# Bill Cole's Case For Design

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [August 24, 2018, 12:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337 "2018-08-24T00:05:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 12:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/1 "2018-08-24T00:05:04Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/7):
>
> I don’t think there are any serious controversies over common descent, unless you want to get into the nit picking about horizonal gene transfer.

We had a 5000 comment discussion on it a TSZ comparing it to common design. I agree almost everyone believes some common descent is real the debate is how much. You and I had an interesting discussion there whether Mac computers formed a nested hierarchy.

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/7):
>
> Elsewhere, there are disagreements over the role of natural selection and the role of neutral mutations.

This is problematic as neither is a good candidates for generating functional information. Evolution required mountains of FI. Without a tested mechanism to generate FI do you really have a coherent theory?

Add to this a minority group of scientists support ID or conscious intelligence as a mechanism and some scientists support Natural genetic engineering as a mechanism.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/2 "2018-08-24T00:13:18Z")

</div>

Be careful of the claims you are making.

> **[Diverse mutational pathways converge on saturable chloroquine transport via...](https://www.pnas.org/content/111/17/E1759)**
>
> This study provides detailed insights into the workings of a protein that is a key determinant of drug resistance in the malaria parasite. We found that two main lineages of mutational routes lead to chloroquine transport via the chloroquine...

This paper vindicates the claim that Ken Miller tried to shoot down in Behe’s edge of evolution.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T.j\_Runyon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t.j_runyon/32/9662_2.png) [@T.j\_Runyon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T.j_Runyon)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 1:00am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/3 "2018-08-24T01:00:37Z")

</div>

Guess you weren’t impressed with Miller’s response showing this paper did no such thing?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 2:52am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/4 "2018-08-24T02:52:40Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/10):
>
> You and I had an interesting discussion there whether Mac computers formed a nested hierarchy.
> 
> ![](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/40/810_1.png) nwrickert:

I agreed with you that hierarchies are human constructs. Nevertheless, the phylogenetic tree falls into place very easily, and fits several independent ways of organizing a tree.

Many critics of Darwinism still agree with common descent – for example Behe and Denton.

> [@](#):
>
> This is problematic as neither is a good candidates for generating functional information.

Sorry, but those “functional information” arguments are sleight of hand parlor tricks.

> [@](#):
>
> Add to this a minority group of scientists support ID or conscious intelligence as a mechanism and some scientists support Natural genetic engineering as a mechanism.

Evolution itself could be viewed as natural genetic engineering. I’m not opposed to the idea that intelligence is involved. But I disagree with the insistence that it must be conscious intelligence. The behavior of biological populations is already intelligence enough.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/5 "2018-08-24T03:02:36Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/14):
>
> Guess you weren’t impressed with Miller’s response showing this paper did no such thing?

I have not looked into Kens response but my experience is he often uses a straw man fallacy when he is in trouble.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:04am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/6 "2018-08-24T03:04:04Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/17):
>
> Sorry, but those “functional information” arguments are sleight of hand parlor tricks.

A claim like this needs support.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:27am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/7 "2018-08-24T03:27:00Z")

</div>

From my perspective, information is abstract. To say that there is information in biological systems, is to say that we ascribe information to those systems.

The ID proponents seem to take information to be a natural kind. That already seems dubious. They want to argue about the source of new information. But when I look at how they apply their arguments, they are really talking about what is already well explained, though in other terms, within evolutionary biology. So I see it as introducing unnecessary terminology in order to obfuscate.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:35am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/8 "2018-08-24T03:35:52Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/21):
>
> . But when I look at how they apply their arguments, they are really talking about what is already well explained, though in other terms, within evolutionary biology.

So the cause of new DNA coding sequences is?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:49am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/9 "2018-08-24T03:49:25Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/23):
>
> So the cause of new DNA coding sequences is?

Mutations and recombination (as with crossovers in meiosis) – and a lot of trial and error testing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 3:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/10 "2018-08-24T03:56:46Z")

</div>

Evidence this will work? 2 million years of human evolution in Lenski experiment with enormous populations and no new enzymes. This is a failed hypothesis.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 4:00am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/11 "2018-08-24T04:00:29Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/26):
>
> Evidence this will work?

The diversity of the biosphere.

The problem is that you are wanting it to work in a relatively static situation. But the biosphere is very dynamic.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 4:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/12 "2018-08-24T04:02:50Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/26):
>
> 2 million years of human evolution in Lenski experiment

That is false.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 6:06am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/13 "2018-08-24T06:06:40Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/27):
>
> The problem is that you are wanting it to work in a relatively static situation. But the biosphere is very dynamic.

The problem is there is no evidence that these mechanisms alone can organize DNA to create function in either enzymes or anything else.

Why in world would sustainable random changes to a long functional sequence cause anything good on its own whatever the environment. This is a failed concept without any support.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 6:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/14 "2018-08-24T06:08:30Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/28):
>
> That is false.

Fair enough. 60000 plus bacterial generations. Times 20 years per is 1.2 million human generations.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 8:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/15 "2018-08-24T08:10:55Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/30):
>
> > That is false.
> 
> Fair enough. 60000 plus bacterial generations. Times 20 years per is 1.2 million human generations.

This is the right math. The problem is that bacterial genetics and genomes and selection is very little like human evolution. You are making a category error.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 12:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/16 "2018-08-24T12:48:09Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/12):
>
> The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches of new protein sequence.

@colewd (& @swamidass ),

Joshua,  
If you reject the scientific aspect of IDs claims… this continued slogging about on of PROVING vs. DISPROVING the ID position… would seem to work against your efforts to seek trust.

Shouldn’t you set up a folder for threads on this ID dispute and allow the rest of your folders to ficus on the issue of Genealogical Adam?

Every time you start making progress on GA, all someone has to de-rail those discussions is start posting: “But what about ID?”

In the world of Christians, the ID claims are either already accepted … or only relevant to those battling out the topic in the realm of politics.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 1:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/17 "2018-08-24T13:05:01Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/33):
>
> Joshua,  
> If you reject the scientific aspect of IDs claims… this continued slogging about on of PROVING vs. DISPROVING the ID position… would seem to work against your efforts to seek trust.
> 
> Shouldn’t you set up a folder for threads on this ID dispute and allow the rest of your folders to ficus on the issue of Genealogical Adam?
> 
> Every time you start making progress on GA, all someone has to de-rail those discussions is start posting: “But what about ID?”
> 
> In the world of Christians, the ID claims are either already accepted … or only relevant to those battling out the topic in the realm of politics.

I agree with George here, you are giving ID too much credibility. Look at its track record. It has always been creationism (religion) disguised as science. Now, it seems that some members of DI are coming out and saying that ID is a form of Christian creationism. Well that is been known since Dover and the Wedge Document. But still ID is not science. And to elevate it to that level, is taking away from the discussion of what is factual and real evolutionary science.

> **[Answering Joshua Swamidass: What Do Theistic Evolutionists Believe? |...](https://evolutionnews.org/2018/08/answering-joshua-swamidass-what-do-theistic-evolutionists-believe/)**
>
> There are innumerable descriptions and definitions of theistic evolution. How things are phrased matters a lot.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 1:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/18 "2018-08-24T13:08:23Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/29):
>
> Why in world would sustainable random changes to a long functional sequence cause anything good on its own whatever the environment.

A genetic change can allow the organism to survive – perhaps even thrive – in a slightly different niche. But if you only examine the original population, you won’t notice that. Most of the change will only be visible when you look at the population that has split off to exploit that slightly different niche.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 2:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/19 "2018-08-24T14:56:35Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/35):
>
> A genetic change can allow the organism to survive – perhaps even thrive – in a slightly different niche. But if you only examine the original population, you won’t notice that. Most of the change will only be visible when you look at the population that has split off to exploit that slightly different niche.

The problem is the change is to a sequence. A highly structured order of nucleotides which function is much smaller the total sequence space by any known measurement. Basic statistics is going to hurt you unless the change is deterministic.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2018, 2:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/20 "2018-08-24T14:57:48Z")

</div>

> [@Is Science Tentative or Settled?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-science-tentative-or-settled/1318/33):
>
> Shouldn’t you set up a folder for threads on this ID dispute and allow the rest of your folders to ficus on the issue of Genealogical Adam?

Having a separate category is not a bad idea…

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337.md?page=2)