ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
So to falsify ID all you have to do is show that undirected causes such as natural selection and drift can produce CSI and/ or IC.
The positive case can be simplified by:
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: theordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.- Behe in “Darwin’s Black Box”
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.” Ibid
The positive case for ID is very similar to the positive case for archaeology and forensic science- we look for signs of work and/ or counterflow.
Dr Behe responds to some critics:
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum–or any equally complex system–was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
Even the explanatory filter demands a positive case for ID- one of specification on top of the elimination of necessity and chance. And the elimination of necessity and chance before considering a design inference is mandated by science- see Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning.
“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education
Cause and effect relationships-> science 101.
Adapa,
Look, if you cannot understand what I post then just don’t respond. The designer could have a pre-planned goal but the organisms do not need a pre-planned goal in order to control their evolution
dazz,
LoL! Directed evolution can be and is modeled with genetic algorithms. No one knows how to model undirected evolution.
If there’s no pre-planned goal stored in the organism (i.e front loading) then how does the Designer get the pre-planned result It desires in the face of unpredictable environmental changes?
The pre-planned goal in organisms means there isn’t just one pre-planned response to each environmental cue. The organism is free to innovate. The designer gets the pre-planned results by implementing the design to get them- and that could mean designing different populations of organisms to fulfill that plan
Oh my! Another groundbreaking aspect of the Grand Theory of Intelligent Design that slipped your mind when you wrote your OP!
I can’t wait. What model of directed evolution do you have? Oh boy, this is giving me the chills… what an amazing time to live in to witness such an amazing milestone in the history of science…
And please, educate yourself about genetic algorithms. They rely on random variation and fitness functions to model natural selection. Don’t you think you’ve made enough of a fool of yourself? Do you really need to keep digging you a deeper hole for some weird reason?
Except I forgot more about ID than you will ever know- and I don’t forget 😛
OMG. Doesn’t get much dumber than that. Look Frank. It’s over. If the same models of Darwinian evolution, no less, apply to your model of ID, then you have nothing at all. You just conceded defeat right there. Occam’s Razor says you’re the loser.
So the Designer’s goal wasn’t to produce any pre-planned resultant species like humans. The Designer’s goal was only to make sure the creatures evolved.
Funny FrankenJoe your Designer sounds exactly like natural undirected evolution.
Good thing you told us ID isn’t a goal oriented search. Of course by admitting that you just refuted everything the IDiots have claimed for the last decade.
So to falsify ID all you have to do is show that undirected causes such as natural selection and drift can produce CSI and/ or IC.
And no one can do such a thing. Not only that no one can answer the following:
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
http://www.mathworks.com/discovery/genetic-algorithm.html?s_tid=gn_loc_drop
dazz,
Natural selection is neither goal oriented nor is it a targeted search. GAs are goal-oriented and they employ targeted searches to reach their goal.
Only a moron would say that GAs simulate natural selection.
Bring on your science A-game: How do we test that bold assertion? (sorry, but doesn’t even qualify as hypothesis)
Really? prove it. Link to ONE single GA that doesn’t simulate natural selection.
You just told us the only goal was to adapt to the environment i.e. to evolve. You also told us the organisms had no pre-planned goals built in.
How does the Design get from the initial creation to the final pre-planned goal then FrankenJoe? Why didn’t the Designer just build what he wanted for the final product at the very start?
It’s the FrankenJoe two-step. 😀
dazz,
Link to one GA that simulates natural selection. Every GA is goal-oriented, Natural selection is not. Every GA uses a targeted search. NS is not a search.
Why is it that you cannot understand that?
The Designer has pre-planned goals. There are no pre-planned goals in Design.
Poor confused FrankenJoe. Maybe you need a time out to make up your mind.
Abd daz, I know what some ignorant people say and it flies in the face of reality. I will stick with reality, thank you
Adapa,
The confusion is all yours, as usual. I never said that the designer didn’t have pre-planned goals
Natural selection is goal oriented FrankenJoe. It’s just that the goal is the very broad “optimize your survival chances in the current local environment”. Of course in the real world the environment keeps changing so the optimum solutions keep changing too.
Frankie doesn’t understand ID. Frankie doesn’t understand evolution. But toasters? He’s got them down cold.
Adapa,
LoL! NS is not goal oriented. Read a biology textbook.
Then how does the organism which you said doesn’t contain the pre-planned goals know how to get to the goals?
You keep saying one stupid thing after another.
Adapa,
The organisms goals are contingent
Evasive non answer noted. Contingent on what?
Priceless, this is priceless… so the goal is the specification, so the GA is “steered” towards the goal, but the goal is the specification, so it goes towards… the god damn specification!
What a brilliant mind your is Frankie
Might not help since Phoodoo is on my ignore list. I’m about ready to pull the trigger on JoeG too, but at least he’s entertaining.
How did this whole term of endearment “cupcake” come about?
Adapa,
LoL! Add “contingent” to the long list of words that elude Apapa
Another cowardly evasion.
You said the organisms goals are contingent. Contingent on what FrankenJoe? Phases of the moon? The price of tea? WHAT?
That “specification” is the fitness function asshole, that’s what models natural selection! The algorithm produces RANDOM VARIATIONS, and the fittest are selected just like in nature. IT’S NOT GOAL ORIENTED BECAUSE IT DOESN’T TARGET A SPECIFIC OUTCOME, the outcome depends on the random variations and the relative fitness of the elements it produces.
You are equivocating the goal. All you can do is to claim that the “goal” of life is to evolve in general (which is not scientific anyway) not that any particular outcome is goal oriented
LOL! Yep, that’s exactly what FrankenJoe told us this morning. The Designer created life to evolve with no pre-planned goal in mind. The only goal is “survive to reproduce” which is contingent on an environment that is constantly changing. In other words it was Designed to look identical to unguided evolution.
Nobody does foot in mouth better than FrankenJoe. 😀
That is why I included the qualifier that the starting strain could not contain the strings of DNA that would only require a handful of mutations to produce the genes necessary for a flagellum.
Behe is on record as supporting experimental re-evolution of flagella. He obviously doesn’t think it will happen. Dollo is on his side. And Gould. There are events in the history of life that may only happen once.
Irrelevant to IC and evolution. You can demand what you want, it’s Christmas after all. While you’re at it, why not start with a rock? You demand a crocoduck type transition but that wouldn’t be evolution, so you are not questioning evolution there. Why would one expect a flagellum to evolve from an organism that is missing tons of it’s genes?
That experiment still falsifies IC because IC is about SYSTEMS, and IT’S PARTS, not how genetically departed it is from it’s potential ancestors. So there’s a precursor of the flagella, missing one part, and mutating it back by repurposing a different gene through random mutation.
It’s game over for IC
Maybe you should read some science journals. What you ask for is being all the time. Google is a wonderful thing.
Already provided. Please try to keep up.
Dazz: “Why would one expect a flagellum to evolve from an organism that is missing tons of it’s genes?”
I wouldn’t. Nobody would. That is why its occurrence would falsify the idea that the flagellum evolved by Darwinian processes. I was just responding to Joe’s challenge. But my scenario would certainly support ID. I wonder why the thousands of ID scientists (aka Gauger and Ax) have not attempted these types of experiments.
Oh, sorry I misinterpreted you.
Rereading it, it was crystal clear what you meant. My bad
What’s the difference between EV and ROI?
Given that there is supposed to be a new edition of NFL in the works I am really trying to avoid re-reading the old one. But thanks for posting that.
Frankie, I’d really like to read your posts, I really would. I try hard not to ignore anyone here. It’s a new year, I’m not even ignoring Adapa.
But reading post after post of one-liner’s that are really no more than insults is not the way I prefer to spend my time. It really wears thin in short order. Please consider changing your posting style, perhaps choose to not respond at all to some posts.
Thanks
Ernst Mayr disagrees with you. See the thread started by johnnyb.
In order to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection. That’s why.
I was discussing science not philosophical considerations. Teleonomy is a philosophical stance. Does life evolve because that’s it’s “purpose”? Does the Sun produce heat because that’s it’s “purpose”?
My take on this is: Yawn
GA’s demonstrate the power of cumulative selection… AND random variation.
The post of mine you replied to there was in response to one of Frankie’s drivels. I would ask you to go back and read it, but I don’t hate anyone that much
Informal answer: EV tends to mean theoretical, ROI tends to mean actual. EV also may not have any thing to do with Investment! The expected value of the percent of heads in a set of random flips is 50% for a fair coin. ROI in that case is completely meaningless.
Exact answer, EV follows this formula which originated from Pascal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value#General_definition
ROI follows this formula:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp
PS
In gambling and in finance (hence many financeers are also skilled gamblers on the side, like Ed Thorp and Bill Gross), one doesn’t aim to maximize EV because associated with EV are standard devations (SD) from EV, and that means one can run into bad luck and get wiped out.
The way to circumvent this is to aim for a high Sharp ratio:
EV / SD
EV = expected value
SD = standard deviation
Incidentally the SD suggests a normal distribution. The normal model almost works except in crashes like in 2008 and 1987 because market behavior, strictly speaking has non-normal behavior — fat tails, kurtosis — there are all sorts of non-normal distributions — leptokurtic, mesokurtic, platykurtic.
FWIW, that’s partly why I studied statistical mechanics and thermodynamics — the math relates well to finance and gambling. A Nobel prize was awarded in economics to Myron Scholes and Robert Merton for the contribution to the Black-Scholes equation (named after Fischer Black) that relates thermodynamics/heat flow to economics of financial instruments (puts and call options). The Black-Scholes equation is regarded as significant to finance as the discovery of DNA structure by Watson-Crick-Franklin to molecular biology.
Black-Sholes showed the EV of puts and calls tended to approximate the EV of the underlying instrument — at least for a short time until the theory was no longer that valid. 🙂
Anyway, that’s probably more than you asked, but it’s more fun to talk about this than CSI and the 2nd law as evidence of ID or that ID has a “positive case.”
Not according to Mayr. See the Teleonomy thread.
You asked Frankie why anyone would supply a known goal in advance and code an algorithm to find it and called him a “fucking idiot” for believing anyone would do such a thing.
I told you why someone would do such a thing, and Richard Dawkins did exactly that thing you seemed to think no one would do. So Frankie had a good reason for what he wrote and you have no reason for calling him an idiot.
He’s right. You’re wrong. And you ought to apologize.
🙂
I’ve already participated in that thread. If teleonomy is a scientific hypothesis, how could we potentially test it?
When I hear EV I think of poker players. But when the federal government came in and shut down the online poker sites my EV went to zero. 🙂
Not really, because he was trying to convince the world that GA’s have a goal, to finally retort and claim that the goal is specified in the fitness function. It’s idiotic and I’m not taking it back. GA’s don’t have a goal they target in the sense that no particular solution is targeted. It’s not a search, which links to your “me thinks it’s a weasel” example: that was a search, but that’s not a genetic algorithm, just a didactic tool.
GA’s are used to find solutions to certain problems that turn out to be better than design (cool huh?). If there was a goal, if it was a search, it would make no sense to run the GA to find what was known right off the bat
I read you diatribe. It didn’t answer the question and no one is doing it.
I have read them and there isn’t anything that supports the natural selection producing something.