FWIW, this is the specific pattern that an Ironic Designer would use. Been saying that for years…
2 Likes
If you want people to know what you’re talking about, you have to provide a complete citation.
Is there a reasonable model of separate ancestry? Is there anything we can reliably say we expect under separate ancestry but not common ancestry? What’s your model?
My suggestion is that under separate ancestry we don’t expect a treelike structure in the data. You haven’t commented on that.
But it would be a weird sort of special creation, and it would be hard to understand why any designer, especially an omnipotent one, would work that way. This shows yet again why ID can’t be scientific.
4 Likes
He’s working on it. 
2 Likes
Yes. That’s the topic on the table for the 4/8 ID journal club. But…circumstances.
You and I have been over this ground before, so I’ll be brief. The principle of charity dictates that I take your request for ID hypotheses as sincere, so I do. If I ran this little ID versus naturalistic evolution world where all of us squabble, I would invite you to the journal club on April 8, so you could follow along for yourself.
Alas, or maybe hurrah, I don’t run things. And many here (I conjecture, on the basis of their demonstrated behavior) do not want to learn what ID hypotheses say, but rather to strangle any ID hypothesis in its pram. The very last thing those people want to see is ID venturing successful hypotheses. They wish for ID to fail, and to do so miserably.
I wish reality were different, but wishes and reality have different names for a reason.
1 Like
Artists often work by variation on a theme. Endless forms most beautiful.
It is just as hard to explain why a designer, even an omnipotent one, would not work this way.
1 Like
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.biochem.8b00081
LLPS is all the rage in cellular and molecular biology, for good reasons. As this perspective indicates, the concept has the potential to tie up some loose ends in the OOL field. As they say, stay tuned …
3 Likes
Variation on a theme is quite different from nested hierarchy.
In other words, we can have no idea what a designer would or would not do, and thus there can be no evidence either for or against ID.
5 Likes
Why assume this designer shares similar psychology with us? Why does it matter what other human artists do?
4 Likes
Scroll up – second link from me, four posts earlier.
Also here (again):
This is true. It’s also not the only special creation model, as any baraminologist will tell you. (Not that they necessarily agree on a model, either.)
It’s hard to draw any conclusions whatsoever about the means an omniscient and omnipotent designer would use, because such a designer is not constrained to anything we could understand or model.
I appreciate your desire to forge common ground, Joshua. The problem with special creation modeling, IMO, is that “special creation” by an infinitely wise and powerful God can entail anything whatsoever –as long as the end state is congruent with what we see today. There is no particular model that emerges inherently, much less ineluctably, from the idea that an infinitely wise and infinitely powerful God can choose whatever means He desires to create specially .
Best,
Chris
6 Likes
He could. The question for me is, from our vantage point, why should anybody assume that such creation by modification would be discernable? Most adherents of creationism seem to spend a great deal of effort on distinguishing special creation from natural explanations, even while accepting the trees of life are identical.
2 Likes
I for one would LOVE to see a testable ID hypothesis and then see it actually tested. After 25 years of smoke-blowing are you saying the IDers finally found that elusive testable hypothesis? Please oh please share the details with us, thanks!
6 Likes
Shorter Paul Nelson: “yes, but I won’t tell you what it is, because you might laugh at it.”
4 Likes
It is completely sincere, so you should. This is more about what appears to be a lack of sincerity from your side.
Now that’s a fascinating metaphor.
If a hypothesis can be strangled, what is the metaphoric strangler preventing the hypothesis from metaphorically breathing? What is the metaphorical pram? Who is metaphorically pushing the metaphorical pram?
I really have no idea what you’re trying to say here, other than trying to portray those you deride as opponents above as metaphorical baby stranglers. Peaceful Science!!!
Can you point me to a real-life hypothesis that was metaphorically strangled, when, with what, and by whom? Are you claiming that someone other than you strangled your concept (never even a hypothesis) of ontogenetic depth?
If I disprove my own hypothesis and publish the data, am I a strangler?
Ah, now you’ve moved on from metaphorical baby strangling to knowing your opponents’ motives! Nice!
I’m a scientist, and as such want people to actually do science instead of pretending to. Here’s the big problem: you are tacitly admitting that you see hypotheses not as tools, but as your precious babies.
For example, did the fact that I published a falsification of my hypothesis as a postdoc (Mercer et al., J Virol. 1990 64(10):5199-203) prevent me from being hired in an independent faculty position? Do you think my peers taunted me with, “Ha, ha, your hypothesis was wrong!”?
Do you really not realize that hypotheses are useful tools that help us learn even when they are wrong? That what we keep secret are the data or the experiments we have devised to test our hypotheses, not the hypotheses themselves?
ID already is failing miserably as science because it does not advance and test hypotheses. So touting your hypotheses as metaphorical babies whom I wish to strangle is going to help ID succeed how, exactly?
Indeed. The reality is that no one in your movement has forthrightly articulated a scientific ID hypothesis, much less tested one, despite the fact that they’re obvious and easy to find. Therefore, it makes no sense for you to wish that we “do not want to learn what ID hypotheses say” when the point of hypotheses in reality is to make empirical predictions, not to make statements.
Oh, no, Art! How could you reveal that?
You’ve exposed this poor baby hypothesis to metaphorical strangling (whatever that means) by its ID opponents, who had never heard of it before! How will we band together to protect the pram now?
6 Likes
If disproving a hypothesis is “strangling” it, what is hiding it? “Smothering” it?
1 Like
Thank you. But I ask again: what is your preferred model of separate creation, if you don’t like the one Baum et al. provide?
2 Likes
Not if the exact same modifications were made in multiple lineages.
1 Like
To all,
I’d encourage anyone in the Dallas TX area who wants to discuss ID hypotheses to register for this meeting, occurring June 3-5, 2021:
I’ll be there and am scheduled to give a couple of talks – one on the concept of design triangulation, the other (a workshop) on the ORFanBase research project. For more on design triangulation, check out this uncorrected slide deck, which was distributed for critique before final edits:
I’ve already received very helpful feedback from many people, so I’m hoping to make the edits and complete revisions soon. Please email any comments or criticisms to paul.alfredp@gmail.com, and let me know if you would rather not be acknowledged or thanked in the final file.
To John Harshman: I’ll send you my journal club PPT (on Baum et al. 2016 and ID models of diversification) when it’s ready next week. The Baum paper itself will be coming via email today.
Why am I not surprised that we’re-really-not-religious ID is holding yet another conference at a Christian venue?
3 Likes
I would prefer that you just talk about it here. Powerpoints, stripped of their context, are not as useful.
3 Likes