# Is ID science? Redux

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [December 17, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063 "2019-12-17T16:22:58Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 14

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 7:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/267 "2019-12-22T19:52:45Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> You are all bashing John with the exception of Michael Callahan who is actually discussing

Who is John we’re all supposedly bashing?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 7:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/268 "2019-12-22T19:54:48Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> You don’t like ID for ideological reasons I get it.

We don’t like ID because it’s pseudo-science garbage pushed by charlatans with a religious agenda. It denigrates actual science and belittles and insults actual evolutionary scientists. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

---

<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:** [December 22, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/269 "2019-12-22T19:55:27Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> We’ve already gone over it, remember? It’s crap.

Rum and T showed understanding of the paper you never did.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> And ID has no models.

Based on this standard evolution has no models. All of these models are not ready for prime time.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/270 "2019-12-22T19:58:11Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Rum and T showed understanding of the paper you never did.

They understood the paper was garbage, which it is.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Based on this standard evolution has no models. All of these models are not ready for prime time.

LOL! Bill tries the “I know I am but what are you?” defense. 😃 This gets more pathetic as it goes along.

---

<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:** [December 22, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/271 "2019-12-22T20:05:57Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> On the other hand, where he thinks a mind has been at work is in the establishment of the initial conditions of the system.

Full disclosure: Turns out I was wrong in relying on Neil Degrasse Tyson’s portrayal of the relationship between Newton and Laplace’s influence on the mathematics of orbital mechanics. I found [this article by Luke Barnes](https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-newton-part-1/) that gives a much more detailed and nuanced picture of the history of these developments, and it appears that at least in this respect Newton did not allow his religious beliefs to get in the way of working to solve the problem in the way Tyson described it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Callen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_callen/32/897_2.png) [@Michael\_Callen](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Callen)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 8:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/272 "2019-12-22T20:42:50Z")

</div>

Honestly, it would be really great if we could ask questions of one another and come to conclusions without getting so angry and being condescending. It really doesn’t add anything to the conversation. There’s no lack of understanding that the opinions sincerely held are on opposite ends of the spectrum. It’s just much better conversation if the emotion can be left out.

---

<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:** [December 22, 2019, 10:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/273 "2019-12-22T22:06:28Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> You are all bashing John with the exception of Michael Callahan who is actually discussing. Get real.

No, simply pointing out that you’re not doing anything scientific. Why don’t you participate in the new thread I started on a truly testable hypothesis offered by @Giltil?

---

<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:** [December 22, 2019, 10:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/274 "2019-12-22T22:08:40Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Do you think the above statement is inviting me into a meaningful conversation? You don’t like ID for ideological reasons I get it. If you are interested in it why don’t you read up on it. Start here.  
> [https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.3/BIO-C.2018.3](https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.3/BIO-C.2018.3)

That hypothesis is not being tested, Bill. Maybe my new thread will help you understand how this works in real life.

---

<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:** [December 22, 2019, 10:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/275 "2019-12-22T22:11:29Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Rum and T showed understanding of the paper you never did.

Let’s recall the question that you have been asked: You were asked to describe the ID model by which mind without a body would be able to create a chemical compound like DNA or a protein.

This is the abstract of the (non-peer reviewed) paper you claimed provides the model:

> The hierarchical classification of life has been claimed as compelling evidence for universal common ancestry. However, research has uncovered much data which is not congruent with the hierarchical pattern. Nevertheless, biological data resembles a nested hierarchy sufficiently well to require an explanation. While many defenders of intelligent design dispute common descent, no alternative account of the approximate nested hierarchy pattern has been widely adopted. We present the dependency graph hypothesis as an alternative explanation, based on the technique used by software developers to reuse code among different software projects. This hypothesis postulates that different biological species share modules related by a dependency graph. We evaluate several predictions made by this model about both biological and synthetic data, finding them to be fulfilled.

Was that supposed to be a joke?

---

<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:** [December 22, 2019, 10:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/276 "2019-12-22T22:15:05Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> No Bill models ARE hypotheses.

While many equivocate between the terms, I think that most scientists use “model” to describe a bundle of hypotheses. In the fields in which I work, we usually refer to a speculative diagram in the last figure, almost always cited in the discussion of the paper, as a model. “Model” is usually looser than “hypothesis.”

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> A model of the weather for example can be used to predict the weather. That is then a hypothesis of how the weather is predicted to develop, which you can then compare to observations of the real weather.

And that would be an example, except weather models tend to include multiple hypotheses.

That fuzziness aside, it is clear that Bill has presented neither a model nor a hypothesis in any way in which either concept are used in science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Robert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e95f7d/32.png) [@Robert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Robert)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 10:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/278 "2019-12-22T22:24:10Z")

</div>

You might like to check that out again. The tale I heard was that Newton could solve the two body problem, which predicts elliptical orbits for the two bodies, but that he didn’t have the mathematical or computational tools to handle the pertubations on one planet on another, and ended up appealing to God to keep the solar system stable. (Wikipedia adopts this position, citing, if I read it correctly, Encyclopedia Britannica.)

---

<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:** [December 22, 2019, 10:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/279 "2019-12-22T22:28:30Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> > > You’re right here, there is a mistake in my formulation. I should have said the following : « V(D)J recombination doesn’t produce high FI for most of the genetic information necessary for implementing the function preexist in the stem cells that develop into B cell ». Thanks for the correction.
> > 
> > Please show your math.
> 
> It is not necessary to do the math.  
> Take this first sequence of letters:  
> « V(D)J recombination doesn’t produce high FI for most of the genetic information necessary for implementing the function preexist in the stem cells that develop into B cell »
> 
> Now take this second sequence of letter:  
> « V(D)J reco/dejpecbfsjeetrxyd/mbination doesn’t pro/ctifhkeswbudhg/duce high FI/tufdhkerttpbcdgezkmds/for most of the genet/pmhezybcvfdjufpaaxd/ic information necess/apchfsjudftepmbdqa/ary for implementing the function/qgfuotyudgjdepnvxwhj/ preexist in the stem cells that/arvfhjdtupmdfzqo/ develop into B cell ».
> 
> Can you see that the functional information in the first sequence is already nearly there in the second so that the transition between the second and the first sequences doesn’t involve a large jump in FI?

Can YOU see that you have omitted the sloppy recombination between the segments, somatic hypermutation, and VH substitution, and many rounds of selection, all mechanisms that increase FI as @gpuccio defines it, in real time?

If you’d like to argue that these mechanisms aren’t important in generating FI, that would be fun. You’ve actually and accidentally offered a perfectly testable hypothesis as your unsupported claim:

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> « V(D)J recombination doesn’t produce high FI for most of the genetic information necessary for implementing the function preexist in the stem cells that develop into B cell »

See here:

> [@Gil's testable ID hypothesis](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/gils-testable-id-hypothesis/9075):
>
> Continuing the discussion from [Is ID science? Redux](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/199): Gil, misrepresenting (hopefully not deliberately) his assumption as a fact, has provided a clear ID hypothesis in what appears to be the process of scrambling to avoid testing @gpuccio’s FI hypothesis: No, I cannot, because the binding specificity of three-dimensional antibodies is a combinatorial function. You are now ignoring somatic hypermutation. You are also ignoring the sloppy joining of segments by recombination, which generates new FI in real time. Again, @gpuccio’s hypothesis (misrepresented as a fact) is that there is an FI threshold that cannot be generated without design. This hypothesis makes testable predictions that @Giltil and @gpuccio seem to be uninterested in testing. Your hypothesis is most clearly stated as: Let’s test it together! Hints: in those stem B cells, the gene segments that are recombined are arrayed like this: [DEFINE\_ME](https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(04)00039-X) Let’s look at the heavy chain. Note that the cartoon is not accurate, …

Are you interested in learning more, Gil?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Robert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e95f7d/32.png) [@Robert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Robert)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/280 "2019-12-22T22:37:43Z")

</div>

> [@stcordova](#):
>
> Saying however, “origin of life is so improbable and violates normative expectation of accepted laws of chemistry and physics that it is a statistical miracle” is science.

I can understand someone being personally incredulous of the possibility of spontaneous abiogenesis (Spiegelman’s Monster notwithstanding), but I can’t see how someone can make your statement.

---

<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:** [December 22, 2019, 11:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/281 "2019-12-22T23:49:31Z")

</div>

> [@Michael\_Callen](#):
>
> There’s no lack of understanding that the opinions sincerely held are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

The hypothesis that ID opinions are sincerely held does not have any empirical support, though.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 12:44am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/282 "2019-12-23T00:44:18Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Random is not a good test for evolutionary biology to compare against.

It’s very difficult to follow your argument when you keep writing sentences like this, which don’t even make grammatical sense. What is this supposed to mean?

> [@colewd](#):
>
> It is tested. As I mentioned above humans validate it all the time.

No. Humans having a conversation is not a test of ID, because it is not a test of a proposed mechanism for creating de novo proteins, nor is it a prediction of a result for which ID is the “best fit” explanation.

@Giltil, are you saying ID is creationism? I’ve asked you this three times now.

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> Full disclosure: Turns out I was wrong in relying on Neil Degrasse Tyson’s portrayal of the relationship between Newton and Laplace’s influence on the mathematics of orbital mechanics.

I find Tyson is about as trustworthy on the history of science as Sagan, which is to say “Not very”. Luke Barnes is pretty great.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 1:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/283 "2019-12-23T01:46:28Z")

</div>

From “The Dependency Graph of Life” paper…  
_We present the dependency graph hypothesis as an alternative explanation, based on the technique used by software developers to reuse code among different software projects._

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Was that supposed to be a joke?

Object oriented ID. Unfortunately, I believe that was meant to be taken seriously.

---

<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:** [December 23, 2019, 8:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/284 "2019-12-23T08:02:18Z")

</div>

> [@Jonathan\_Burke](#):
>
> @Giltil, are you saying ID is creationism? I’ve asked you this three times now.

No. When I said that ID/creationism was the dominant view in science before 1859, the ID label referred more to natural theology whereas creationism referred to the view that each species has been independently created. And as a matter of fact, these two notion were intermingled at the time. This is not the case anymore, for many ID proponents don’t think each species were independently created.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\
**Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 9:06am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/285 "2019-12-23T09:06:03Z")

</div>

Thank you. So why are you characterizing nineteenth century natural theology, as ID? According to the overwhelming majority of modern ID proponents, ID is not theology at all and has nothing to do with theology; it’s just science.

Now if ID is actual science then it should have no problem with methodological naturalism. So why does it have a problem with methodological naturalism?

---

<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:** [December 23, 2019, 9:32am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/286 "2019-12-23T09:32:46Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> Are you interested in learning more, Gil?

Yes, absolutely. But by now, I maintain my claim that « V(D)J recombination doesn’t produce high FI for most of the genetic information necessary for implementing the function preexist in the stem cells that develop into B cell »

---

<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:** [December 23, 2019, 11:17am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/287 "2019-12-23T11:17:35Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Final post 🙂 There is no reason to test your straw-man. You are mis representing the argument. The real argument is testable. Merry Christmas Tim.

It that really had been a final post, then it truly would have been a merry Xmas.

Alas, colewd continued posting on the same topic to the same person only a few minutes later.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063.md?page=13)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063.md?page=15)