Evolution vs ID: The Clash of Ideologies?

This theme has been on my mind for a long time and although I was going to do an OP on the enzyme disillusion (some experts here think they know all there is to know about how enzymes work) I thought this OP could possibly get more people involved in the discussion…

Is Evolution vs ID the debate or a clash between 2 ideologies?

Both sides could disagree and say that it could be the clash of 2 sciences, or at least, the clash of science vs pseudo science…But which one is which?
I have realized a long time ago that both Evolution and ID would have to be ideologies driven by different, or opposing, world views…

Why?

Simply stated: None of the sides can provide empirical, irrefutable evidence for their claims that would sway at least the great majority of people to believe it… I actually believe this is an ingenious way of helping people express their freedom of choice, which to me adds another layer of evidence for existence of a Subprime Intelligence…

Evolutionists can’t replicate any of the main steps of evolution, starting with the origins of life.. They can’t even make the prokaryotic cell to evolve one step toward the eukaryotic one… Whoever does it, will receive a Noble Prize but those who realize the magnitude of this problem for science to overcome know that it would have to involve cheating

ID is no different… Nobody has seen any life forms being created, so the best ammunition they have is to shoot with at Evolutionary Theory is: Irreducible Complexity, the interdependence of the living cell components that need to be present at the same time or the simplest of cells dies… Their inference for Supreme Intelligence behind the observable universe and life seem irrefutable and yet the society we live in today doesn’t seem to buy it…Quite with opposite… I have recently come across and experience of a young, bright university student who was appalled how quickly and without giving it a second thought, young university students dismiss the idea of a creator or ID…

Both sides, Evolutionary theory and ID, rely on some kind of inference they call scientific and it is up to an individual to get educated and decide which one is more plausible..

Which brings me to the main point of this OP:

Mike Behe once said: “…You can’t convince some of something if he doesn’t want to be convinced…”

I hope both sides of the issue will realize this statement to be true and act accordingly…Does it mean that ID should throw in the towel and move on to something else, like promoting The God of All Sciences… something like that?

I don’t think so but on my part I have realized that the best OPs could be those who appeal to people who hardly or never comment at TSZ…That’s why DI is needed, so that people know and understand that just because evolutionary theory is taught at schools and Universities, it doesn’t mean there is evidence for it…

Evolutionary theory is not even a scientific theory, or scientific hypothesis, though evolutionists claim that it can be verified by the scientific method… Over the last few months I have been challenging many at TSZ to propose at least one experiments to verify some of the evolutionary claims but nobody even bothered to do that…

This challenge presents a perfect opportunity for those who believe that evolutionary theory can be falsified by experiments so that their assumptions about evolution being a scientific theory or hypothesis doesn’t remain as an illusion only…

120 Replies to “Evolution vs ID: The Clash of Ideologies?”

  1. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Allan Miller,

    ID is filling the vacuum of gain of FI that is observed over deep time.

    That’s meaningless, like saying ‘quantum entanglement’. How do you account for transition/transversion bias, exon/intron discrepancies, or more silent substitutions than non-silent? I’m not even talking about ‘deep time’, but a newly discovered species with close relatives.

    Evolution or devolution explains genetic loss just fine.

    In which case evolution can be modelled, and you were wrong.

  2. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller,

    Yes, loss of information can be modeled what ever you call it evolution or devolution.

  3. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller,

    That’s meaningless, like saying ‘quantum entanglement’.

    I respectfully disagree. Quantum entanglement is very meaningful. 🙂

  4. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Allan Miller,

    I respectfully disagree.Quantum entanglement is very meaningful.

    Quantum entanglement has meaning, but not as an answer to most questions in biology. It’s just sciency-sounding guff in the contexts one sees it hereabouts.

    Anyway, I see you gleefully dived down the rabbit-hole to avoid the question. Could I trouble you to return to the surface and answer it? How does ID account for exon/intron differences between closely related species? Or transition/transversion bias? Or silent substitutions vs non-silent?

  5. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Allan Miller,

    Yes, loss of information can be modeled what ever you call it evolution or devolution.

    So why can loss be modelled but not gain, when it is two sides of the same coin? Why can you model an allele going from 100% to zero, but not the other way? If the first happens, the second must happen simultaneously.

  6. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Allan Miller,

    Yes, loss of information can be modeled what ever you call it evolution or devolution.

    If loss can be modeled, then so can gain. Just reverse the direction of time in your model.

  7. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller,

    So why can loss be modelled but not gain, when it is two sides of the same coin? Why can you model an allele going from 100% to zero, but not the other way? If the first happens, the second must happen simultaneously.

    You need the mechanism to create the model. Random change will lose information so in this case the known mechanism works.

  8. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Allan Miller,

    You need the mechanism to create the model.Random change will lose information so in this case the known mechanism works.

    Wrong. The mechanism in ‘devolution’ is exactly the same as that in evolution. They can even happen simultaneously, as I have said. I’m not sure you’re grasping this.

  9. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd,

    But as to my question: what aspect of ID would result in it generating ‘evolution-like’ biases in the distribution of genetic difference between two similar species – exon vs intron, transition/transversion bias or silent vs nonsilent substitution?

    Remember we are not in ‘deep time’ here, nor are we trying to account for dramatic novelty, but simply mechanism in the recent past.

  10. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    Well, as long as everybody else knows what devolution is, it is fine I guess.

    Here is the definition that Wikipedia offers by the way:

    Devolution, de-evolution, or backward evolution is the notion that species can revert to supposedly more primitive forms over time.

    That is a concept that assumes progressive evolution (orthogenesis) to be occuring. Not widely entertained any more this days, I daresay. I don’t know whether that matches Behe’s use of the term, but it certainly doesn’t describe the stuff happening in the Basener and Sandford paper.

  11. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller,

    But as to my question: what aspect of ID would result in it generating ‘evolution-like’ biases in the distribution of genetic difference between two similar species – exon vs intron, transition/transversion bias or silent vs nonsilent substitution?

    I don’t think that the limited ID claim covers these issues. Behe would be the guy to ask but I am sure he would simply say these observations are not part of the design inference currently.

  12. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Allan Miller,

    I don’t think that the limited ID claim covers these issues.Behe would be the guy to ask but I am sure he would simply say these observations are not part of the design inference currently.

    Well, exactly. So evolution predicts the data and ID does not.

  13. DNA_Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller,

    There’s a lot of it about, you know.

  14. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: these observations are not part of the design inference currently.

    What is part of the design inference currently then?

    Be as specific as you can.

  15. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: What is part of the design inference currently then?

    Be as specific as you can.

    If I cross 2 2 x4s and add a third one across,. Is that evolution or mental issue?

  16. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd: They do not explain the gain of FI that has been observed over deep time.

    Gain of FI? Every time we investigate these supposed gains of FI in detail, you invent some ad-hoc excuse for why it isn’t a gain of FI because the same studies also show these gains evolved.

    Remember that whole debacle about the malate and lactate hydrogenases? For mysterious reasons the selection for an additional enzymatic function was SUDDENLY not an example of a gain of FI in a duplicate gene, because the gene sequence for the previous function was very similar, and so the FI “already existed”.

    Which is of course an INSANE excuse to invoke, because that implies that a de novo, functional protein coding gene evolving from similar non-coding DNA is also not a gain of FI, because the DNA sequence coming to encode the protein sequence already existed before a few mutations created an active promoter. See, the sequence already existed!

    This entails another, absolutely ridiculous conclusion, which is that evolution of the entire biosphere, all the genetic sequences seen in living organisms, would not constitute a gain of FI, because evolution works by incrementally modifying and duplicating already existing gene seqeuences over generations, but since an already existing sequence being duplicated and incrementally mutated doesn’t constitute a gain of FI in your view, then in fact the entire functional sequence repertoire of life could evolve and you’d insist no FI was gained.

    It seems that it only constitutes a gain of IF in your mind if the seqeuence is literally created out of nothing with a magic spell. If it incrementally evolves from an already existing DNA sequence, then it isn’t, for some absurd reason, a gain.

    We can show the COMPLETE INSANITY of your position here with a simple thought experiment.

    ACCAAATATAG
    ACCAAATATAC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.
    ACCAAATATTC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.
    ACCAAATAATC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.
    ACCAAATGATC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.
    ACCAAAAGATC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.
    ACCAACAGATC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.
    ACCAGCAGATC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.
    ACCTGCAGATC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.
    ACTTGCAGATC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.
    AATTGCAGATC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.
    CATTGCAGATC <- No FI was gained, because it's just the same already existing sequence being modified.

    So we went from
    ACCAAATATAG to
    CATTGCAGATC which is a completely different sequence. The whole sequence incrementally changed, no information gained.

    Oh, but if instead the sequence ACCAAATATAG already exists, and the designer just decides to create the seqeunce CATTGCAGATC out of nothing, only THEN it’s a gain of FI.

    The same sequence and function came to exist, but apparently the MANNER IN WHICH it comes to exist means it isn't a gain of FI for you. Because evolution just can't be admitted to be able to yield a gain of FI.

    What is most ironic is that you're not proving evolution wrong by arguing like this. As it could be the case that the entire biosphere evolved incrementally in the manner described above, it's just that you personally wouldn't consider that a gain of FI. Oh, so it's not a gain of FI? Well who gives a shit? It still evolved.

  17. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: If I cross 2 2 x4s and add a third one across,. Is that evolution or mental issue?

    So you’ve nothing.

  18. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    … Random change will lose information …

    Not when combined with selection, recombination and reproduction.

  19. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    The unresolved issue of abiogenesis is another example of materialism based evolutionary theory that proves my point in the OP that the two combined together are nothing else but ideology…

    Rum’s attempts to argue against James Tour’s paper reveals the obvious chasms separating an inanimate matter and animate matter – life…

    “…life should not even exist…” If one ignores quantum mechanics…

    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/rumraket-response-to-dr-tour-on-abiogenesis/4242

    On subatomic level one can’t help but be awestruck by the incomprehensible level of order in animate matter vs inanimate matter…

    Those who have the insight into this mind boggling order of life on quantum or subatomic level and still claim life is a product of mindless processes have no excuse… No other evidence will ever be presented that will ever change their minds…

    There’s just no need…

  20. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    James Tour is the clown who urged students to call “liar, liar, pants on fire” anyone who claimed to know the first thing about the origin of life, yet he claims to know that it had to start complex (as complex as we currently see it).

Leave a Reply

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