Can ID be applied to biology instead of artifacts?

Here. This even has a helpful quiz at the end, so you can test yourself and see if you have finally understood it after all these years.

https://opentextbc.ca/conceptsofbiologyopenstax/chapter/mechanisms-of-evolution/

1 Like

Thus the amount of information in a DNA sequence depends solely on its length. Right?

That’s a good, clear article, so thanks for posting it.

Nowhere is it explained how information can be used to determine that something was “designed”, unless I overlooked it.

1 Like

You are exaggerating the degree to which evolution explains life’s diversity. The theory is good on its own there is no reason to pretend the theory is something it is not. Humans and Chimps sharing a common ancestor is a proposed hypothesis. Thats it.

A worthwhile estimate can not be calculated. Anyone can create an estimate. I can pull a number out of thin air and call it an estimate.

What no one has been able to do is actually calculate FI. This is because they don’t know all possible amino acid sequences that would produce a given function. This would extend to DNA and RNA function as well.

1 Like

It’s a supported hypothesis.

3 Likes

Nope. As Stephen Jay Gould explains:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html

In any event, your question was regarding mechanism, not common ancestry. If you deny the latter, I suggest you take it up with your beloved hero Michael Behe, who considers common ancestry to be so obviously true as to be trivial.

1 Like

I am not denying anything. I am saying you have exaggerated where the hypothesis is. Yes there is evidence for common ancestry as there are similarities. There are also many unanswered questions. There are splicing differences and Gene expression differences that are potentially beyond what reproductive variation, selection and genetic drift can explain.
.

Oh, I have? Then has Michael Behe done the same thing?

More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin—not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. In one region of our genomes humans have five genes for proteins that act at various stages of development (from embryo through adult) as the second (betalike) chain of hemoglobin. … In that region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a ‘pseudogene’) that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein.

Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotide letters that seem to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene’s coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseudogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too.

The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for the common ancestry of chimps and humans.

That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite the remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.

(The Edge of Evolution, pg 71)

Yeah, sure. No one is impressed by your ability to make stuff up, Bill.

1 Like

Bill, I think I can speak for everyone here. Nobody knows what you’re trying to say. Speaking for myself, I think that’s because you don’t understand what your hypothesis is or much of anything about the subject. But if you would just be a bit more careful in expressing yourself clearly, perhaps you could show that my reasons are incorrect.

1 Like

I have the growing suspicion that we are being led down a trail of red herrings.

1 Like

LOL. Then any two human beings sharing a common ancestor is a “proposed hypothesis” too. Or any two mice, or any two dogs, or whatever. This kind of radical skepticism of relatedness is silly. There are simple and obvious ways to establish genealogical relationship, and the common ancestry of all primates including humans have passed every single one of those tests.

No, they are not potentially, nor actually beyond that. Those really can explain those differences.

1 Like

And not only that, even if they could somehow by some unknown method show the fraction of all sequences that yield the function of interest, and we hypothetically obtained some exceedingly small fraction, that would still not show the protein could not have evolved, since it could just be sharing a sequence with another function that is much more prevalent in sequence space and hence driven there by natural selection.

This whole attempt at inferring ID on the basis of FI is doomed to failure. Further complicated by the issue that ID doesn’t explain the sequence in the first place, since there is no proposed hypothetical ID mechanism by which the sequence of interest can be shown to fit. If you’re going to make an inference to the best explanation by showing how one option is much less likely than another option, you need to show the likelihood of both options. We have to see how likely, as in with actual numbers, both options are. And we need to see the work that supports those numbers.

What is the probability of a designer designing some particular protein sequence that can only be performed by 1 in 10^{250} sequences of similar length? How did the designer find this sequence? OOOH, it’s MAGIC!

“Sorry, this is magical thinking, not science.” - @Giltil

2 Likes

Why does it bother you that I simply point out this hypothesis has not been tested and has problems?

Again, your making a claim that you cannot support.

Thanks for the advise.

I am simply trying to point out that whether Chimps and Humans are the product of known evolutionary evolutionary processes is up for rational debate as we cannot yet model how this transition occurred. We simply don’t know enough yet.

There are undeniably many similarities that are explained by common descent. There are also many differences and we have evidence those differences can be reasonably large such as splicing patterns.

Reading difficulties, Bill? Here, I’ll quote this again:

More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin—not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. In one region of our genomes humans have five genes for proteins that act at various stages of development (from embryo through adult) as the second (betalike) chain of hemoglobin. … In that region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a ‘pseudogene’) that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein.

Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotide letters that seem to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene’s coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseudogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too.

The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for the common ancestry of chimps and humans.

That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite the remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.

Behe is obviously satisfied that this hypothesis has been tested and has no problems. Maybe in your next conversation with him you can try explain why you think you understand the evidence so much better than he does.

3 Likes

Because that statement is a demonstrable falsehoods.

I’m not, and what do you mean “again” when that has yet to occur?

Then explain the differences and how they occurred. I agree with the similarities.

Mutations.

2 Likes

I agree there are observed similarities.