In an earlier post I showed that ID is not anti-evolution. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/
So is ID is not anti-evolution then what is being debated?
Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:
- Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
- Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
- Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
- The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
- Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
- “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. see Coyne- https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/natural-selection-and-evolution-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/
The debate isn’t as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.
(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don’t seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don’t appear to understand the issue. The TE’s I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE’s are closet IDists.)
Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were.
With Creation vs. “Evolution #6” the 4 main debating points are clear:
1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)
2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).
3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from “simpler” bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)
4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.
With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.
IDists understand that if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).
What does the data say? Well there isn’t any data that demonstrates bacteria can “evolve” into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.
Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything:
If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don’t know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don’t truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).
Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.
One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a “black box” and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What’s more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.
In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn’t understand evolution.- Mike Gene
However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity…
Robin:
Frankie- Look ID is OPEN to any causal possibility as long as the claims are testable. In contrast methodological naturalism is CLOSED to all causal possibilities that are not blind, mindless, purposeless and unguided.
A simple look at the explanatory filter proves that is then case. The EF first considers law/ regularity/ necessity and then adds other chance mechanisms and only after those have been eliminated does it consider intelligent design.
But then again Robin isn’t interested in the evidence nor the facts
Almost completely wrong.
Some simple GAs have an explicit goal or target. That’s not common — not everything is a Weasel.
GAs are not a search. Some people use them to search for solutions to problems.
Try again. Or don’t. Actually, don’t.
You’re allowed to comment here. You are not allowed to comment on UD and some other sites. You benefit the most from our bias in favor of freedom of expression.
Incorrect. IC is an argument based upon an inaccurate inference. In essence, it is simply a rephrasing of the teleological argument for God and Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy.
LOL! You’re doing that own goal thing again Joe…
Not sure what this has to do with your previous bit on IC, but be that as it may, it’s not incumbent on me to make a case for ID so that all the “biased people” buy into it. If ID proponents can’t come up with a way to present ID in a scientifically convincing manner, that’s not exactly something that bothers me.
Which is true, but that doesn’t make it dogma.
You haven’t refuted my claim. The Privileged Planet doesn’t attack any other science other than the notion that humans are not special organisms, a notion from evolution. Walter Bradley doesn’t attack any other science than evolution. I honestly have no idea why you think you have a case there.
No, that’s science’s opinion.
Archaeology and forensic science both deal only with blind, mindless, purposeless, and unguided processes Joe.
Archaeological science focuses on comparisons of writing styles, shape use, material use, erosion, chemical dating, material wear – all absolutely blind, mindless, purposeless, material, unguided processes. None of the archaeological sciences touch on anything about “intelligence”; archaeologists are well aware they are studying the activities of humans, but they aren’t concerned with “human design” from a scientific perspective, but rather how human activities developed (dare I say evolved) over time. And what they compare to study that is simply good old fashioned chemistry, biology, physics, geology, etc.
Forensics is even more straight-forward science: it deals with things like angular momentum, blood clotting time, rigor mortis, fluid diffusion and spray patterns, digestion, respiration, cellular damage, etc. In other words, blind, mindless, purposeless, and unguided chemistry, biology, and physics processes Joe.
sigh…GAs are a tool, Joe, for solving specific types of problems that direct design takes too long to solve. The whole point of GAs is that they do not rely on targeted searches, otherwise they take as long as conventional human designe to solve problems.
Creationist opinions about Jone’s verdict has no impact on the verdict. I really don’t care about such silly opinions.
The verdict indicates that ID isn’t open to anything other than Christian dogma.
Except that it is Joe.
http://www.space.com/1826-seti-intelligent-design.html
fitelson.org/dembski.pdf
http://mappingignorance.org/2014/11/03/deconstructing-intelligent-design-2-dembskis-explanatory-filter-filter/
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/04/dembskis-explan.html
…and so on an so forth…
Are you saying that the process of a ga finding a solution is mindful, insightful and purposeful?
And it’s those things presumably because the designer had those attributes?
So if we observe a ga like process and posit it had no intelligent designer, then that process can be, according to you, guided, mindful, insightful and purposeful process.
So given we have no confirmed knowledge about the actual origin of replicators assuming you accept the possibility that life could have originated without intelligent design you therefore accept that what you see as mindful, insightful and purposeful could actually be the product of the blind watchmaker after all.
Unless of course you meant something different…
I always like to visualize tossing a ball high into the air. The chances of it coming to rest precisely where it does, and nowhere else, are so astronomically low that it could ONLY have stopped there due to a mindful, insightful and purposeful process.
And on further thought, this applies to nearly everything in our universe, which is composed almost exclusively of exceptions, coincidences, and vanishingly unlikely chains of circumstances. How could we NOT believe this isn’t Designed?
OK, Patrick- the GAs that are used as goal-oriented targeted searches mimic evolution by design
I agree.
The first link proves that Seth doesn’t understand ID- that has been dealt with SETI and Intelligent Design- Easily Correcting Seth Shostak
And it doesn’t even address that ID considers more options than Robin’s closed-minded science.
Not one of your links refutes the claims that ID considers more options than your closed-minded system. Attacking the filter- which BTW follows standard operating procedure mandated by Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation- proves people don’t know how to conduct an investigation into the root cause of what they are investigating
Assumed conclusion. Show us evolution is designed – calculate its CSI.
LoL! Legal experts have shown Jones went too far. And the fact remains the judge bought the lies, misrepresentations and bluffs of the plaintiffs. That is a proven fact and a matter of historical record
Except ID doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity. Jones was too stupid to understand that although Creation is a subset of ID it isn’t all of ID.
Again ID allows consideration of any causal agency as long as it can be tested. It allows for blind, mindless, purposeless, unguided processes along with sighted, mindful, purposeful, and guided processes. Yours only allows for the first half. Even a child can see which is more open.
Then shut up about it. Stop saying it is the fundamental or a foundation of science when it isn’t
That’s only your opinion. I have shown otherwise
Bullshit. It is an observable fact. We see it in man-made machines and structures. We also see it in biological systems and subsystems. This observation can be tested and repeated- and it has been.
What cannot be done is to show that natural selection, drift or any other non-telic process can produce any biological system or subsystem. There isn’t any evidence for it.
You are totally wrong. TPP doesn’t even mention evolution and neither does Bradley when he is talking about the laws of physics.
This is pathetic- I totally refute your asinine claim and you just handwave it away
BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So human volition, mindfully and purposely planning, and directing isn’t mindfully and purposely planning and directing?
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So they are not actively searching for a solution to a pre-specified problem and given all of the information required to do so?
The antenna just happened to pop out while trying to solve some other issue?
Just by designing the code to reproduce yo have entered the realm of evolution by intelligent design
I don’t benefit from people refusing to respond to the OP and carry on a discussion relevant to it. That was my point- in an open debate in front of an impartial panel Robin would have been carried off of the stage.
Judge Jones wrote:
The intelligent design is observable. We can make observations and try to determine how it came to be the way it is. That is where the testing comes in. We observe the genetic code exists and is a real code with mRNA codons representing but not becoming amino acids. We test and see there is no known law or physical determination as to what codon will represent which amino acid. Regularities exist but it has nothing to do chemistry. We test to find out how it came to be. We know that we can produce codes but we have never observed nature doing so- no, tree rings are not a code. Some call it- the origin of the genetic code- a frozen accident, it just happened, it just happened to work better than what was before and it stayed. Not exactly scientific.
So, on one hand we have knowledge of and experience with intentional agencies producing codes to communicate and on the other we have the observed genetic code which is also used to communicate. We don’t even know where to start to determine if nature can do such a thing. But you can win up to 10.1 million dollars if you ever figure it out.
What do we do? Do we go with what we know, knowing that science is tentative and open to change when new data arrives? Or do we keep stalling, waiting for some miracle discovery that will never come?
We can test the claim that the genetic code is a real code used in cellular communication. Those tests can be repeated and verified. And all ID is saying is we should be able to come to a design inference based on the research and our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
No, you don’t.
Citation please. And it’s not been litigated again, so anything “shown” outside of court is irrelevant.
What cannot be done is to show that intelligent design has produced any extant biological system or subsystem. There isn’t any evidence for it.
What Intelligent Designers have been tested with regard to biology then? What “causal agencies” have been considered by ID and what were the tests? If you can’t say what the tests are, how do you know it’s testable?
I guess Jones wasn’t convinced by the lies,misrepresentations and bluffs of the defendants.
And what if the code to reproduce itself evolved? What follows would therefore have the appearance, according to you, of intelligent design. And as we don’t know how the code originated you are in a bit of a sticky position.
What is evolution by design? If GA’s are mimicking that, what was the original source of the idea? What was being mimicked?
What is “evolution by design”? Is that the last fallback position? Non-telic telic evolution that is indistinguishable from non-telic evolution?
I can feel the foundations of reality trembling.
Look in the mirror sometime.
I bet you cannot say what those were…
Last time I took a measurement the CSI content was at about 1.34 trillion dembskis.
The dogmatic metaphysical naturalism is what Robin thinks governs science. However:
Only one possible foundation.
Hopefully we can now have the OP addressed
CSI pertains to biological function and its origins. We would only have to figure out the CSI of the minimal organism to see if living organisms are designed:
The minimal genome is something like 250 specific genes, and it obviously requires the accompanying pre-existing proteins and ribosomes. So that is a minimum of 250 bits of specified information. Then, depending on how tight the specified complexity of those proteins are we start adding onto that. I don’t know what anyone has shown nature capable of producing but my bet would be 250 bits of specified information is well beyond its capabilities.
Then there is the issue of the cellular division process required for bacterial life, is irreducibly complex!
So we have dembskis and behes throughout
Dream on. This thread was doomed from the start.
But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie.
Dream on dear Lizzie. Dream on.
Just addressing the author of the OP comments, take it up with him.
You do one then I will do one
Has the debate started yet FrankenJoe?
Would you be able to link to a documented process of where the EF has been used as you claim it has been used to determine what you claim here?
I’m interested in if you can support your factual claims regarding the EF.
Focus on the OP or stuff it
Address the OP.
Hmm, so joe gallien, who was banned from this site, is still allowed to post here as “Frankie”, even though it has always been obvious that joe and “Frankie” are one and the same. So much for rules.
It has been addressed, repeatedly. You’ve had the evolutionary timeline and the evolutionary mechanisms which produce genetic and morphologic changes explained to you ad nauseum. What we’re waiting for is your ID explanations for the same phenomena
What is the timeline for ID – when was the first “design” done? Was the “design” a one shot deal or does the Designer still come by and tinker?
How was the design implemented? How did the Designer physically manipulate matter to get the desired forms?
Why did the Designer create the fossil and genetic records so it looks exactly like evolution over the last 3.5 billion years? Why did it take the Designer over 3 billion years to come up with multi-cellular biota?
Why is the Designer so incompetent? It supposedly created a whole universe just for humans then fucked up our spine design so badly – taking a horizontal cantilever and standing it on end – that over 50% of all humans suffer lower back pain at some time in their lives?
You’re had well over a decade since the IDiots announce that “design” has been detected. Why has no one started on investigating the details – the how, when, where, what, and who? All you’ve done for the last decade is repeat the same useless ID slogans.
Face it FrankenJoe – ID is as lame and impotent an idea as your internet tough guy routine. 😀
Well, you are half correct.
Provide references to the peer reviewed papers that have done this for biological systems. Maybe the flagellum, or the eye, or ATP synthase.
So it’s only OK when evolutionists do it and run back to the mob to brag about doing it (when they get banned from pro-ID forums)? Can you say hypocrite
You have really outdone yourself with this one Joe.
That means that there are grounds for appeal. Maybe during the appeal, Dembski will take the stand.
I can even spell it: U. N. C. O. M. M. O. N. D. E. S. C. E. N. T.
Owner’s prerogative
Neither
The vast majority of GAs that are not goal-oriented targeted searches are examples of evolution without design, just as we observe in the biological world.
No, reproduction is assumed by the theory of evolution. You are conflating origin of life with evolution. You’ve been corrected on it so many times before that I have no hope that you’ll understand the distinction this time.