Separating the ideology from the science

A charge has been made that evolution seems to be a popular religion here at TSZ and that it is difficult to separate the ideology from the science.

No specific example was given to support that claim. But as it’s an interesting claim in and of itself I thought it deserved it’s own OP, and perhaps some specific examples can be provided and then discussed.

The reason I think it’s interesting is that I don’t think that’s the case at all, I can’t see any examples of where evolution is treated like a religion at TSZ so I’m unable to provide any examples of such.

I’m hoping that those that do can provide examples.

226 thoughts on “Separating the ideology from the science

  1. colewd: Because this tactic supports your ideology which Mung disagrees with?

    My fault for attacking his religion.

  2. colewd: I don’t think evolution is ideology but it can be used to support ideology. As Dr Harshman explained evolutions test is comparing observation and data to special creation which is also used to support ideology.

    Not quite true. Nobody actually compares observed data to special creation, but it happens that one model of special creation is “no pattern”, which is what we actually test against. So what if some scientific conclusions can be used to support ideology? That doesn’t seem relevant to the topic, which is more or less the opposite sort of causation.

    Although I think there is some supporting evidence here including that some of the data falls into a nested hierarchy, the evidence does not explain how transitions occurred simply through reproduction. It also does not explain convergent evolution. The challenge of the origin of a new DNA sequence that builds a new animal is also overlooked.

    Why are any of these relevant to common descent as an explanation of nested hierarchy? We don’t need to know (for the purpose of inferring descent) how transitions occurred as long as we can reliably infer that they did occur. We don’t need to know why convergence happens as long as we can recognize it. We don’t need to know how new DNA sequences arise, or how they “build a new animal”. In fact new sequences aren’t very useful in phylogenetics, because they can’t be compared among species some of which lack them. (Though the mere presence of a new sequence can be used as a single character.)

    Now, in fact, we know quite a bit about all these things, but they’re still irrelevant to the matter at hand. We know a lot about how transitions happen, both at the morphological level, for example from fossils, and at the molecular level, from sequence comparisons and mutation studies. We know a lot about what causes convergence, essentially a limited number of ways for selection to react to environment. And we know a lot about where new sequences come from, though in fact not many, if any, brand-new sequences are necessary to produce animals. I think we’ve been over all that before. And again, it’s all irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Richard Dawkins said evolution allowed him to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This shows one case how evolution supports ideology.

    Once more irrelevant to the subject, which is using ideology to support evolution.

    The evidence for special creation does strengthen my belief that we are in a created universe although the remarkable capability of the atom for me is evidence enough.

    What evidence for special creation of life? You haven’t mentioned any. And then you change the subject from life to the universe. Did you notice that? Evidence for creation of the universe is irrelevant to the creation of life. But anyway, what is this “remarkable capability of the atom” that convinces you the universe was created?

  3. John Harshman: We know a lot about what causes convergence, essentially a limited number of ways for selection to react to environment.

    How do we know this, by what evidence? By the fact that convergence exists?

    So if we found life on other planets, should we expect to see wolves and giraffes, since there is really only a limit on what selection can do?

  4. John Harshman: Nobody actually compares observed data to special creation, but it happens that one model of special creation is “no pattern”, which is what we actually test against.

    Bullshit with a capital B and a capital S.BS. What a Crock, capital C.

    Maybe OMagain will create an OP.

  5. John Harshman: We don’t need to know… We don’t need to know… We don’t need to know…

    Amen brother! Preach it! Embrace ignorance! Not that Sgt. Schultz will see anything.

  6. Mung: Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA

    Lewontin’s book is quite excellent and I recommend it highly. But let’s notice a few things, shall we?

    1. Lewontin is talking about the role of ideology in genetics, not evolutionary theory.

    2. Lewontin is an avowed Marxist, so when he’s talking about ideology, he means capitalism. Lewontin is also co-author of the very interesting The Dialectical Biologist, which makes a compelling case thinking about the organism-environment relationship as a dialectical relationship, with important implications for how we think about what we are doing as biologists and the relationship between science and politics.

    3. On Lewontin’s view, capitalist ideology affects how we understand genetics insofar as ‘the central dogma’ of genetics (DNA –> RNA –> protein) reflects a vision of order is always top-down. It’s the boss who tells the workers what to do and how to do it, with very little power and autonomy amongst the workers to decide how best to structure the workplace. This is a politics of hierarchy, of power always a top-down process. Lewontin worries that this politics is projected onto genetics (or better, onto the popular understanding of genetics) in which DNA is “the master molecule”, telling the proteins what to do.

    4. And Lewontin also worries that “genetic determinism” is going to be used a justification for refusing to invest in social programs intended to alleviate poverty and other kinds of inequality, since those kinds of inequality are “natural” and can’t be affected by “environment” (thereby neglecting the dialectical interplay between genes, culture, and environment).

    5. But intelligent design is also committed to a top-down vision of how power works. In the ID worldview, it’s always Mind or Intelligence that does the work of bringing forth order or structure or purpose. That has to come from the top of the hierarchy, and is always imposed on “mere” or “dead” matter. It’s completely antithetical to ID that matter itself has the power to spontaneous bring forth novel forms, just as it’s antithetical to the capitalist mindset that the people themselves have the power to decide how best to organize the production and distribution of public and private goods.

    6. Which is to say, that in the sense that Lewontin thinks that genetics (or better: popular understanding of genetics) is ideology (i.e. capitalist apologetics), ID is ideology in precisely the same sense.

  7. OMagain: The problem is this thread is asking for examples of people basing claims for evolution on faith rather then evidence. And nobody has been able to provide such, not even phoodoo! I’m sure Mung will be along shortly to provide evidence for his claim, probably got delayed on the train or something….

    In general evolutionists do ask that faith in a conclusion is a presumption fpr another conclusion.
    Examples
    Always evolutionary change in creatures is accepted based on a FAITH in the geology deposition claims. So creatures in one layer are presumed to have evolved from a lower layer in the rock stratya.
    so a biological conclusion is made on a faith in a foreign subject called geology.
    without the geology the evolution claims for biology, when using fossils, could not be made.
    So it is FAITH that is used by evolutionists in this case. Not biological evidence.

    Another example is where its a fAITH that like dNA/genetics is proof for common descent trees.They also do it with anatomy.
    Its not a FACT that DNA/anatomy likeness equals common descent.
    Its only a hypothesis. yet its treated as a fact which is only a faith.
    Thats two/three.

  8. Kantian Naturalist: 1. Lewontin is talking about the role of ideology in genetics, not evolutionary theory.

    As if the two are separable. Is Lewontin opposing Mendelian genetics?

  9. Mung: As if the two are separable. Is Lewontin opposing Mendelian genetics?

    No, he’s opposing the ways in which genetics is used to justify capitalism by making capitalism seem like ‘how nature is’. E.g. there’s a genetic basis to intelligence, so social programs designed to reduce differences in intelligence across different social classes are a waste of time and money.

    Basically, his enemy is Charles Murray.

  10. This individualistic view of the biological world is simply a reflection of the ideologies of the bourgeois revolutions of the eighteenth century that placed the individual at the center of everything.

    – Lewontin

    Before the gene. Before genetics. But the milieu of Darwin.

  11. Modern biology is characterized by a number of ideological prejudices that shape the form of its explanations and the way its researches are carried out.

    – Lewontin

    And of course, none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory. It’s like Lewontin has managed to skip right over 150 years of biology. It’s as if evolutionary theory is utterly irrelevant to modern biology.

    Not buying it.

  12. John Harshman: What evidence for special creation of life? You haven’t mentioned any.

    LoL. Contradictory confusion posing as knowledge. The “sign” of special creation is “no pattern.” John says so. It’s what he tests against.

    Now he claims that “no pattern” isn’t evidence for anything at all. God for you John.

  13. Mung,

    My fault for attacking his religion.

    Feel free to supply supporting evidence that I consider evolution my religion. Or don’t supply such and so support my contention that you are without honor. As you prefer.

    Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA

    Congratulations, you’ve learnt to use google.

    Bullshit with a capital B and a capital S.BS. What a Crock, capital C.

    Please tell us all how we can test special creation then, you know enough to call BS so set us all straight.

    Maybe OMagain will create an OP.

    If I do it’ll get more comments then any OP of yours.

    Amen brother! Preach it! Embrace ignorance! Not that Sgt. Schultz will see anything.

    Do you have many workers in your quote-mine?

    LoL. Contradictory confusion posing as knowledge. The “sign” of special creation is “no pattern.” John says so. It’s what he tests against.

    Now he claims that “no pattern” isn’t evidence for anything at all. God for you John.

    What is the sign of special creation Mung? Please do tell. If you don’t know how can you call anyone else wrong?

  14. Mung: John Harshman: Nobody actually compares observed data to special creation, but it happens that one model of special creation is “no pattern”, which is what we actually test against.

    Bullshit with a capital B and a capital S.BS. What a Crock, capital C.

    Actually everything he said makes perfect sense.

    One way to state a special creation model is that everything was specially and independently created by re-using already invented gene-sequences over and over agian, only modified in so far as it is required by some particular functional constraint.

    Under such a special creation pattern, there should be no systematic correlation between trees constructed from independent characters, because they were independently created, as opposed to derived incrementally over generations from a common source.

    So in such a model, for example, all species could have the exact same copy of cytochrome C (in effect, the creator simply copied the sequence and used the exact same one again for a newly created species), with no sequence differences either at the amino acid or nucleotide level. They could have identical tRNA synthetases. Identical DNA and RNA polymerases. And so on and so forth. Because the creator, rather than make up a new slightly altered version for every new species, just used the same one over and over again.

    Or the creator could make up an entirely new one every time.

    For some genes in some species, there could be functional constraints that would make them different necessarily. For example, a hyperthermophilic archaea that lives at 120 degrees C in a black smoker type hydrothermal vent would probably need to have altered versions of it’s genes compared to E coli, because the high temperatures would otherwise denature them. And that would probably be true for all or must of it’s genes. But then all hyperthermophiles that share such an environment could have identical genes. A hyperthemophilic archaea and a hyperthemophilic bacterium should have identical genes then.

  15. Mung: And of course, none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory. It’s like Lewontin has managed to skip right over 150 years of biology. It’s as if evolutionary theory is utterly irrelevant to modern biology.

    Not buying it.

    I’m sorry, man, but Lewontin doesn’t say what you want him to say. I asked you what it was about evolution that you thought was ideological. You responded with a link to Lewontin’s book, which isn’t about that. It’s about the role of capitalist ideology (esp. top-down hierarchy and individualism) in shaping popular understanding of genetics.

    If you want to take issue with Lewontin because he doesn’t talk about how evolution is ideological, that’s your prerogative. But I asked you for why you think that the evolution is an ideology, and you responded with a link to a book that isn’t about that at all.

  16. Rumraket,

    Design choices match up structures and functions to needs, availability, etc.

    Evolution is based on heredity and modifications thereof.

    Hence there is a simple test of whether or not life was designed or evolved. Are the genes and structures of life based on heredity and modifications thereof, or are they chosen to match up needs with genes and capabilities?

    The answer is clear, and what creationism and ID do is try to find ways of ignoring this test, and attempting to find ways why evolution couldn’t have done it at all. Meanwhile, they can’t even explain why “biologic design” doesn’t involve the sorts of choices that known designers make.

    Glen Davidson

  17. John Harshman,

    We don’t need to know (for the purpose of inferring descent) how transitions occurred as long as we can reliably infer that they did occur. We don’t need to know why convergence happens as long as we can recognize it. We don’t need to know how new DNA sequences arise, or how they “build a new animal”. In fact new sequences aren’t very useful in phylogenetics, because they can’t be compared among species some of which lack them. (Though the mere presence of a new sequence can be used as a single character.)

    This forces the claim that new genes and gene families can arrises from variation occurring as a result of reproduction.

    This is a big claim and I am interested how you would defend it. This would include sequences that code for complex micro machines like the spliceosome and the nuclear pore complex, complex organs like the heart and the eye and with convergent evolution these genes need to evolve more than once.

  18. colewd:
    John Harshman,

    This forces the claim that new genes and gene families can arrises from variation occurring as a result of reproduction.

    I swear you aren’t reading. No, it doesn’t force any such claim. For all phylogenetic analysis cares, new genes arise by divine poofing, as long as the poofing happens to the genes, not individuals or species. How stuff gets into a lineage is irrelevant.

    This is a big claim and I am interested how you would defend it.This would include sequences that code for complex micro machines like the spliceosome and the nuclear pore complex, complex organs like the heart and the eye and with convergent evolution these genes need to evolve more than once.

    While reminding you once again that it’s irrelevant, we can indeed learn about such things both by examining phylogenies and by watching what happens in the present. But there are no “sequences that code for complex organs”. Sequences code for proteins, if they code for anything, and the same proteins appear, for the most part, in complex organs and in simple tissues. The complex organs arise from developmental processes, and they arise from interactions among proteins and regulatory sequences and from physical interactions among cells. Even the regulatory proteins and sequences require very few novel bits from species to species.

    Convergent origins of eyes may be fewer than you suppose, since homologous genes influence their development in diverse species. I don’t know if that’s true for hearts, but really, all a heart is is a thingie that contracts to move fluid around. If there’s an organ that does that, we call it a heart, even if it looks nothing like a vertebrate heart.

    Anyway, irrelevant.

    As a continuing futile gesture, I ask you to explain what you think happened to produce all the genomes and morphologies we see today and in fossils, in a quite apparent nested hierarchy. You will of course ignore this paragraph, as always.

  19. John Harshman,

    John Harshman: We know a lot about what causes convergence, essentially a limited number of ways for selection to react to environment.

    How do we know this, by what evidence? By the fact that convergence exists?

    You will of course ignore this paragraph, as always.

  20. GlenDavidson: Design choices match up structures and functions to needs, availability, etc.

    Evolution is based on heredity and modifications thereof.

    Yes, this is the key.

    Design involves anticipating what functions will be desirable and then causing the implementation of those functions based on what is anticipated. (Notice the temporality!)

    Evolution involves a proliferation of hereditable morphological variation caused by changes in the timing of developmental events in conjunction with environmental pressures (including intraspecific and interspecific competition) which result in greater fecundity for some of those variations.

  21. Kantian Naturalist,

    Hate to harp on this, but it’s important. “Evolution” and “adaptive evolution” are not synonyms, and you are treating the former as if it’s the latter. Everything you say there is about natural selection, but neutral evolution is still evolution, and it dominates in terms of sheer numbers of changes.

  22. John Harshman,

    Its not apparent. its a FAITH that the only option for these ‘nests” can common from common descent. A creator with basic models in biology would also account for these “nests” things.
    Look at physics . A constant breaking up of what matter/atoms are constantly led to new conclusions.
    Its unreasonable to say look alikes ONLY look alike because of evolving from each other. It would look that way too if i was doing it.
    your side is asking a creator , to prove he created, had to not have a general blueprint and parts department. As if he had to be very hands on.
    Something not seen in physics.

  23. John Harshman: Everything you say there is about natural selection, but neutral evolution is still evolution, and it dominates in terms of sheer numbers of changes.

    More faith based assertions without evidence.

  24. Kantian Naturalist:
    John Harshman,

    Duly noted! And thank you — I appreciate your efforts to make sure I get it right!

    Still more evidence that Mung is right, evolution is a religion.

    Here we see one of the disciples in the congregation, humbly genuflecting to the preacher.

  25. phoodoo: More faith based assertions without evidence.

    At this stage you’re just trolling. That you yourself is not aware of what this evidence actually is doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of it.

    You could have asked for it instead of just declared it was a faith based assertion. You could have written “Do you have any evidence for that?”.

  26. phoodoo: Here we see one of the disciples in the congregation, humbly genuflecting to the preacher.

    Yes yes bla bla. I know it’s weird for you to see people accept that they made errors and appreciate the corrections.

    Like yours, this post of mine was contentless trolling. Mine just happens to be accurate.

  27. Rumraket,

    Rumraket: Yes yes bla bla. I know it’s weird for you to see people accept that they made errors and appreciate the corrections.

    Like yours, this post of mine was contentless trolling. Mine just happens to be accurate.

    And here we see the angry rants of the choir, frothing with vitriol at the heathens who refuse to succumb to their god of evidenceless assertions. The evidence is there they scream, you just have to believe, and it will come to you! You don’t need data, you don’t need numbers, you need to stop questioning everything and give up your ego, they insist.

    “They are not witches, they are TROLLS, burn the trolls! ” And here is Neil waving his moderator cross from the back of the church, just itching to strike it down on those who refuse to bow.

    Wow Mung you were right, these guys are dangerous! Even when you ask for evidence their response is, see, you don’t want to accept the evidence we won’t give! I think they are speaking in tongues!

  28. phoodoo,

    And here we see the angry rants of the choir, frothing with vitriol at the heathens who refuse to succumb to their god of evidenceless assertions.

    I doubt anyone cares what you do or don’t believe. The plain simple fact is the longer you interact with the reality based community the more likely you are to join it. As every question you ask is answered with an answer you can’t rebut you move a bit closer to reality. You know this, unconsciously if nothing else. I mean, otherwise why would you hang around somewhere where people seem to despise you? Trolling gets old eventually.

    No, you are addicted. You hate your ignorance but are too afraid to go all the way and embrace reality. So you are like an 8 year old teasing the girls. You hate them but at the same time, are interested…

    “They are not witches, they are TROLLS, burn the trolls! ” And here is Neil waving his moderator cross from the back of the church, just itching to strike it down on those who refuse to bow.

    Reality will make you bow down to it eventually.

  29. OMagain: reality based community. Reality will make you bow down to it eventually.

    Look Mung, their sect even has a name!

  30. Rumraket: At this stage you’re just trolling. That you yourself is not aware of what this evidence actually is doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of it.

    You could have asked for it instead of just declared it was a faith based assertion. You could have written “Do you have any evidence for that?”.

    Ahem…

    phoodoo June 26, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    Rumraket: Because it makes very specific quantifiable predictions testable in the here and now .

    For instance? What are some of those testable predictions, that would falsify evolution ?

    When did they make these predictions?

    What about the exceptions to the tree, do they falsify evolution? How many exceptions would falsify it?

    Is this the only test?

  31. phoodoo:
    Rumraket,

    And here we see the angry rants of the choir, frothing with vitriol at the heathens who refuse to succumb to their god of evidenceless assertions.The evidence is there they scream, you just have to believe, and it will come to you!You don’t need data, you don’t need numbers, you need to stop questioning everything and give up your ego, they insist.

    Blessed are the righteous

    “They are not witches, they are TROLLS, burn the trolls! ” And here is Neil waving his moderator cross from the back of the church, just itching to strike it down on those who refuse to bow.

    Blessed are those Who suffer persecution at the hands of Neil

    Wow Mung you were right, these guys are dangerous!Even when you ask for evidence their response is, see, you don’t want to accept the evidence we won’t give!I think they are speaking in tongues!

    Blessed are those who accept the wisdom of mung

  32. phoodoo: Rumraket: At this stage you’re just trolling. That you yourself is not aware of what this evidence actually is doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of it.

    You could have asked for it instead of just declared it was a faith based assertion. You could have written “Do you have any evidence for that?”.

    Ahem…

    phoodoo June 26, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    Rumraket: Because it makes very specific quantifiable predictions testable in the here and now .

    For instance? What are some of those testable predictions, that would falsify evolution ?

    When did they make these predictions?

    What about the exceptions to the tree, do they falsify evolution? How many exceptions would falsify it?

    You realize that I answered those questions in that thread, right? You asking the same question here doesn’t mean I didn’t actually answer them. It started here. What follows that post is an exchance between Mung and I where I elaborate on those points.

    Is this the only test?

    No, it’s not the only test. In particular it was a test of the hypothesis that species share a common evolutionary relationship of branching descent with modification. This is usually the one that gets religious people’s knickers in a twist, so that’s the one they want to know if it is falsifiable because, you know, I aint no damn monkey and all that.

    Evolution is a very broad subject, with many sub components. There are many different models of evolution, about what types of mutations are more common, about the tempo of evolution, about the relative contributions to the causes of speciation and so on and so forth. Each of these sub components make their own sets of predictions. You could go to pubmed and discover lots of papers on actual testing of these different models. To pick an example, a hypothesis was put forward (cant’ be bothered looking up when it was first proposed) that the observed transition bias is the way it is because transitions are selectively favorable over transversions. That hypothesis was tested and falsified.

  33. phoodoo:
    Rumraket,

    And here we see the angry rants of the choir, frothing with vitriol at the heathens who refuse to succumb to their god of evidenceless assertions.

    We see that where?

    The evidence is there they scream, you just have to believe, and it will come to you!

    Where do they scream that you just have to believe and it will come to you?

    Isn’t it painfully ironic that it actually is ONLY you people who say that about your religion? Nobody says “you just have to believe and the evidence will come to you” about evolution. You will not be able to find a single person saying that anywhere.

    You don’t need data, you don’t need numbers, you need to stop questioning evrything and give up your ego, they insist.

    But where do they insist this that you don’t need data or numbers and must stop questioning everything? They don’t, phoodoo.

    Again, isn’t it ironic that in actual fact, it is ONLY you religious people who do this? Isn’t it ironic that your statements here in effect concede the intellectual deficiency in such pronouncements of faith? Yet it is YOUR position that is actually based on it?

    “They are not witches, they are TROLLS, burn the trolls! ” And here is Neil waving his moderator cross from the back of the church, just itching to strike it down on those who refuse to bow.

    Isn’t it ironic that it actually was religious people who declared other people as witches and burned them?

    Wow Mung you were right, these guys are dangerous!Even when you ask for evidence their response is, see, you don’t want to accept the evidence we won’t give!I think they are speaking in tongues!

    Don’t you find it ironic, or maybe a little bit frustrating, that it is actually your religion that inspires people to start babbling in tongues?

    I find this whole post of yours enlightening in that it seems to constitute a textbook case of psychological projection. Is there some chance that you yourself somewhere inside finds the whole cultish aspects of “your side” ridiculous, intellectually dishonest and therefore frustrating?

  34. John Harshman,

    I swear you aren’t reading. No, it doesn’t force any such claim. For all phylogenetic analysis cares, new genes arise by divine poofing, as long as the poofing happens to the genes, not individuals or species. How stuff gets into a lineage is irrelevant.

    So as far as phylogenetic analysis is concerned design could be part of the equation. Is the same true for universal common descent?

    While reminding you once again that it’s irrelevant, we can indeed learn about such things both by examining phylogenies and by watching what happens in the present. But there are no “sequences that code for complex organs”. Sequences code for proteins, if they code for anything, and the same proteins appear, for the most part, in complex organs and in simple tissues. The complex organs arise from developmental processes, and they arise from interactions among proteins and regulatory sequences and from physical interactions among cells. Even the regulatory proteins and sequences require very few novel bits from species to species.

    You are technically right code stands for something that needs to be translated. Regulatory gene sequence matters in the same way and is evidence of design.

    Even the regulatory proteins and sequences require very few novel bits from species to species.

    Sometimes true and sometimes not.

    As a continuing futile gesture, I ask you to explain what you think happened to produce all the genomes and morphologies we see today and in fossils, in a quite apparent nested hierarchy. You will of course ignore this paragraph, as always.

    I avoid this because any answer is just speculation. From your first paragraph I think you agree.

  35. So as far as phylogenetic analysis is concerned design could be part of the equation. Is the same true for universal common descent?

    It’s impossible to rule out, so yes, it can be part of the equation for literally anything at all. And thats the problem!

  36. OMagain,

    It’s impossible to rule out, so yes, it can be part of the equation for literally anything at all. And thats the problem!

    So we have evidence of design and common descent. I guess thats what sustains this argument 🙂

  37. colewd:
    John Harshman,

    So as far as phylogenetic analysis is concerned design could be part of the equation.Is the same true for universal common descent?

    Yes, certainly, though again not design of species or organisms but design of mutations. “Design” is a vague term that could stand in for a great many quite different events and processes.

    You are technically right code stands for something that needs to be translated.Regulatory gene sequence matters in the same way and is evidence of design.

    I don’t think you know what you mean by “regulatory gene sequence”. How is it evidence of design? If you’re talking about transcription factor binding sites, they can arise, strengthen, weaken, and disappear all by very simple mutations. If you’re talking about something else, what?

    Sometimes true and sometimes not.

    Give an example of the “not” in animal evolution.

    I avoid this because any answer is just speculation.From your first paragraph I think you agree.

    I don’t agree. The answer is “common descent”. That isn’t speculation. If all you have is speculation, you are implicitly agreeing that you have no evidence supporting your position, whatever it may be. As for the mechanisms of mutation and adaptation (again, irrelevant to common descent), they also aren’t speculation. As you would know if you had actually read my second paragraph.

    But go ahead, present your speculation. No harm as long as we’re agreed it’s just speculation. Perhaps I can point out why you can’t find any evidence for it.

  38. colewd: So we have evidence of design and common descent. I guess thats what sustains this argument

    Which argument? You were arguing against common descent. And we don’t appear to have evidence of design. At least you haven’t presented any. Still, would you now agree that evidence of design is not evidence against common descent?

  39. colewd:
    OMagain,

    So we have evidence of design and common descent.I guess thats what sustains this argument

    No, that is not correct.

    It can’t be evidence for design if nothing could not be ad-hoc accounted for by design. It can only be evidence for something if that something could fail to explain or predict some other observation.
    Like last thursdayism. There is no concievable observation that could contradict it. The same would be true for design. As long as design remains totally contentless, it is without constraint. As such, there is no concievable observation that could contradict it. You could always just come back and say “that’s what the designer wanted to make it like”.

  40. John Harshman,

    I don’t think you know what you mean by “regulatory gene sequence”. How is it evidence of design? If you’re talking about transcription factor binding sites, they can arise, strengthen, weaken, and disappear all by very simple mutations. If you’re talking about something else, what?

    NCRNA’s micro or long. There are about 700 required to build a placenta. This transition to mammals is not subtle.

    I don’t agree. The answer is “common descent”. That isn’t speculation. If all you have is speculation, you are implicitly agreeing that you have no evidence supporting your position, whatever it may be. As for the mechanisms of mutation and adaptation (again, irrelevant to common descent), they also aren’t speculation. As you would know if you had actually read my second paragraph.

    Until you can come up with how detailed transitions occurred then common descent is the same high level claim as design. You are just speculating and making an ideological claim.

  41. colewd: So we have evidence of design and common descent.

    Well that depends on how you define “evidence”. You see something you think evolution could not have made and think it proves god. Is that the sort of evidence you mean?

    If we have evidence of design that naturally leads on to the questions that I normally ask at this point. Does the designer intervene to keep parasites viable against new treatments? Or is it good design gone bad? If so, evolution does seem to be able to achieve the complex structures that are required to suck out insect brains. And so on. But everyone seems reluctant to answer that sort of question for some reason

    colewd: I guess thats what sustains this argument

    It’s not really an argument as such is it now? It’s all a bit lopsided. Snark and ignorance from the chuckle brothers and you just seem to ignore the conversation yesterday that answered the question you are asking today. If it was an actual argument we’d be progressing the issues over time, coming to mutually agreed conclusions. It’s not. It’s something to do over coffee. Or when eating lunch. Ever noticed how quiet it is at the weekends here? And that really reflects the wider “culture war” with regard to ID. Nobody really expects to convince you of anything that does not fit into that worldview of yours. You are immune to argument it seems. Frozen, in amber.

    What was the most significant development in Intelligent Design in all of 2016? What scientific advancement did ID see in 2016 that you could point to as the most significant?

    I’ll tell you. It’s the same as it was in 2016 and 1016 and 16. Absolutely none at all.

    What “evidence” would, for you, disprove common design?

  42. colewd: Until you can come up with how detailed transitions occurred then common descent is the same high level claim as design.

    Then explain the utter disparity in the regard each claim is held in?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

    Is everyone an ideologue then? Is it a global conspiracy?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

    Where is the equivalent “evidence of common design” page? Or is everything on that page also evidence for common design?

  43. OMagain: And thats the problem!

    It’s interesting how you missed that part colewd. It’s like that modifier, that changed the entire sense of the first part was not useful to you.

    Sure, you quoted the whole post, and included the modifier. But you did not respond to my post as if it contained it, rather you just focussed on what was essentially a quote mine.

    I’m saying that, no, there is no argument possible because when you are postulating something that has any entailment or none at all there is literally nothing to argue about.

    I’m saying:

    OMagain: And thats the problem!

    because there is nothing that can happen of worth now.

  44. That whole evidence thing constantly eludes colewd.

    There is meaningful evidence against design, notably that traits, genes, whatever, apparently are not chosen intelligently, but exist via inheritance. There is no meaningful evidence for design of life at all, save for our meager domestication and genetic engineering efforts that break evolutionary regularity.

    Glen Davidson

  45. OMagain,

    What “evidence” would, for you, disprove common design?

    Lenski’s experiment developing one of the key protein elements of the eukaryotic cell would be a start.

  46. colewd:
    OMagain,

    Lenski’s experiment developing one of the key protein elements of the eukaryotic cell would be a start.

    I’m quite confident that no matter how many proteins we observe to evolve, you would always just say “that’s a start” and remain a creationist.

  47. OMagain,

    What was the most significant development in Intelligent Design in all of 2016? What scientific advancement did ID see in 2016 that you could point to as the most significant?

    Good point. What scientific experiment brought us closer to understand how one animal transitions into another?

  48. Rumraket,

    I’m quite confident that no matter how many proteins we observe to evolve, you would always just say “that’s a start” and remain a creationist.

    Show me a spliceosome evolve solely through cell division and I am switching teams 🙂

Leave a Reply