Probability Arguments for Intelligent Design

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Show me a paper that explains how the ubiquitin system evolved?

Soon as you show me the paper which explain how your Designer POOFED all life forms on the planet into existence.

HINT: Only real fools think because science can’t explain everything that means it can’t explain anything.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

HINT:

Science cant explain major transitions (differences) that are required to explain the nested hierarchy.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Science cant explain major transitions (differences) that are required to explain the nested hierarchy.

To the satisfaction of science professional who are experts on the evidence it can. Again that you don’t or can’t understand the explanation isn’t science’s problem.

HINT #2: Only real fools think because science can’t explain everything that means it can’t explain anything.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

To the satisfaction of science professional who are experts on the evidence it can. Again that you don’t or can’t understand the explanation isn’t science’s problem.

Unsupported assertion.

@Timothy_Horton

HINT #2: Only real fools think because science can’t explain everything that means it can’t explain anything.

Your straw-man.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Unsupported assertion.

Only to you, but your uneducated layman’s opinion doesn’t matter to the scientific community

@colewd

Your straw-man

If you want to believe because science can’t explain everything that means it can’t explain anything, more power to you. Good luck getting anyone to agree.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

Only to you, but your uneducated layman’s opinion doesn’t matter to the scientific community

So you speak as a scientific authority yet you have already made a false claim.

@Timothy_Horton

If you want to believe because science can’t explain everything that means it can’t explain anything, more power to you.

Is this what you believe? This is your claim not mine. You made a claim that science can explain the nested hierarchy of life yet I give you a difference you fail to explain. This is a problem with your claim. Good luck with defending it. I would suggest you retract it.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

So you speak as a scientific authority yet you have already made a false claim.

Only false to you because you don’t understand it. Your uneducated layman’s opinion still doesn’t matter to the scientific community

@colewd

You made a claim that science can explain the nested hierarchy of life yet I give you a difference you fail to explain.

Again feel free to publish your evidence science’s explanation of common descent for the twin nested hierarchies of life is wrong. All you’re doing here is showing again how little science knowledge you have. I suggest you read a Biology 101 textbook.

[Mung]

@swamidass

Isn’t it kinda their rhetoric?

Actually I can somewhat agree with you here.

I do think the DI could do a better job in their articles at EN of emphasizing that ID is not anti-evolution and that ID is not anti- common descent. I have expressed these concerns personally to John West.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@colewd

In DNA and proteins we are observing complex sequences and the null hypothesis of neutral variation creating the observed sequences fails.

There is no comparison here. You need a to evaluate the data under two competing hypotheses and compare them (Likelihood ratio of Bayes Factor).

@colewd

The inference is that in any observation of a complex sequence like the one I am typing the cause is most likely conscious intelligence vs random neutral change.

That is not an inference, that is a hypothesis. In this case we could reasonable calculate the likelihood of a sentence being purposely typed and compare that to a null hypothesis of randomness.

If you want to do the same for DNA and proteins, then first you need to calculate a likelihood the sequence evolved. Outside of phylogenetics methods**, this simply is not possible, and the null hypothesis of randomness is a strawman, because selection is decidedly non-random.
On the other side, we have no likelihood of design for comparison, or even an alternative hypotheses defined in a way that would allow it to be tested**.

**Outside of phylogenetics methods needs to be kept in mind as the exception here, because there are published studies showing for ID might be tested using accepted statistical methods. At least one such study has been criticized on several counts, but these involve secondary assumptions that can be corrected. The mathematics underlying statistical inference is not in question.

[Mung]

@Dan_Eastwood

You raise a good point, there could be other possibilities. However, that was beyond the point I was making, which is that methods of statistical inference compare one likelihood against another - two at a time - for an honest comparison.

For me this brings to mind someone using statistical hypothesis testing where the alternatives are common descent vs independent origins. Even young earth creationists accept some common descent so I don’t consider the use of independent origins to be an “honest” comparison.

But I do understand your point. If someone is willing to say we don’t know the likelihood of evolution I’ll happily say we don’t know the likelihood of design. Is there an actual impasse and is there a way beyond it?

How do we go about deciding the likelihood of an evolutionary scenario? It appears to me that the common approach is to do a comparison to a design scenario, in which the design scenario is represented as either being random or being an optimal solution. Note I am not talking about comparing two trees in phylogenetic systematics.

Just to be clear, I don’t think evolution v. design makes sense anyways.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

You first need all the parts that can build a living animal and that requires rapid cell division and precise differentiation. You need a central nervous system and an energy transport system as a minimum.

That’s strange. There are many species of animal that lack a central nervous system, such as Cniderians and Poriferans.

@colewd

There is no known natural process that can possibly model this. There are thousands of interdependent proteins involved.

And this is where we plunge into the God of the Gaps argument.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Sorry Timothy your simple to complex hypothesis fails here. You have no Idea what you are up against. You can’t drive a car until all the parts are together. A wheel is not functional on its own. Do you know what a ubiquitin system is?

Bacteria seem to get along just fine without ubiquitin.

I also see that you have not put forward the probability arguments FOR Intelligent Design. Instead, you incessantly argue against evolution and then claim ID is true without any supporting evidence. The title of the thread is asking if there are probability arguments FOR intelligent design, not arguments against evolution.

[Mung]

@T_aquaticus

The title of the thread is asking if there are probability arguments FOR intelligent design, not arguments against evolution.

Not meant as a knock on Dan, but the title should have been Probability Arguments for Evolution.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mung

For me this brings to mind someone using statistical hypothesis testing where the alternatives are common descent vs independent origins. Even young earth creationists accept some common descent so I don’t consider the use of independent origins to be an “honest” comparison.

Until ID comes up with a testable model there simply isn’t one to test.

@Mung

But I do understand your point. If someone is willing to say we don’t know the likelihood of evolution I’ll happily say we don’t know the likelihood of design. Is there an actual impasse and is there a way beyond it?

Phylogenetics is the testable model.

So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 1038 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13; Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150; Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161; Haeckel 1898, p. 55; Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome c studies see McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973; Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439). Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the “twin nested hierarchy”. This term is something of a misnomer, however, since there are in reality multiple nested hierarchies, independently determined from many sources of data.
reference

[T_aquaticus]

@Mung

Not meant as a a knock on Dan, but the title should have been Probability Arguments for Evolution.

Are there no probability arguments for Intelligent Design?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Science cant explain major transitions (differences) that are required to explain the nested hierarchy.

Yes, they can. The explanation is random mutations, selection, speciation, and vertical inheritance.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Show me a paper that explains how the ubiquitin system evolved?

Where is the ID paper explaining this?

[Mung]

@T_aquaticus

Are there no probability arguments for Intelligent Design?

You got me. The general consensus here seems to be that they exist. I’m not trying to make one. My interest is in the use of probability arguments to make the case for evolution.

@T_aquaticus

Phylogenetics is the testable model.

What model is it tested against and what is the role of probability and statistics?

@T_aquaticus

The explanation is random mutations, selection, speciation, and vertical inheritance.

What is the difference between that and Darwinism? To me that sounds like classical Darwinism.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mung

Are there no probability arguments for Intelligent Design?

You got me. The general consensus here seems to be that they exist. I’m not trying to make one. My interest is in the use of probability arguments to make the case for evolution.

Just look at population genetics. Quite a bit of work done there. Tens of thousands of papers.

@Mung

Phylogenetics is the testable model.

What model is it tested against and what is the role of probability and statistics?

Have you seen this yet: A Test of Common Descent vs. Common Function

[Dan_Eastwood]

This is what I meant with my reference to phylogenetic methods. The statistical methodology there is sound, but there is room for argument over some of the assumptions. IMO, ID proponents should be jumping at the chance to use this type of data to test their ideas, because unlike CSI there is nothing controversially about this application of statistical theory.