is referring to, this one is difficult to debunk, simply because I have very little information to go on. The existence of precursers, ie, less developed or simpler eye designs, which this one seems to make, disproves #1, creatures previously cited by creationists to show this point (fish in unlit chasms that have eyes that don't work) are in the process of losing traits that no longer serve to provide any form of advantage and therefore give no selective pressure to select against genetic anomolies without those traits. The existence of differing species using the same traits (dogs and lizards both using similer eyes) can be explained two ways: If they have a common ancestor, then they'll share common traits, alternatively, if you have a lock, and a set of magical evolving keys, then there's only so many ways the teeth of those keys can evolve to open the lock, ergo, they'll all develop the same basic look and function.

#4 This is a red herring if I've ever seen one, and goes to show Luskin knows little about the history of genetics. There was a period of time where we weren't sure if 'junk DNA' was partially assembled or randomly assembled bits of material for later use in manufacturing RNA and in the process of cell division. As we improved our methods of extracting DNA, we found this was not the case and so it's accepted that junk DNA has purpose. This neither proves nor disproves the existence of a creator, nor does it prove or disprove evolusion except by providing interesting targets for potential mutation.

What's more, is that reliance on a supernatural entity of infinite power and knowledge invalidates all these predictions, because such an entity can create and not leave any marks of design. Unless Intelligent Design denounces the existence of a supreme being within it's statement, it's unfalsifiable as far as I can tell, and therefore is not science.

There you have it, and this is why I specifically asked people not to spout irreducible complexity, it's an old dog with no legs, if you still think it's a good hypothesis, go check out dover, go check out panda's thumb, check out google. It's dead, quit digging it up.

savedbyjesus said:
Does any one still disagree that irreducible complexity is a valid hypothesis?

When it was initially proposed it was, any hypothesis is valid when it's initially provided, but after being falsified this thoroughly, it's time to move on or forge new predictions. Irreducible complexity is a bad flag to be waving, it's like putting up a pirate sign within cannon range of a british navy vessel when all your cannons have been disproven in puffs of logic. This is why I asked for something new when I made this post, you have failed to provide anything new or of value by positing the failed irreducible complexy hypothesis once again. This is a dead horse, quit beating it.

savedbyjesus · Jan 15, 2009

atomweaver said:
Only parts are falsifiable; irreducible complexity is already falsified.

Another of the 'predictions' (Table 2 (2)) makes use of information as a quantifiable, measurable property of living things, and yet fails to show how this information is defined and measured. Without that, the claim;

...is not falsifiable.

What's more, this prediction seems to imply that the fossil record is adequate to quantify the amount of novel information a form will have. If all you need is fossilized remains (usually only a minor fraction of the total mass of a creature), then the issue of quantifying novel information should be a trivial one to address.

Dang, that is wordy... sorry. Try this, instead;
I would like to measure and compare the novel information content of two animals. How do I do that?

[FONT=&quot]
Is that a rhetorical question? [/FONT]

If not then I would postulate:

Modern animals could be done with direct observation and DNA analysis.

Dealing with the past we would have to study what we have fossils.

I would look at a modern fish skeleton and compare it to the oldest fossil fish skeleton we have and see (if any) what new features have been added.

I would look at a four-legged modern vertebra mammal and compare it to the oldest vertebra mammal and look for novel features, etc

A snake would be a good study because of the ability to unhinge the jaw; it would be interesting to see precursors of this mechanism.

Kind regards,

[FONT=&quot]Paul [/FONT]

Hespera · Jan 15, 2009

savedbyjesus said:
[FONT=&quot]
Is that a rhetorical question? [/FONT]

If not then I would postulate:

Modern animals could be done with direct observation and DNA analysis.

Dealing with the past we would have to study what we have fossils.

I would look at a modern fish skeleton and compare it to the oldest fossil fish skeleton we have and see (if any) what new features have been added.

I would look at a four-legged modern vertebra mammal and compare it to the oldest vertebra mammal and look for novel features, etc

A snake would be a good study because of the ability to unhinge the jaw; it would be interesting to see precursors of this mechanism.

Kind regards,

[FONT=&quot]Paul [/FONT]

"unhinging" the jaw is no trick. About the only mechanism is the elastic ligaments. A lot of animals jaws are not strongly articulated to the skull. We have a pretty solid skull, many others most especially fish and reptiles have much looser arrangement with bones that can move. The maxillary bones on a snake can be rotated, as well aw moved back and forth.

What is more remarkable by far is the poison fangs of certain snakes.

Still,there can be seen in living snakes all of the steps that would be involved going from a harmless snake, such as the garter snakes to the highly developed snakes with long hinged hypodermic type poison fangs. I could detail it more if you like, but while not all progressions from one thing to the next are obvious, that is. (oh.. some snakes still have legs, btw)

You are onto a good idea, comparing the skeletons of modern and extinct animals, as well as comparing mammals with fish, reptiles, amphibians and birds.

When you have seen enough, the progression from one to the next, and the interrelatedness of all vertebrates is so obvious that nobody could miss it.

Hespera · Jan 15, 2009

savedbyjesus said:
[FONT=&quot]
Is that a rhetorical question? [/FONT]

If not then I would postulate:

Modern animals could be done with direct observation and DNA analysis.

Dealing with the past we would have to study what we have fossils.

I would look at a modern fish skeleton and compare it to the oldest fossil fish skeleton we have and see (if any) what new features have been added.

I would look at a four-legged modern vertebra mammal and compare it to the oldest vertebra mammal and look for novel features, etc

A snake would be a good study because of the ability to unhinge the jaw; it would be interesting to see precursors of this mechanism.

Kind regards,

[FONT=&quot]Paul [/FONT]

oh...one more thing... what do you mean by a "novel feature"?

ragarth · Jan 15, 2009

Progression from a simpler creature to a more complex creature is not evidence of intelligent design though, it can be said that there's a competitive advantage gained in the higher complexity of the organism, and therefore that's why more complex organisms are the evolutionary predecessors of less complex creatures. So this a prediction that ID makes, but that doesn't prove ID because a more robust and complete theory makes the same successful prediction.

savedbyjesus · Jan 15, 2009

Hespera said:
oh...one more thing... what do you mean by a "novel feature"?

New feature.

Regards,

Paul

tanzanos · Jan 15, 2009

Proponents of ID must then accept OXBOW lakes as being the product of a designer!

What next; Fairies and leprechauns?

Skaloop · Jan 15, 2009

savedbyjesus said:
[FONT=&quot]
Is that a rhetorical question? [/FONT]

If not then I would postulate:

Modern animals could be done with direct observation and DNA analysis.

Dealing with the past we would have to study what we have fossils.

I would look at a modern fish skeleton and compare it to the oldest fossil fish skeleton we have and see (if any) what new features have been added.

I would look at a four-legged modern vertebra mammal and compare it to the oldest vertebra mammal and look for novel features, etc…

A snake would be a good study because of the ability to unhinge the jaw; it would be interesting to see precursors of this mechanism.

Kind regards,

[FONT=&quot]Paul [/FONT]

But how is it quantified? How could you determine that Creature A has X units of novelty, while Creature B has Y units of novelty?

And what constitutes a novel trait or form anyway? Is a sixth digit on each hand a novel trait? What about thumbs that are 1mm longer than before? 1cm longer? What's the difference between a novel trait and mere variation between individuals?

If a modern specimen has lost some trait that its fossil ancestor had, is that a novel trait?

I don't disagree that examining and comparing modern to ancient creatures is an interesting endeavor, but actually quantifying and applying the findings won't really work.

What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

Newbie

Senior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Junior Member

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Newbie

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

tanzanos

Guest

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency