Versus.
1 Like
I agree there are inconsistencies to what I am saying and appreciate you surfacing them. The issue is there is not one ID argument there are several. Defeating a single argument does not defeat all of them. ID can be a gaps argument but it can also be a positive argument depending on who and how it is delivered.
It can also be an asset to science on the other hand a way to push theology. Do we just through the baby out with the bath water?
Then stop saying that pointing out ID gaps argumentation is a straw man. And come up with something other than a gaps argument.
If ID helps with science, why don’t you and organizations like the DI actually do science?
2 Likes
You don’t have a hypothesis because you can’t describe how the ID hypothesis could potentially be falsified.
That is not a hypothesis.
2 Likes
Mr. A: I found a round stone at the bottom of a hill when yesterday, it saw it at the top. I think it got dislodged and rolled down the hill.
Mr. B: Yeah, but ‘mind’ is an explanation, besides gravity.
Mr. A: It rained yesterday.
Mr. B: ‘Mind’ can explain that it happened to rain on just that day.
Mr A.: The ash in these campfire rings suggest there was a fire here.
Mr. B: Not so fast! ‘Mind’ could arrange particles of ash so as to make it look like there was a fire.
1 Like
But defeating all of them defeats all of them.
At which point the question becomes: Why do believers in ID refuse to accept when all their arguments have been defeated? You are doing a great job of answering that, inadvertent though that may be.
Simple. They have not been defeated. Only misrepresented versions have been defeated. Design or mind is still a viable explanation for the evidence.
A few blogging ideologues asserting they have been defeated is not a big problem for the argument.
It might be a viable religious explanation, but not a scientific one. This is shown by the lack of a falsifiable hypothesis.
3 Likes
They’re exactly as viable as claiming MAGIC! for an explanation, and have exactly as much positive evidence.
1 Like
Un falsified is not the same as unfalsifiable. In the case of the flagellar you could show evolutionary processes building one. This has been stated several times in the past.
And you’re been corrected on the error several times in the past. That demonstration would not rule out your supernatural “mind” directing the evolutionary processes in an undetectable manner.
Sorry Bill your magic mind POOF! hypothesis is not falsifiable and is not science.
1 Like
That won’t work, as you have already shown. You would deem each and every observed mutation that adds function as being guided.
1 Like
That doesn’t make sense. A hypothesis of design for the flagellum is supposed to explain the relevant data concerning the flagellum by giving a model of how the flagellum was designed and manufactured that results in the data we have. That’s the whole point of a hypothesis that explains something: To explain it’s origin and existence with a model.
You have data that you want to explain, and a hypothesis (a model) you posit to explain the data.
You can’t falsify a design hypothesis for the flagellum by showing that it could have evolved. In the same way, you can’t falsify an evolutionary hypothesis for the flagellum by showing that it could have been designed.
But you’ve got this ludicrous inverted idea about what the design hypothesis is about. You seem to think the design hypothesis is “X could not have evolved”. It doesn’t make sense for the design hypothesis to be “evolution couldn’t produce X” because then you take on a burden of proof to demonstrate a negative. You’re then required to show the truth of the hypothesis that evolution couldn’t produce it. The hypothesis is not automatically assumed to be true until falsified. If it was, we could just automatically assume evolution was true until it was falsified, and then you’d have to do the work of demonstrating a negative.
Clearly that doesn’t make sense. There has to be at least two competing models. An evolutionary model for the flagellum, and a design model for the flagellum. Which one happens to be the one that “wins” is the one that best explains all the relevant data we have. Their potential falsifications are not dependent on demonstrating the possibility of the competing model in real time.
If the idea is that X was designed, then showing that it could have evolved would not falsify that claim that X was designed. Just think for a moment. Of course it could simply be the case that it is possible for X to evolve, and to be designed, and it could be the case that X was designed but that it could also evolve. And the converse, if the idea is that X evolved, then showing that it could have been designed would not falsify the claim that X evolved.
2 Likes
I am thinking very hard with my mind and trying to make a bacterial flagellum.
It didn’t work. No flagellum.
ID refuted. Done.
3 Likes
No. There could be no hierarchical structure in the data without the data being random. There are many possible data structures besides nesting hierarchies. What you’re saying simply isn’t true.
Sure, but there are only 13 sites, and they’re scored in the graph merely by presence or absence. It is almost impossible to avoid a noisy distribution with so little data. Even so, there is painfully obvious nesting hierarchical structure in that data set. The data set isn’t large enough to infer the canonical phylogeny of the species used at the depicted resolution shown on the tree. Only someone completely incompetent would think otherwise. Even so, the data is actually consistent with the depicted tree.
No, it adds no “rigor” to anything. It’s just some blind assertion you find appealing. All it adds to this discussion is eye-rolling at your fiftieth impotent attempt to bring it up(pun intended).
2 Likes
I’m glad to hear about that “more rigorous challenge”.
Thus far, ID has not provided any rigorous challenge. When can we expect one?
1 Like
How do you explain this pattern without a mind behind the formulation of invertebrates in the diagram. The WNT is a control for variable cell division in eukaryotic cells. If it is lost cell types are completely lost. The different WNT protein types are expressed in different cells and tissues. I see no viable evolutionary explanation for this pattern. A mind that understands biology (beyond our understanding) could mix and match cell types generating new organisms.
What was wrong with the answer you’ve already been given a few dozen times when you asked the same question before?
Of course you don’t Bill. You’ll have to keep believing it was MAGIC!
1 Like
Common descent and gene loss.
They all have at least one WNT gene, so where is the problem? Also, you have yet to show that losing a WNT gene will cause a loss of cell types in all species, both present and past.
So why don’t we see that?
1 Like
A mind can build abstract models and attempt to think through whether they work.
Evolution can build real organisms and rigorously test how well they work.
You just don’t seem to get it – you probably don’t want to get it.
Evolution does the same kind of thing that a mind does. But it does it more slowly (but also more surely). And it tests more thoroughly.
1 Like