Barry Arrington was astonished to find that Larry Moran agreed with him that it would be possible for some future biologist to detect design in a Venter-designed genome.
He was further astonished to find that REC, a commenter at UD, agreed with Larry Moran.
Barry expresses his epiphany in a UD post REC Becomes a Design Proponent.
Has Barry finally realised that those of us who oppose the ideas of Intelligent Design proponents do not dispute that it is possible, in principle, to make a reasonable inference of design? That rather our opposition is based on the evidence and argument advanced, not on some principled (or unprincipled!) objection to the entire project?
Sadly, it seems not. Because Barry then gives some examples of his continued lack of appreciation of this point. Here they are:
For example, consider this typical objection: “All scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism, and you violate the principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology.”
If that objection is valid (it is not, but set that aside for now), it is just as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s design inferences as it is against any other design inference.
Yes, indeed, Barry. It is not a valid objection, and if it were, it would be as valid against REC’s and Dr. Moran’s as against ID. There is nothing wrong with making a design inference in principle. We do it all the time, as IDists like to point out. And there’s nothing wrong with making it in biology, at least in principle. There is certainly nothing that violates the “principle of methodological naturalism when you make a design inference in biology”. I wonder where Barry found that quotation?
The point sailed right over REC’s head. He responded that the objections were not valid as to his design inference, because his design inference (opposed to ID’s design inferences) was “valid and well evidenced.”
I doubt it sailed over REC’s head. I expect it was the very point he was making – that there is no reason in principle why one cannot make a valid design inference in biology, but whether the inference is valid or not would depend on the specifics of the evidence and argument.
But that is exactly what ID proponents have been saying for decades REC! We have been saying all along that the various “typical objections” are invalid if the evidence leads to a design inference.
REC, the only difference between you and us is that you are persuaded by the evidence in a particular case and not in our case. But you are missing the point. If what is important is the EVIDENCE, then th “typical objections” lose all force all the time.
Barry, consider the possibility that you have been misreading the “typical objections” the entire time. That the yards of text that are spilled daily at UD railing against Lewontin and us benighted “materialists” are entirely irrelevant. The objection to ID by people like me (and Moran, and REC, and any other ID opponent I’ve come across, including Richard Dawkins in fact) is not that it is impossible that terrestrial life was designed by an intelligent agent, nor that it would be necessarily impossible to discover that it was, nor even, I suggest, impossible to infer a designer even if we had no clue as to who the designer might be (although that might make it trickier). The objection is that the arguments advanced by ID proponents are fallacious. They don’t work. Some are circular, some are based on bad math, and some are based on a misunderstanding of biochemistry and biology. They are not bad because they are design inferences, they are bad because they are bad design inferences.
In other words, the objection “all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism” is invalid in principle, not in application, if it is even possible to make a valid design inference based on the EVIDENCE.
And here is where Barry steps on the rake again. Of course all scientific claims must employ methodological naturalism. It’s the only methodology we have in science – it is another way of saying that scientific claims must be falsifiable. That doesn’t mean we can’t infer design. Design is a perfectly natural phenomenon. If Barry means that we can only infer natural, not supernatural, design, he is absolutely correct, but that is simply because a supernatural design hypothesis is unfalsifiable. The reason Lewontin was correct is not that science is terrified of letting the supernatural in the door of science lest we have to face our worst nightmares, but that if you accept the supernatural as a valid hypothesis, you throw falsifiability out of the window.
You agree with us that it is the EVIDENCE that is important, and objections thrown up for the purpose of ruling that evidence out of court before it is even considered are invalid.
Yes, it is the EVIDENCE that is important, But on the other side of the EVIDENCE coin are the predictions we derive from the theory that we are testing against that EVIDENCE. If there are no predictions – and a theory that can predict anything predicts nothing – then we have no way of evaluating whether our EVIDENCE supports our theory. In fact, the word EVIDENCE only makes sense in relation to a theory. I’m no lawyer (heh) but doesn’t there have to be a charge before there is a trial?
Of course, by the same token, nobody can claim that ID is false – it may well be true that life was designed by a supernatural designer, whether at the origin-of-life stage as some claim, or at key stages, such as the Cambrian “Explosion” (scare quotes deliberate), as others claim; or for certain features too hard to leave to evolution such as the E.coli flagellae that enhance their ability to maim and kill our children. Or even to design a universe so fine-tuned that it contains the laws and materials necessary for life to emerge without further interference. Science cannot falsify any of that – nor, for that matter the theory that it was all created ex nihilo Last Thursday.
That’s why nothing in evolutionary biology is a threat to belief in God or gods, and why the paranoia surrounding “methodological naturalism” is so completely misplaced.
What is a threat to us all, though, I suggest, is bad science masquerading as science, and that is my objection to ID. Not the “broader” project itself as stated in the UD FAQ:
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
but its fallacious (in my view) conclusion that:
…that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
Fallacious not because I assume that the “intelligent cause” is supernatural, but because the math and biochemistry simply do not support that inference. Even if it’s true.
phoodoo,
So you did really want to ask about how to demonstrate the causal link between change in allele frequency, differential reproduction and environmental selection?
Something that is very easy to show, even with minimal equipment, is differences in bacterial resistance to naturally-occurring antibiotics, and we can also show that this resistance is heritable.
Try to understand what I wrote. I don’t think you get it at all, in fact, but that’s no excuse for simply mangling what I wrote into the usual ID spam.
Another great test for evolution would be if all of the earliest life was simple by constrast to the complexity of much present-day life (while much stays relatively simple), and if multicellularity came later than did single cells, increasing in complexity from worms and sponges in the sort of progression required by evolution. Indeed, highly complex life appears rather later in the fossil record, having progressed in roughly the manner expected by evolutionary theory.
There’s no need for designed life to follow the evolutionary trajectory, but, of course, the actual process did in fact. Entailed prediction by evolution, and evolution passes.
Glen Davidson
Zachriel,
I repeat!- HOW do you know when reproductive success depends on differential traits and when it depends on something else?
What would be the something else?
GlenDavidson,
Glen, you seem to be answering someone else’s question, not mine. I asked, how to disprove the concept of natural selection?
You are talking about the complexity of present day life compared to earlier lifeforms, etc… That has nothing to do with my question.
How to falsify the idea of natural selection? If you have an answer to that question, I would love to hear it. What is the test? What is the falsification of that test?
Bacteria live in an environment. That natural environment might or might not include antibiotics. Heritable differences in the bacteria lead to differences in reproductive success depending on the environment they find themselves in.
Alan Fox,
How many times do you want to tell me what I want to ask?
You said NS is testable. Ok, then what is the test? What is the falsification of that test?
phoodoo,
Zachriel’s answer was straightforward. And he points out that such experiments done on agar plates do not require a huge outlay in equipment. You can control the environment and check for reproductive successthe variables in the presence or absence of antibiotics. If you run it longterm, like Lenski, you get interesting results.
phoodoo: You said NS is testable. Ok, then what is the test? What is the falsification of that test?
Hypothesis: differences in bacteria are subject to natural selection
Test: put bacteria in environment with antibiotics
Falsification: there is no difference in reproductive success
Verification: some strains live, others die
You really have no clue about what a “falsification test” is.
You really need some basic science education.
Glen Davidson
Edit to add ps: The point is about the constraints of evolution via NS, etc. It has serious constraints on the expectations of the paleontologic record, as well as for present-day organisms. But if I have to tell you that, it’s clear that you don’t understand the matter even at an elementary level.
phoodoo,
In the case of the LTEE, not seeing mutations being selected for that improve fitness in strains of bacteria:
Zachriel,
Please explain what the result would be if NS wasn’t true? That all the bacteria would live equally? Or all die equally? So if I gas them and they all die, then NS is not true?
I don’t think you can explain the null in your experiment.
GlenDavidson,
You have no clue what you are talking about Glen. You really need a science education.
Gee, that was so easy.
Now move along if you have nothing to say.
Well, you have nothing to think, ignorant bozo.
If you ever evince even bare intelligence, you might be worthy of a response. You’re even more ignorant than I realized in the past, but you repeat the same dishonest accusations as usual.
Glen Davidson
phoodoo,
Have you ever had *any* science classes, Phoodoo?
phoodoo,
If a large enough meteor hits the Earth tomorrow, most large land animal life will perish without getting a chance to adapt. Doesn’t falsify natural seelection.
I think of more interest is what would be the result if ID was true? Any ideas? What do you expect if ID is true? Designed in-built responses to environmental cues? How could you design an experiment to test that I wonder? Any ideas?
Or do the questions you ask only apply on one side and you get a free pass because ‘jesus’?
We provided the falsification. If there is no difference in reproductive success, then there is no natural selection in this particular case. The hypothesis that there are differences with regards to environmental antibiotics would be falsified. In fact, we do observe differences in antibiotic resistance, even in clonal strains; hence natural selection occurred in at least this one case.
Alan Fox,
If I decide to fill a room with 1000 people, and force them all to stand. I then swing a blade exactly 5 feet eleven inches off the ground, chopping off the scalps of anyone taller than that. Did I just prove NS is true, differential traits survive differently depending on height?
!!!!!!
Alan Fox,
I am asking you what does falsify it Alan. So far you haven’t really answered that.
Please remove the guano, thanks.
Guys, the eyes of the world are on us or at least some lurkers from UD. Think calm thoughts.
Traits affect organism / environment fit, Phoodoo. Or do you think fish’s gills affords them no advantage in aquatic life?
phoodoo: Did I just prove NS is true, differential traits survive differently depending on height?
That would be artificial selection, but it certainly can result in changes to a population. See Genghis Khan c. 1227.
Zachriel,
Zacheriel,
In your example, EVERY case of survival is an example of the reproductive success of different traits. So what would be the example of reproductive success NOT as a result of different traits?
Richardthughes,
Do you mean except in the cases where NS chooses the marine organisms that don’t have gills? Is that what you mean?
Bring up generation after generation who’s education includes the rite of chopping, where they enter such a room when they are fully grown.
Do you suppose over many generations there would come a time where nobody would die or would people continue to die generation after generation forevermore? I’m interested in your answer.
Zachriel,
Why isn’t your bacteria test an example of artificial selection?
Yeah, on Monday they said it would be hot. On tuesday they said it would be cold. Bloody weather forecasts, predicting the opposite and yet they still call it a science!
phoodoo: In your example, EVERY case of survival is an example of the reproductive success of different traits.
Yes, so now you know that we can provide a falsifiable test for natural selection.
phoodoo: So what would be the example of reproductive success NOT as a result of different traits?
Not every trait is subject to natural selection, such as most synonymous genetic substitutions, or mutations to most pseudogenes. Morphological examples are harder to determine, but might include the hard shells of the calabash tree, or ear-wiggling in humans.
That does not say what the falsified result would be!
And How is this not artificial selection??? How is it any different than just chopping off certain people’s heads, based on your choice?
Gee whiz.
Zachriel: Falsification: there is no difference in reproductive success
Because antibiotics occur in nature. You can design the experiment using natural molds, if you prefer; or directly observe bacteria and molds in nature, then sample and test the various strains for antibiotic resistance in a separate setting to show heritability.
Zachriel,
Precisely, how would you decide when a morphological trait is selected by NS and when it is not. The answer is you can’t-ever. If people’s ears wiggle, that is by definition the trait that was selected for. If people can sing, that is the trait that was selected. If people have long noses, that is the trait that NS selects.
There is NO way to say that NS selected a trait, or that it didn’t. Does NS selection chose gay people. Sure it does, because there are gay people.
There is no criteria for a trait being selected and not selected under this premise. Whatever lives and is heritable, that is what NS selects.
That is the whole point. Its unfalsifiable.
Phoodoo, the only difference between artificial and natural selection is the additional factor of plant or animal breeders. The process is the same, differential reproductive success.
Zachriel,
if you selectively kill certain types of a population, then all you have done is selectively killed some. You are either successful at killing them or you are not-this tells you nothing about NS.
In fact, you have proven the opposite by your tests. We know that as soon as you take away an antibiotic from a group of bacteria, the population quickly returns back to its pre-anitbiotic gene distribution.
Thus your artificial selection didn’t do anything, other than kill certain types.
If this is the standard by which you think ID must be proven, I think ID has nothing to worry about.
Alan Fox,
Then how do you determine if a trait was selected Alan?
Let’s face it, every trait that exists is by definition a trait that was selected, as long as it is heritable. THAT is the problem you face. Its unfalsifiable.
Sounds like science! Citation please.
We just provided you a simple test for antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Ear-wigging is thought to be vestigial in humans, and not subject to selection.
Just because a trait exists doesn’t mean it is under selection. Long noses may be a simple result of the founder effect. If Genghis Khan had a big nose, it is likely that a large portion of central Asian men would have big noses, for reasons unrelated to nose size.
In any case, we provided a simple case with bacteria. It didn’t have to be that way. It’s possible that there is no variation in bacteria concerning antibiotic resistance, or that the trait is not heritable. If so, the hypothesis that bacteria have a heritable trait for antibiotic resistance subject to natural selection would have been falsified. Instead, the test verifies the existence of natural selection in bacteria for antibiotic resistance.
phoodoo,
Environment, phoodoo, environment!
Has ID been proven then? Or not?
You don’t have to kill them. You can observe them in nature in the presence of naturally-occurring molds.
Actually, reversion tends to be slow, which is why the medical community is having troubles with resistant bacteria. However, they do revert after a while, which is also natural selection.
Ignore human-manufactured antibiotics. We’re talking about antibiotics that occur in nature. We can directly observe bacteria and mold, and show heritable differences in bacteria which depends on their exposure to antibiotics.
phoodoo,
And it’s whole organisms in a population that compete in their particular niche to contribute more or less offspring to the next generation depending on how good they are comparatively at surviving and reproducing.
Alan Fox,
Alan, I have seen you give this same kind of non-answer before. I don’t know if you are just displaying your Lizzie tendencies to intentionally obfuscate, or if you are unaware that you are not saying anything.
If trait exist, HOW does one determine that it was selected for or not selected for? You can’t Alan, because the definition of it being selected is its existence. Whether it ear wiggling or antibiotic resistance. There is no hierarchy.
Saying, environment, environment does not change the problem, and it does not give you a test which can be falsified. The test is by definition true.
Its no different than me saying, the test for ID is if it was designed it must be designed. How do I test for it being designed. If it exists its designed. If it doesn’t exist, then it must not be designed. So if you exist Alan, then you must be designed.
I try to give you the benefit of the doubt for wanting serious inquiry Alan, but that is hard to justify. Why not just admit when you know you can not prove a point. Does it hurt too much to just admit it?
Alan Fox,
The test Alan the test! What is the null???
Zachriel,
Slow according to what time frame Zach? The fact that there always is a reversion regardless if you think it is too slow, shows that your theory has problems.
OMagain,
Design Omagain, design! Remember its the populations design not the organisms design!
Is there a specific question that was a non-specific answer to?
Hi Lizzie,
Thank you for this post. You concede that it would be possible to infer a designer of life, even if we had no clue as to who the designer might be. I’m very gratified to hear that we agree on this point. Evidently you don’t think ID arguments for an unknown designer of life are satisfactory. Might I suggest a short post in the near future, discussing the kinds of arguments that would impress you?
Hi Lizzie,
Your complaint that a supernatural design hypothesis is unfalsifiable would apply equally well, regardless of whether the universe was designed by God, an angel or an alien. In any case, a supernatural design hypothesis can certainly be shown to be unwarranted, if the arguments adduced for it are weak and unconvincing. Refuting the arguments adduced in favor of a hypothesis is the next best thing to falsifying it outright.
I might add that even if a supernatural design hypothesis were unfalsifiable, it might still be verifiable or demonstrable, which would render it scientifically meaningful. Robin Collins’ essay, “The Teleological Argument”, purports to show that even a multiverse would have to be designed. If his argument is correct, then the designer would, by definition, be supernatural, as it would be outside (and hence not subject to) the laws of Nature.
vjtorley,
“Concede” is a word with baggage. I read Lizzie as saying that it is possible to infer a designer given certain evidence. She is very clear that it is not possible to infer a supernatural entity with unconstrained capabilities.
Why don’t you just bring the best evidence and hypotheses you have and we’ll see if they stand up to scrutiny outside of UD?