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…
You have thousands of components of the “simplest” of life system that are indispensable and need to be present at the same time for it to be alive… 1/3 of genes in Mycoplasma can’t be knocked out and yet nobody knows what they do…
What’s to falsify?! The RNA world fiasco needs a replacement or a new origins of life BigBang….lol
phoodoo,
It isn’t symmetrical. Evolution has entailments that can be tested. For example, transition-transversion bias, that can be observed in the lab, is also found on examination of genomes within and between clades, throughout the biosphere. Design? It has nothing to say on the matter. What you’d ‘expect’ is always retrospectively applied, playing catch-up. You roll your 6 sided dice that has ‘Design’ scrawled on every face.
Only sometimes? 🙂
If there is real evidence, like for the descent with modifications within “kinds” or species? Have you observed the evolution within mankind? Just look at sandwalk…
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-role-of-chance-in-evolution.html
ETA: the decrease of function or the breaking of genes is not really Darwinism, is it? 🤔
J-Mac,
Its is probably not Darwinian in nature, and anyway it is also just speculation about the mechanisms. The Darwin side has no more proof than the ID side either way.
If speculation is evidence, then it goes both ways.
A conclusion which can only be maintained in ignorance of the facts.
https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations
The only person on the ID side who is qualified to question common descent is Behe, and he doesn’t.
The only issue he raises is whether there are isolate islands.
Rumraket,
Appreciate the link. Kudos to Steve Schaffner. Does Rumraket never sleep?
Heh, I’ve been messing up my rhythm lately. Been staying up way later than I should. You know how it goes. SIWOTI.
phoodoo,
In the ideology war you are right but Paul is talking about advancing the theory as exemplified in Ewert’s dependency graph.
petrushka,
Interesting assertion. Paul Nelson majored in evolutionary biology Behe did not.
But Paul is YEC rather than an ID proponent. Isn’t there a difference?
No, he did not.
Hahaha, so Behe is not your hero anymore, now that you FINALLY figured out he accepts the evidence for universal common descent. Right Bill? 😀
Of course it’s not Darwinian! If it were, we wouldn’t hear the end of it…
But the mechanism is not speculative…For example, dwarfism in dogs has a strong genetic component, which was explored by dog breeders…Same applies to giant dog breeds…
Behe’s new book’s theme is about devolution or the opposite what Darwinists claim evolution to be…
ID has an advantage: the law of conservation of information, specifically quantum…
Behe won’t like it either…
Funny how that only matters sometimes.
Yes, it’s yes another book about anything except Intelligent Design.
Don’t you ever wonder why they keep talking about the thing they know is wrong? Does that seem rational? If they know Darwinists are in the wrong, then why not spend their efforts on what is right, presumably Intelligent Design? You know, write books about that instead?
Why do you think, J-Mac, that Behe is writing about how Darwinism fails rather then how Intelligent Design is winning?
So dog breeders can be the “mechanism” over a few generations but the environment cannot be over thousands?
Why’s that?
How will Behe find out?
Does ID really need another victory other than exposing Darwinism as ineffective and natural selection as impotent?
He responds to emails…So…this means he must receive them, no?
Well, there is the small matter of an alternative theory with explanatory power. A theory of ID.
Great question! Although I don’t think you really meant to ask it: Dog breeders often take advantage of mutations, that Darwinism, or the mechanism of it-natural selection, can’t eliminate…they selectively breed dogs with the genetic defects and continue to select dogs with the decreased or broken gene functions…
ID, as far as I can recall, only cares to show that Darwinism-with its mechanism of selection acting on variations (mutations) can’t accomplish what Darwinists claim it can. The only thing Darwinism can accomplish are minor adaptive changes (finches beaks) or more profound by breaking genes or decreasing gene functions-dog breeds…
ID says that intelligence is a better explanation for the origins of lifesystems than blind, unguided processes…
I know, and I suspect so does Mike Behe, or even Johnnyb, mutations are “directed” or “guided” or they are pre-programmed in the genome, such as antibiotic resistance before antibiotics were even developed…
Yes. That’s not a theory, it’s an aspiration.
Alan Fox,
And that’s an assertion 🙂
So, Behe is qualified to question common descent and not to question Darwinism?
J-Mac,
Indeed, you are not to question sacred cows as that no good Nelson is attempting 🙂
Then refute it. Tell me about a theory of ID that makes testable predictions.
That means only one thing: Evolution is even worse than an aspiration…
For example: How do I test the part of evolutionary theory- endosymbiosis- when Darwinists themselves admit thousands of genes are unaccounted for?
Can you see my problem? I will speculate that God did it… Since evolution couldn’t do it, for obvious reasons, you have an option to come up with the third option…🤣
Yes, to me that is the victory.
Materialists can’t possibly claim ANOTHER theory is also unguided and still be taken seriously.
When its not RM and NS, their ship is sunk. ID wins.
That’s fine. God did everything. Seems harmless as an aspiration. Meanwhile science gets on with the day-to-day.
Exactly! 😁
So you don’t like my theory with testable predictions? So you decide to move goalposts? 🤣
Yep! Science does…but not an aspiration of something remotely resembling science like Darwinism… 🤣
Endosymbiosis is an observable fact. Do you know what lichens are? Coral polyps?
You probably meant “Symbiogenesis”.
I predict if ID were true, there will be cases of rapid adaptation, rather than the slow gradual change predicted by Darwinian evolution.
There is more to it…I hope Behe changes his mind…
Same thing
Eta
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
Do you mean more rapid than mutations are observed to accumulate in populations of organisms? If adaptation were observed to proceed at a faster rate than mutation could account for, that would undermine the theory of evolution. But how would it validate an alternative? You have to propose an alternative explanation.
This is incoherent. I’ve no idea what you are trying to say here.
LOL
Another post-hoc “prediction” that follows from no principle of ID. Somehow biologists are elucidating all the mechanisms of evolution, and IDcreationists are “predicting” them after the fact.
I changed it sorry symbiogenesis and endosymbiosis is the same thing
Yeah…just like junk dna
I like how evolution happening even faster is somehow validation of ID and falsification of evolution.
Reminds me of Robert Beyers back on the old RD.net forums who insisted that it would be impossible for whales to evolve from terrestrial mammals because “there just isn’t enough time” (no work was done to show this of course), and then he instead invoked … hyperspeed evolution following the global flood to explain how whales evolved from terrestrial mammals “according to their kind”.
You can’t make this shit up. IDcreationists wouldn’t recognize critical thinking if it was injected into their eyeballs.
Not same thing.
Endosymbiosis is observed in the wild.
Symbiogenesis is a theory of how eukaryote organelles (especially mitochondria and chloroplasts) originated from association of free-living prokaryotes, such as an archaeon and a bacterium.
The fact such associations are found in nature is good evidence that symbiogenesis grew from such an association.
Speaking of aspirations and testable predictions…😂
Darwinism predicts 35 trillion “species” of 1 kind of microbes…
How many genetic codes are predicted to be found in such large population?
ID predictions are obvious…Darwinism predicts…?
Indeed!
Symbiogenesis, or endosymbiotic theory, is an evolutionary theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic organisms, first articulated in 1905 and 1910 by the Russian botanist Konstantin Mereschkowski, and advanced and substantiated with microbiological evidence by Lynn Margulis in 1967. It holds that the organelles distinguishing eukaryote cells evolved through symbiosis of individual single-celled prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
Are you willing to bet? Joe Felsenstein backed off but you must have faith…😎