Common Descent by ID?

Further to the OP Munging ID it seems that there is still a significant amount of confusion as to whether ID could be, or even is, compatible with common descent… Moreover, Mike Behe has been quoted by Paul Nelson here at TSZ as one of the very few from among the Discovery Institute (DI) who “supports” common descent, common ancestry or descent with modification…

While I doubt we would be able to get Mike Behe to post at TSZ, for the reasons I have already mentioned in the moderation issues in the past, unless his book critics decide to post here and he would be provoked to respond, let’s just watch some of the videos where elaborates on those very issues:


Intelligent Design and Common Ancestry – Michael J. Behe, PhD

Another issue related to common ancestry is the that some members of DI, including Mike Behe and Ann Gauger apparently accept the possibility of “guided evolution”… which in my view would be an oxymoron…I must stress however that I have not seen any real details about that coming from either of them, so I don’t really know what they mean by “guided evolution”…Perhaps Behe’s upcoming book will provide us with some insight on the theme…Have they come to a similar conclusion Jonathan Wells has with the embryo development (cell differentiation) where the information beyond DNA would have to be added in the process? I don’t know at this point…

I have also mentioned it in the past that ID supporters, as well as logically thinking creationists, must accept some sort of “micro-evolution” or descent with modification within “kinds”…

The example of that type of evolution, or rather devolution, is the “evolution” of dogs from wolves by the breaking genes or the decreasing gene functions…

Other possible “evolutionary changes” leading to dog evolution from wolves could be compared to the antibiotic resistance evolution that had already existed in the some genomes before the antibiotics were even developed…

0

406 thoughts on “Common Descent by ID?

  1. phoodoo: But I get it, I get it, you want to say, “well, that’s not evolutionary theory anymore!” “Evolutionary theory is…….”

    So you take the term “Darwinism” to be synonymous with “evolutionary theory”?

    0
  2. J-Mac: In other news, Dan Graur recently adjusted his views on junk DNA to no less than 75% down from 90% when he claimed that if ENCODE is right evolution is wrong…

    J-Mac: Mutational load considerations lead to the conclusion that the functional fraction within the human genome cannot exceed 25%, and is probably considerably lower.

    Junk DNA cannot exceed 25%, and is probably considerably lower = Graur has adjusted his views that junk DNA is about 90%.

    Where did you learn to read?

    0
  3. Rumraket:
    Junk DNA cannot exceed 25%, and is probably considerably lower = Graur has adjusted his views that junk DNA is about 90%.

    Where did you learn to read?

    From Darwinian predictions I have read over the years:
    98% junk DNA, 97 % junk DNA, 90% junk DNA now AT LEAST 75% junk DNA…

    Would you like to make another prediction or should I?

    At least 75 per cent of our DNA really is useless junk after all

    “You’re far from a perfect product. The code that makes us is at least 75 per cent rubbish, according to a study that suggests most of our DNA really is junk after all…After 20 years of biologists arguing that most of the human genome must have some kind of function, the study calculated that in fact the vast majority of our DNA has to be useless. It came to this conclusion by calculating that, because of the way evolution works, we’d each have to have a million children, and almost all of them would need to die, if most of our DNA had a purpose. But we each have just a few children on average, and our genetic health is mostly fine. The study therefore concludes that most of our DNA really must be junk – a suggestion that contradicts controversial claims to the contrary from a group of prominent genomics researchers in 2012.

    ttps://www.newscientist.com/article/2140926-at-least-75-per-cent-of-our-dna-really-is-useless-junk-after-all/

    Why functional fraction within the human genome cannot exceed 25% NOW UP from 2%, 3% 10%? Because of the evolutionary prediction of genetic load which is just as good as empirical, experimental evidence…to Darwinists of course…

    As the functionality of the human genome has increased over the years from 2% to possibly now 25%, the prediction of the lethal effects of genetic load have soften, as they should, with such great accuracy of Darwinian predictions…

    In other words, the best evidence for evolution is evolution…
    How can you ever go wrong when you do pseudoscience like that? 😂🤣

    On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE.
    Graur D1, Zheng Y, Price N, Azevedo RB, Zufall RA, Elhaik E.

    Abstract

    A recent slew of ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according to which the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is less than 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 – 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious. This absurd conclusion was reached through various means, chiefly by employing the seldom used “causal role” definition of biological function and then applying it inconsistently to different biochemical properties, by committing a logical fallacy known as “affirming the consequent,” by failing to appreciate the crucial difference between “junk DNA” and “garbage DNA,” by using analytical methods that yield biased errors and inflate estimates of functionality, by favoring statistical sensitivity over specificity, and by emphasizing statistical significance rather than the magnitude of the effect. Here, we detail the many logical and methodological transgressions involved in assigning functionality to almost every nucleotide in the human genome. The ENCODE results were predicted by one of its authors to necessitate the rewriting of textbooks. We agree, many textbooks dealing with marketing, mass-media hype, and public relations may well have to be rewritten.

    0
  4. J-Mac: From Darwinian predictions I have read over the years:
    98% junk DNA, 97 % junk DNA, 90% junk DNA now AT LEAST 75% junk DNA…

    And does it never occur to you to wonder why “Intelligent Design” has failed to make those very same predictions?

    It’s fine for a prediction to be wrong. It shows we are reaching out into unknown territory. But you can never be wrong if you never reach, and that’s what Intelligent Design is – safe and never wrong.

    If you need an analogy think about how Mung, phoodoo and indeed yourself all never say what they think Intelligent Design actually means. What sort of designer? When does the designer act? What does the designer do, specifically?

    All questions I have no doubt you can all give an answer to, but for some reason none of you ever do. And I believe that’s so you can’t be proven wrong at some later date. Much like how Intelligent Design has no prediction for the % of Junk DNA.

    No prediction = 100% accuracy.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.