# Intelligent design and "design detection"

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Design\
**Created:** [June 10, 2023, 1:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132 "2023-06-10T13:37:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [June 18, 2023, 10:26am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/81 "2023-06-18T10:26:33Z")

</div>

The wrong time to the lca of deuterostomes is the least of his problems. Even assuming his ages were correct his method still wouldn’t work.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 18, 2023, 1:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/82 "2023-06-18T13:05:40Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> But he acknowledges that he is not an expert on this issue and so would welcome any suggestions to improve his judgement.

Not only isn’t he an expert, he’s apparently incapable of looking it up in the literature. But that particular problem means that this supposed rapid jump in information (again, what he’s using isn’t actually a measure of information) doesn’t exist. Estimates vary, but if you check [www.timetree.org](http://www.timetree.org), almost all of them are in excess of 600ma.

Incidentally, the oldest clearly deuterostome fossils are small pieces of stereom from Cambrian Stage 2, say 530ma. But of course that must postdate the divergence between echinoderm and chordate lineages.

This is truly cargo cult science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2023, 6:06am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/83 "2023-06-19T06:06:38Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Incidentally, the oldest clearly deuterostome fossils are small pieces of stereom from Cambrian Stage 2, say 530ma. But of course that must postdate the divergence between echinoderm and chordate lineages.

The split gpuccio is pointing to is not between echinoderm and chordate lineages but between vertebrates and some pre-vertebrate chordates.  
Whatever, do you agree with him when he says that the information which can be found in vertebrates but not in non vertebrates ( including early chordates) most probably must have been generated in a window of less than 100 my, say between 540 my ago and 450 my ago? And if you disagree, what is your estimation of this particular window?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Paul\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Paul\_King](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Paul_King)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2023, 6:47am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/84 "2023-06-19T06:47:00Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> The split gpuccio is pointing to is not between echinoderm and chordate lineages but between vertebrates and some pre-vertebrate chordates.

Looks to me as if he’s looking at the origin of jawed vertebrates.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Whatever, do you agree with him when he says that the information which can be found in vertebrates but not in non vertebrates ( including early chordates) most probably must have been generated in a window of less than 100 my, say between 540 my ago and 450 my ago?

Isn’t this pointless without some quantification of both the amount of information - for which no sensible estimate has been offered - and the rate at which it can accumulate through evolution?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2023, 11:57am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/85 "2023-06-19T11:57:47Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Whatever, do you agree with him when he says that the information which can be found in vertebrates but not in non vertebrates ( including early chordates) most probably must have been generated in a window of less than 100 my, say between 540 my ago and 450 my ago?

That is obviously wrong. Some of that “information” likely arose while you were writing that sentence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 19, 2023, 1:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/86 "2023-06-19T13:15:11Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> The split gpuccio is pointing to is not between echinoderm and chordate lineages but between vertebrates and some pre-vertebrate chordates.

Nope. Talking about “deu”. If by “deuterostomes” he actually means “pre-vertebrate chordates”, that’s yet another simple error. And that split would in fact be almost as old anyway, much more than 440ma.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Whatever, do you agree with him when he says that the information which can be found in vertebrates but not in non vertebrates ( including early chordates) most probably must have been generated in a window of less than 100 my, say between 540 my ago and 450 my ago?

No. First, he has no measure of information. Similarity to human sequences is not a measure of information. Second, he fails to include hagfish and lampreys, jumping directly to sharks from whatever he means by “deuterostomes”.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> And if you disagree, what is your estimation of this particular window?

It’s a meaningless question based on false premises. No actual way to answer.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2023, 5:47am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/87 "2023-06-20T05:47:11Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@Giltil](#):
> >
> > The split gpuccio is pointing to is not between echinoderm and chordate lineages but between vertebrates and some pre-vertebrate chordates.
> 
> Nope. Talking about “deu”. If by “deuterostomes” he actually means “pre-vertebrate chordates”, that’s yet another simple error. And that split would in fact be almost as old anyway, much more than 440ma.

Much more than 440ma; can you quantify this « much more »? Note that if the split occurred more than 440 ma, it would strengthen rather than weaken Gpuccio’s argument.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Similarity to human sequences is not a measure of information

Similarity to human sequences is not **always** a measure of information. But in case the similarity is conserved through deep time, the conserved similarity expressed in bitscore is strongly connected to functional information. Using Gpuccio’s own words, _« in this particular case of long conservation, the degree of similarity becomes a good estimator of functional constraint, and therefore of FI. The unit is the same (bits). The meaning is the same, in this special context »_

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Paul\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Paul\_King](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Paul_King)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2023, 6:24am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/88 "2023-06-20T06:24:43Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Using Gpuccio’s own words, _« in this particular case of long conservation, the degree of similarity becomes a good estimator of functional constraint, and therefore of FI. The unit is the same (bits). The meaning is the same, in this special context »_

If he was using Szostak’s definition the meaning would not be the same. I don’t think he has a good measure of conservation either.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2023, 7:18am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/89 "2023-06-20T07:18:04Z")

</div>

A while back I stated:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> _Indirect_ inference or deduction tends to involve more assumptions …

Let me see if I’m keeping track of all the assumptions here:

1. “in this particular case of long conservation, the degree of similarity becomes a good estimator of functional constraint”;

2. a rigorous definition exists for “functional constraint”;

3. “functional constraint” is a good proxy for Functional Information;

4. a rigorous definition exists for “Functional Information”; and

5. Functional Information is a good proxy for the presence on Design.

First question: have I covered all the assumptions?

Second question: do we have solid evidence supporting **any** of these assumptions?

Because unless we have solid evidence for **all** of these assumptions, this is not a “design inference” (let alone “design detection”) so much as _“design wild speculation”_.

Addendum: the definition that I’ve seen for “Functional Information” only applies within the _restricted_ context of “a given system and function, _x_ (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP)”[[1]](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK254300/) – it is unclear to me that this definition can be robustly expanded to an _unrestricted_ context – e.g. of an entire organism.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [June 20, 2023, 9:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/90 "2023-06-20T21:30:20Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> If by “deuterostomes” . . .

I do find it funny that scientists went with deuterostome, which means “mouth second”, instead of the more obvious name.

Anyway, back to the program.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [June 21, 2023, 12:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/91 "2023-06-21T00:05:37Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> I do find it funny that scientists went with deuterostome, which means “mouth second”, instead of the more obvious name.

That wouldn’t have happened today, I bet.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 21, 2023, 2:16am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/92 "2023-06-21T02:16:17Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Much more than 440ma; can you quantify this « much more »? Note that if the split occurred more than 440 ma, it would strengthen rather than weaken Gpuccio’s argument.

Already answered. And no, it would weaken his argument because he’s claiming a sudden jump in his pointless measure of information. The longer the interval, the less the jump is a jump.

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Similarity to human sequences is not **always** a measure of information.

Not **ever**. And Gpuccio is just wrong. He’s not measuring conservation. He’s measuring distance, which depends to some degree on conservation but to a much greater degree on time, and that should be obvious. As I mentioned before, chimpanzees by that measure are have the most information of all. Your hero’s clay feet are showing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [June 21, 2023, 7:24am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/93 "2023-06-21T07:24:45Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@Giltil](#):
> >
> > Much more than 440ma; can you quantify this « much more »? Note that if the split occurred more than 440 ma, it would strengthen rather than weaken Gpuccio’s argument.
> 
> Already answered. And no, it would weaken his argument because he’s claiming a sudden jump in his pointless measure of information. The longer the interval, the less the jump is a jump.

I don’t understand your point. We are discussing the transition from non vertebrates to vertebrates, aren’t we? Isn’t the case that at some time point T in the past, a split occurred from some pre vertebrates line and the vertebrate line? If so, isn’t it the case then that the older the split, the shorter the transition? I am asking these questions in good faith in the hope to get a better understanding of the issue.  
So in case I am wrong here, I would welcome your explanation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Paul\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Paul\_King](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Paul_King)\
**Post date:** [June 21, 2023, 7:47am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/94 "2023-06-21T07:47:16Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> We are discussing the transition from non vertebrates to vertebrates, aren’t we? I

Definitely not.

It’s supposedly the transition from non-vertebrates to cartilaginous fish. Whether your failure to understand that is due to Gpuccio’s unclear writing or your own fault, I leave to you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [June 21, 2023, 8:38am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/95 "2023-06-21T08:38:46Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> I am asking these questions in good faith in the hope to get a better understanding of the issue.

That’ll be a first.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [June 21, 2023, 11:33am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/96 "2023-06-21T11:33:47Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> If so, isn’t it the case then that the older the split, the shorter the transition?

It seems to me your question assumes that, immediately after the split, the first organism on the vertebrate line will have all the features that define a vertebrate. Is that how you understand it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [June 21, 2023, 1:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/97 "2023-06-21T13:32:13Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> Similarity to human sequences is not **always** a measure of information. But in case the similarity is conserved through deep time, the conserved similarity expressed in bitscore is strongly connected to functional information.

[We’ve been over why it isn’t before](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-is-a-hypothesis-according-to-intelligent-design-creationism/9205/545).

Have you forgotten, like, everything on the subject?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2023, 12:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/98 "2023-06-22T00:46:55Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> If so, isn’t it the case then that the older the split, the shorter the transition?

No. We’re talking about the spacing between the split between vertebrates and other deuterostomes and the split between sharks and bony fish. Or at least that’s what Dpuccio put on his graph. It’s not the time of a single divergence, it’s the interval between two of them. The older the first one, the more time between the two splits.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2023, 7:24am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/99 "2023-06-24T07:24:57Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> > [@Giltil](#):
> >
> > I am asking these questions in good faith in the hope to get a better understanding of the issue.
> 
> That’ll be a first.

Your derogatory and unsubstantiated comment does you no credit

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2023, 2:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132/100 "2023-06-24T14:22:28Z")

</div>

Derogatory, yes. Unsubstantiated, no.

We’ve been through all of this before. Did you forget, or are you just pretending to forget?

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132.md?page=4)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/intelligent-design-and-design-detection/16132.md?page=6)