What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[Forum Cruiser]

This.

And scientific inquiry into the human soul is like inquiring about the taste of strawberries inside an orange. It doesn't happen. The soul is not quantifiable, it's not measurable, and anything explainable with a soul is explainable with brain matter, unless you want to argue the hopfield neural network I have installed on my computer has a modicum of a soul.

edit: I pulled my logs and grabbed the other two reviews I read, one summarizes the chapters. It's biased but that's okay, I was looking for information about it's quality, not information about whether I agree with the premise of the book:


The 2nd is long and dry, but informative:


There you go. That's three reviews. A seminary seems to think it's a great book, but the other two agree it's full of basic errors that invalidate it's points. There was one other review I tossed because it was done by the co-author, and so the fellow was obligated to effectively say 'This books is awesome concentrated into heroin.'

I understand this means that 2 of my three reviews were biased against the premise of the book. That's fine, I don't care about whether or not I'd agree with it, but I'm not going to spend cash on a poorly written book, even if I agreed with the premise.

Ragarth did you even read the two links you post here? The first critique is actually pretty good encouraging further study on the topic and if the Jeff Stauffer (the author) had read the details of the actual study results (not included in the book) most of his questions would have been adequately covered.

The second review is terribly biased and clearly is written simply to attack the author and the premise of the book. Some of the points being made are simply unfair and transparently prejudice. I am glad he noted the statement "Consciousness is an irreducible quality" because that is really the concept behind virtually every main point made in the book but unfortuately Tommy Blanchard (the critics author) does not get that. He really leaves me with the impression that he missed a lot about the book. I can only assume he is an intelligent person so the only logical conclusion is that he misses point after point purposely.

If you do not want to read the book simply because you are not interested in the topic, or simply disagree with the concept entirely then just admit it.

Edit...I cannot re-post your links because I am restricted being a relatively unheralded newbie....

 

[ragarth]

Ragarth did you even read the two links you post here? The first critique is actually pretty good encouraging further study on the topic and if the Jeff Stauffer (the author) had read the details of the actual study results (not included in the book) most of his questions would have been adequately covered.

The second review is terribly biased and clearly is written simply to attack the author and the premise of the book. Some of the points being made are simply unfair and transparently prejudice. I am glad he noted the statement "Consciousness is an irreducible quality" because that is really the concept behind virtually every main point made in the book but unfortuately Tommy Blanchard (the critics author) does not get that. He really leaves me with the impression that he missed a lot about the book. I can only assume he is an intelligent person so the only logical conclusion is that he misses point after point purposely.

If you do not want to read the book simply because you are not interested in the topic, or simply disagree with the concept entirely then just admit it.

Edit...I cannot re-post your links because I am restricted being a relatively unheralded newbie....

Don't worry about reposting the links. This discussion is pointless to this thread and this forum. I'm choosing not to read the book because the reviews all stated it's language is clumsy and painful, not because I disagree with the topic, for example, I've read several books by Behe, but not a single one by Dawkins- Not because I disagree with dawkins, but because I dislike his method of conveying his ideas.

In any case, this entire discussion is pointless. I have no reason to justify my choices to you.

Don't respond to this post in this thread. It doesn't belong in the Creationism vs. Evolution forum, period. If you feel a burning need to respond, mail me.

/thread

 

[Naraoia]

I suspect Dr. Beauregard knows what he is talking about r/t neuroscience since he is an expert in his field and heads up a neuroscience institute.

And Professor Behe is a biochemist, isn't he? He should've got the idea that proteins and protein complexes can change their functions, but he still declared the flagellum impossible to evolve... Also, I remember reading this paper of his and going... how on earth could a PhD biochemist produce such an unrealistic model of protein evolution?

 

[Forum Cruiser]

And Professor Behe is a biochemist, isn't he? He should've got the idea that proteins and protein complexes can change their functions, but he still declared the flagellum impossible to evolve... Also, I remember reading of his and going... how on earth could a PhD biochemist produce such an unrealistic model of protein evolution?

I understand Dr. Behe and his perspective and have come to accept the fact that his arguments are based on study data, deductive reasoning, philosophy, with possibly a touch of wishful thinking.

He has developed a different way of looking at things and is very clever with his interpretation of data. The theme he plays off of is based on sound facts~~we can assume things evolved and attempt to develop a theory as to how this may have occured but there is no way to prove it. Since there is no way to prove it alternative theories can be explored, hence ID...There is no harm in this.

You likely know of the several IC systems/organisms he touts and there is no real way to prove him wrong because no one actually saw them evolve and cannot recreate the process in a lab. So he persists.

 

[JBJoe]

You likely know of the several IC systems/organisms he touts and there is no real way to prove him wrong because no one actually saw them evolve and cannot recreate the process in a lab. So he persists.

I'm afraid that is a little different the theory being put forward.

If there exists a mechanism of gradual change from a pre-existing structure to an existing structure then that structure, by definition, is not irreducibly complex even if it is not the path evolution had taken. That fact that a reducible path exists is sufficient to debunk a claim of IC. This is exactly why Behe got trounced in Dover. Literature was produced which showed mechanisms for evolution to create the supposedly irreducible structures.

Why would we need to recreate the process in a lab? You might as well say that there is no way French developed from Latin since if we took a group of Latin speakers and isolated them in a lab they would not eventually speak French.

 

[Forum Cruiser]

I'm afraid that is a little different the theory being put forward.

If there exists a mechanism of gradual change from a pre-existing structure to an existing structure then that structure, by definition, is not irreducibly complex even if it is not the path evolution had taken. That fact that a reducible path exists is sufficient to debunk a claim of IC. This is exactly why Behe got trounced in Dover. Literature was produced which showed mechanisms for evolution to create the supposedly irreducible structures.

Why would we need to recreate the process in a lab? You might as well say that there is no way French developed from Latin since if we took a group of Latin speakers and isolated them in a lab they would not eventually speak French.

You are correct in your statement regarding how Behe presents his theories to the scientific community but I was being practical. I was giving my opinion on him and what I believe is how/why his theories prosper. Behe knows he can basically argue his way out of every critique of his theories and he does a good job of it. After reviewing one Behe article after another it is clear he can respond to any critique because even if a logical evolutionary explanation for an assumed IC can be made there is always another way of looking at it~~Dr. Behe always finds that other way of thinking.

 

[Naraoia]

I understand Dr. Behe and his perspective and have come to accept the fact that his arguments are based on study data, deductive reasoning, philosophy, with possibly a touch of wishful thinking.

Emphasis mine. That's the problem. The touch of wishful thinking is so big you can't see the science.

He has developed a different way of looking at things and is very clever with his interpretation of data. The theme he plays off of is based on sound facts~~we can assume things evolved and attempt to develop a theory as to how this may have occured but there is no way to prove it.

(1) There is no way to "prove", in the rigorous mathematical sense of the word, anything in an empirical science (look up the problem of induction). There is, however, a way to gather evidence that makes an idea more believable. In some supposed irreducibly complex cases there is very good evidence of how they evolved (my favourite is still the vertebrate blood clotting cascade - many of its factors are modified digestive enzymes)

(2) As JBJoe said, to falsify the irreducible complexity argument, you don't have to "prove" any specific way the structure evolved, because IC doesn't say "this is not how X evolved". IC says "X could not have evolved in any way". Therefore, if you simply show that yes, X could have evolved easily by natural selection, the IC argument for X is dead.

Since there is no way to prove it alternative theories can be explored, hence ID...There is no harm in this.

There may be no harm for you (although I tend to think the harm is already done when you are convinced ID is a valid scientific theory...), but there is harm for science (and forgive me if I'm partial. Note my title ). ID is, plain and simple, pseudoscience, and it should not be touted as anything else.

If there's no way to "prove" that X came about this way, there's even less way to prove that X was designed (or has any of the ID people figure out criteria for identifying design that are NOT also predicted by adaptive evolution?). What's even worse, there's no way to disprove that X was designed. With evolution, if you found a truly IC system, that would be a very strong argument against its evolutionary origin.

In fact, domestic animals and plants show clear evidence that natural selection was not to blame: just consider bananas, which have no functional seeds. They forego the only reason a large and nutritious fruit (something very costly to produce) is good for a wild plant. Find anything like that in nature, and you should be looking for a breeder at the very least.

With design, however, no matter how many evolutionary scenarios people come up with, you could always say "but the designer really wanted to cobble together the blood clotting cascade from digestive enzymes"

You likely know of the several IC systems/organisms he touts and there is no real way to prove him wrong because no one actually saw them evolve and cannot recreate the process in a lab. So he persists.

Again, what JBJoe said.

And what's this obsession with eyewitnesses? I mean, do you really have to be there to know there was a party in a house or are the empty bottles and confetti and rubbish scattered in the yard next day enough evidence?

 

[Naraoia]

After reviewing one Behe article after another it is clear he can respond to any critique because even if a logical evolutionary explanation for an assumed IC can be made there is always another way of looking at it~~Dr. Behe always finds that other way of thinking.

And what compels him to find that other way of thinking when someone's made it abundantly clear that structure X is not IC?

Looking for other explanations should be a result of the weakness of the current explanation, not of wishful thinking. There are plenty of sub-fields within evolutionary biology with missing pieces (speciation is a great place to look for them*), but where Behe does it is, as far as I can tell, is not one of them.

-----

*Warning for the odd creationist who would jump on that bracket and draw the wrong conclusions: the question with the missing pieces is not whether speciation happens, it's the detailed mechanisms, and not even all of them. For example, from what I know, it's pretty much settled that geographic isolation is an easy and common way to make new species. There are more controversial issues, though: how often new species arise without geographic isolation, whether sexual selection can drive speciation, or how reproductive isolation evolves on the genetic level. None of that has any impact on the fact that speciation occurs.

 

[Forum Cruiser]

And what compels him to find that other way of thinking when someone's made it abundantly clear that structure X is not IC?

Looking for other explanations should be a result of the weakness of the current explanation, not of wishful thinking. There are plenty of sub-fields within evolutionary biology with missing pieces (speciation is a great place to look for them*), but where Behe does it is, as far as I can tell, is not one of them.

-----

*Warning for the odd creationist who would jump on that bracket and draw the wrong conclusions: the question with the missing pieces is not whether speciation happens, it's the detailed mechanisms, and not even all of them. For example, from what I know, it's pretty much settled that geographic isolation is an easy and common way to make new species. There are more controversial issues, though: how often new species arise without geographic isolation, whether can drive speciation, or how reproductive isolation evolves on the genetic level. None of that has any impact on the fact that speciation occurs.

Well I have been debating this topic on the net for about 4 years now and am still convinced that Dr. Behe has answered his critics to an extent. On the question of the evolution of the eye he basically failed but most of the other points he made he is still flailing away.

I cannot post links as of yet but Dr. Behe's response to Ken Miller "A True Acid Test" (the back and forth between them) is the perfect example of how Dr. Behe basically debates his opponents to a standstill. Really, the only thing that is missing is his initiation of a true ID research study.

 

[Hespera]

I wonder what a 'true ID research study" would / could consist of.

 

[Naraoia]

Well I have been debating this topic on the net for about 4 years now and am still convinced that Dr. Behe has answered his critics to an extent. On the question of the evolution of the eye he basically failed but most of the other points he made he is still flailing away.

I cannot post links as of yet but Dr. Behe's response to Ken Miller "A True Acid Test" (the back and forth between them) is the perfect example of how Dr. Behe basically debates his opponents to a standstill.

*reads*

The mechanism(s) of adaptive mutation are currently unknown. While they are being sorted out, it is misleading to cite results of processes which "violate our most basic assumptions about the randomness of mutations" to argue for Darwinian evolution, as Miller does.

I think this is the only good point Behe makes, but I haven't read anything about adaptive mutations. I know their existence has been claimed, and I vaguely remember that a few experiments failed to find them, and that's about it.

If, however, adaptive mutations have perfectly normal biochemical mechanisms then they are an even stronger argument against ID than mere natural selection: it's much easier to put together a useful novelty if you can use a larger proportion of all mutations.

The mutations reported by Hall simply enhance pre-existing activities of the proteins.

​

Which a central point of the argument against IC. That "new" things are not built from scratch, but from old things accidentally predisposed to working in a new way.

(A huge exception is nylonase, I think, which is the result of a frameshift. Incidentally, nylonase is a prime example that complete novelty is not impossible in evolution, although I wouldn't think complex machines arise that way; that would be a true tornado in the junkyard scenario)

A critical caveat not mentioned by Kenneth Miller is that the mutants that were initially isolated would be unable to use lactose in the wild--they required the artificial inducer IPTG to be present in the growth medium. The reason is that a permease is required to bring lactose into the cell. However, ebg only has a B-galactosidase activity, not a permease activity, so the experimental system had to rely on the pre-existing lac permease.

[...]

With further growth and selection, Hall isolated secondary mutants with improved B-galactosidase activity. These mutants all had the same two changes (mentioned above) at positions 92 and 977 of ebg B-galactosidase. Hall discovered that, in addition to hydrolyzing lactose, the double mutants could also synthesize some allolactose, just as the homologous lac B-galactosidase can do, allowing them to induce expression of the lac operon without further need of IPTG.

Behe shoots himself in the foot. Overcoming the "critical caveat" was a matter of further selection. Lactose is not the normal foodstuff of E. coli anyway. Being able to digest it is an advantage where glucose is limited, but not being able to digest it doesn't make a bacterium inviable in its normal environment. Which leads us to neutral evolution...

The chance of fixation of neutral mutations is far from negligible (IIRC, 1/2N in diploid populations, so I'd imagine 1/N in bacteria?). While bacteria have huge population sizes that aren't conducive to genetic drift, they also mutate and reproduce faster than bigger things. Plus, IIRC, they switch off a lot of their mutation-checking mechanisms during hard times, so they can produce the most mutations when raw material for evolution is most needed.

What really shakes Behe's argument about neutral evolution is this experiment, though. It's simulated organisms rather than real bacteria, but the function they evolve is highly complex, they evolve it in a surprisingly large proportion of trials, and sometimes via outright deleterious mutations. The only incentive towards complex functions is a selective advantage to complete, working functions.

(In case you think a ×2 selective advantage is unrealistic, IIRC that's about the pressure on dark vs. light peppered moths on the wrong-coloured bark. And yes, they do rest on bark and they do get predated, and yes, selectively based on colour. If you want to look at primary sources, I can probably find a paper or two.)

Something similar might be going on with the citrate-digesting E. coli, but I don't know if the actual mutations have been found since the new ability was reported.

Another important point to consider is that the experiment Miller and Behe are discussing is the reconstruction of specific functions in a specific machine. This limits the number of solutions observed, as it's easier to fill the gaps with components that are predisposed to interact with the pre-existing system than make up an entirely new system.

If bacteria without any lac operon at all would be pressed to use lactose, I'm sure they'd figure it out (just like the Lenski team's E. coli figured out citrate), and probably in several different ways. Evolution "in the wild" is far less restricted in the range of useful possibilities than this artificial scenario.

So, yeah, Hall's experiments may not be the most spectacular example against IC, but they don't make Behe's point either.

Really, the only thing that is missing is his initiation of a true ID research study.

Really. I wonder why it's missing

BTW, if it's Dr. Behe, let Prof. Miller have his title too

 

[Forum Cruiser]

I wonder what a 'true ID research study" would / could consist of.

To Quote Dr. Behe; "Professor Miller correctly states that 'a true acid test' of the ability of Darwinism to deal with irreducible complexity would be to '[use] the tools of molecular genetics to wipe out an existing multipart system and then see if evolution can come to the rescue with a system to replace it.' (Miller 1999, 145)." (A True Acid Test: Response to Ken Miller, 2000).

I suspect the best way to conduct such an study would be a collaboration of ID proponants and evolution scientists (don't hold your breath people) in order to avoid contaminating/invalidating study results. Preferrably an organism/system that Dr. Behe would identify as IC would be the best way to go.

 

[Hespera]

>>>>>>>>suspect the best way to conduct such an study would be a collaboration of ID proponants and evolution scientists (don't hold your breath people) in order to avoid contaminating/invalidating study results. Preferrably an organism/system that Dr. Behe would identify as IC would be the best way to go.<<<<<<<<

This seems to me like a joint study between cardiac surgeons and faith healers.

Or of NASA / jet propulsion lab people with the astral projection people.

"IC' is theoretical of course, and cant be proven anyway.

But really the big problem here is just that if the creation people had any data, they could just present it! No need for a special commission. The world scientific community is always open to valid data! That is its innermost nature.

the "irreducible" problem from ID / IC etc is this... They have no data.

 

[Forum Cruiser]

So, yeah, Hall's experiments may not be the most spectacular example against IC, but they don't make Behe's point either.

BTW, if it's Dr. Behe, let Prof. Miller have his title too

I see you did some homework...

I cannot say I have ever heard Dr. Behe state it but I suspect that he believes his strongest arguments lie with the idea of genetic manipulation (via intelligent intervention) as opposed to simply the magical appearance of organisms/systems.

Dr. Behe notes the need for an artificial inducer IPTG in order to produce Hall's results. The two noted evolutionary mutations required this inducer in order for the beneficial adaptations to occur. IPTG was injected in the medium which (according to Dr. Behe) is not something that would ever occur in nature. I am certain you can follow the logic from here. The mutations were a direct result of intelligent intervention thereby reinforcing the idea that adaptation occurs only with significant intervention. The systems studied will not function (much less display advantagious adaptations) without several other pre-existing components and significant manipulation.

I will read between the lines a bit but I cannot help but note during several reading of Dr. Behe on this subject that Dr. Behe implies that certain beneficial mutations can occur in E. coli given the right circumstances; but these changes may very well be preprogrammed or selected to occur under the correct conditions. I would not be surprised if this train of thought was applicable to all living organisms. This really is significant because it IS an alternative paradigm to materialistic evolution.

Back to the "wishful thinking" that I mentioned before. I share this wishful thinking at a "gut" level~~It may not be very scientific but imagining the entire universe and all living matter arising from nowhere seems an absurdity. The mechanism of evolution itself (especicially at the genetic level) is a fantastic system that seems far to complex and mechanical to simply have arisen from nothingness.

 

[Hespera]

This is the same problem i have with the idea that first God could poof into existence, and then he could turn around and poof all this other stuff into existence.

>>>>>>>Back to the "wishful thinking" that I mentioned before. I share this wishful thinking at a "gut" level~~It may not be very scientific but imagining the entire universe and all living matter arising from nowhere seems an absurdity. The mechanism of evolution itself (especicially at the genetic level) is a fantastic system that seems far to complex and mechanical to simply have arisen from nothingness.<<<


the mechanism of evolution doesnt seem too complex, to me anyway; but how it seems and how it is are of course not the same thing, necessarily.

 

[plindboe]

To Quote Dr. Behe; "Professor Miller correctly states that 'a true acid test' of the ability of Darwinism to deal with irreducible complexity would be to '[use] the tools of molecular genetics to wipe out an existing multipart system and then see if evolution can come to the rescue with a system to replace it.' (Miller 1999, 145)." (A True Acid Test: Response to Ken Miller, 2000).

I suspect the best way to conduct such an study would be a collaboration of ID proponants and evolution scientists (don't hold your breath people) in order to avoid contaminating/invalidating study results. Preferrably an organism/system that Dr. Behe would identify as IC would be the best way to go.

That's not an ID study, that's testing evolution. Falsifying evolution doesn't prove ID. If that ever happened it would mean that we're back to square one, not knowing why life is as it is. Thinking this lack of knowledge somehow affirms ID is nothing but ID-of-the-gaps. A kind of fallacious thinking that sounds strangely familiar.

Peter

 

[Forum Cruiser]

>>>>>>>>suspect the best way to conduct such an study would be a collaboration of ID proponants and evolution scientists (don't hold your breath people) in order to avoid contaminating/invalidating study results. Preferrably an organism/system that Dr. Behe would identify as IC would be the best way to go.<<<<<<<<

This seems to me like a joint study between cardiac surgeons and faith healers.

Or of NASA / jet propulsion lab people with the astral projection people.

"IC' is theoretical of course, and cant be proven anyway.

But really the big problem here is just that if the creation people had any data, they could just present it! No need for a special commission. The world scientific community is always open to valid data! That is its innermost nature.

the "irreducible" problem from ID / IC etc is this... They have no data.

"Jet propulsion lab people with the astral projection people" LOL...I would not describe that as a fair representation of the facts.

Pls. note, there are several different "angles" to the theory of intelligent design and the actual theory is evolving at a significant pace. We are duely created, one part material and one part spiritual. ID involves both and to the best of my knowledge the only legitimate ID study involves the soul and was highlighted by a book "The Spiritual Brain" by Dr. Mario Beauregard (2007). Dr. Beauregard (a neuroscientist) claims to have found evidence of the human soul in a study he conducted and there has been little to no sigificant critique of his actual study results/findings.

As far as traditional ID scientists the one I admire the most is Nuclear physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

I have read just about everything I can find from him and am impressed with the idea of how he views the universe and all of nature. His perspective (which he shared with me via email) is that the entire universe is evidence of ID. Every aspect of nature implies an underlying intelligence which is beyond our comprehension. If you have any interest in physics he is a facinating read. He also has a background in biology which is somewhat evident in his writings.

 

[Forum Cruiser]

That's not an ID study, that's testing evolution. Falsifying evolution doesn't prove ID. If that ever happened it would mean that we're back to square one, not knowing why life is as it is. Thinking this lack of knowledge somehow affirms ID is nothing but ID-of-the-gaps. A kind of fallacious thinking that sounds strangely familiar.

Peter

Well Peter, I disagree. This is not a matter of proving ID but merely a matter of testing a hypothesis. The hypothesis that "system A" (the interlocking biochemical complexity of a reevolved lactose system, specifically the lac operon of E. coli ) is IC. IC is an important part of ID~~which I hope I do not have to go into the history of "why." If IC can be established then one of the tenents of evolution is challenged and a natural conclusion would be that a preprogamming had occured~~an intelligent preprogramming. I would challenge you to come up with some alternative theory to ID if IC could be established.

 

[Hespera]

"Jet propulsion lab people with the astral projection people" LOL...I would not describe that as a fair representation of the facts.

Pls. note, there are several different "angles" to the theory of intelligent design and the actual theory is evolving at a significant pace. We are duely created, one part material and one part spiritual. ID involves both and to the best of my knowledge the only legitimate ID study involves the soul and was highlighted by a book "The Spiritual Brain" by Dr. Mario Beauregard (2007). Dr. Beauregard (a neuroscientist) claims to have found evidence of the human soul in a study he conducted and there has been little to no sigificant critique of his actual study results/findings.<<<<<<<<<


I dont doubt that ID theory is changing or evolving. What ID theory lacks is even one (1) data point to work with.


When you bring in spiritual, and "soul" you identify ID as being solidly in the same camp with the astral projection folks, imho. Sorry. There is no metaphysical argument in or contribution to jet propulsion, and no ID data there either. What work can be done with zero data?

A lot of people have claimed evidence for the soul, as have many proved who jack the Ripper was, or to have many to see the Loch Ness Monster.

Likewise you can say that "We are duely (sic) created, one part material and one part spiritual". That is just stating an opinoin but you are stating it as fact and using it as a premise.

Anyhow... . ID needs data. It doesnt have any. How does anyone get past that and still afford it credibility? I dont see how a person with intellectual honesty can do that.

 

[Forum Cruiser]

This is the same problem i have with the idea that first God could poof into existence, and then he could turn around and poof all this other stuff into existence.

>>>>>>>Back to the "wishful thinking" that I mentioned before. I share this wishful thinking at a "gut" level~~It may not be very scientific but imagining the entire universe and all living matter arising from nowhere seems an absurdity. The mechanism of evolution itself (especicially at the genetic level) is a fantastic system that seems far to complex and mechanical to simply have arisen from nothingness.<<<


the mechanism of evolution doesnt seem too complex, to me anyway; but how it seems and how it is are of course not the same thing, necessarily.

Well I have problems with "poofing" as well but with a slightly (maybe not so slightly) different take on things.

I believe we have been instructed by God (I will not attempt to define God as to avoid insulting people and would refuse to debate it) as to our design at a very basic level and were informed that He is from a different dimension which in Biblical times was referred to as a different realm. This is a realm with different laws of nature and God is not confined by our laws of nature or even our sense/concept of time. No poofing needed~~ that is the best smiley face I can do given I am still a restriced newbie.

Now if you have the scientific mind I suspect you have you are thinking "wow, this guy is really reaching right now" (to put it politely). I will reassure you my belief system is the result of years and years of study in religion, science, and mysticism (in that order). I find it almost comical when scientists attempt to argue for a universe where nothing but the material exists.