Why are We Disagreeing with ID?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Dan_Eastwood

Bill has also made is clear (somewhere above) that he take ALL arrangements of matter to be an indication of Design. Even the evidence he claims would disprove Design is proof of Design.

Where did I make this claim? The argument is not design vs non design it is about design detection. The word proof is mathematical not scientific. Science is always tentative.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@nwrickert

From my way of looking at it, evolution is a theory of behavior (of organisms).

Its a theory about changes over time to populations. The predictive behavior can have some influence on this change.

[Dan_Eastwood]

This paper is relevant to why I disagree with ID.

Abstract

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast, nuclear and mitochondrial sequences, as well as for sequences that diverged at different time depths. Even on our conservative test, the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is ≈1×10^−19 and combined over 8 datasets is ≈1×10^−132. By comparison, there are about 1080 protons in the universe, hence the probability that the sequences could have been produced by a process involving unrelated ancestral sequences is about 1050 lower than picking, among all protons, the same proton at random twice in a row. A non-evolutionary control model shows no convergence, and only a small number of parameters are required to account for the observations. It is time that researchers insisted that doubters put up testable alternatives to evolution.

My emphasis added, and small edits^to equations for readability.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences

AND so I insist. Even for the sole qualifying testable example (Ewert 2016), no effort has been made towards further testing or refinement of methods. The data exists to test ID hypotheses using well accepted methodology; it’s time to put up or … you know.

[Nesslig20]

omg…I’ve just addressed those statements.

Indeed @Rumraket. I also can’t. I just can’t anymore.

How about you look up on the subject first before commenting on it.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

Never gonna happen.

[lee_merrill]

@Rumraket

@lee_merrill

But “selectable” means natural selection favors a mutation, it means fitness improves.

And…?

So a selectable path means we should see them popping up all over the place, new protein-protein binding sites a dime a dozen…

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

Why does the word purpose give you so much heartburn?

Because the way you use it, as opposed to the way you define it, it necessarily implies intelligent design.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Dan_Eastwood

AND so I insist. Even for the sole qualifying testable example (Ewert 2016), no effort has been made towards further testing or refinement of methods. The data exists to test ID hypotheses using well accepted methodology; it’s time to put up or … you know.

Hi Dan
This is not a test against ID.

It is testing common descent against separate origins based on genes generated by random nutation drift selection etc. Theobald made this same error in his 2010 paper. These guys are looking at only 1 square on the chess board.

If you look at his argument and look at more then one chess board square it refute natural occurring homoplasy. We observe sequences that are similar and don’t share a common ancestor. This observation along with the argument in this paper supports ID as common descent alone does not explain homoplasy.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@lee_merrill

So a selectable path means we should see them popping up all over the place, new protein-protein binding sites a dime a dozen…

Historically, yes. The results we observe are a result of this process.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@colewd

This is not a test against ID.

It is clearly a test for common origins versus an alternative possible under ID. Perhaps it is not the alternative you favor, but that’s OK. What matters here is the method, because it demonstrates how ID can be tested. If you don’t like this alternative, choose another and test that.

White et al have thrown down the gauntlet; put ID to the test using accepted methodology, or stop whining that no one take ID seriously.

Note: I will caution against multiplicity of testing. If you test enough alternative hypotheses at random, you will eventually find one that is significant simply by chance. The is a problem because ID has no theory to guide it in selection of alternative hypotheses.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

It has been established by identifying a function that has a purpose or reason for that function.

False. We have established that the IC systems evolved because they have a function.

[T_aquaticus]

@lee_merrill

So a selectable path means we should see them popping up all over the place, new protein-protein binding sites a dime a dozen…

That’s exactly what we see, such as in the case of antibodies and adaptive immunity.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

False. We have established that the IC systems evolved because they have a function.

What do you mean they “evolved”?

[CrisprCAS9]

@lee_merrill

So a selectable path means we should see them popping up all over the place

Remember that you have two assertions to defend here:

@CrisprCAS9

• That there should be a certain amount of a thing, and
• That said thing isn’t found

You have just once more repeated your assertion that it isn’t found as often as it should be, while specifying neither how often it is found or how often it should be.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

What do you mean they “evolved”?

What do you mean by “purpose”?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

What do you mean by “purpose”?

Again a function for which we can assign a reason. What is the purpose of wheels on a car?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Dan_Eastwood

It is clearly a test for common origins versus an alternative possible under ID. Perhaps it is not the alternative you favor, but that’s OK. What matters here is the method, because it demonstrates how ID can be tested. If you don’t like this alternative, choose another and test that.

It’s not testing ID. Its testing complexity evolving naturally. According to the authors that test fails statistically.

@Dan_Eastwood

White et al have thrown down the gauntlet; put ID to the test using accepted methodology, or stop whining that no one take ID seriously.

You are testing ID by communicating with me through abstract symbols. A purposeful arrangement of symbols.

@Dan_Eastwood

Note: I will caution against multiplicity of testing. If you test enough alternative hypotheses at random, you will eventually find one that is significant simply by chance. The is a problem because ID has no theory to guide it in selection of alternative hypotheses.

Dan
The test method of ID is identifying a purposeful arrangement of parts…hard stop.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Again a function for which we can assign a reason.

So it’s entirely subjective.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@colewd

It’s not testing ID. Its testing complexity evolving naturally. According to the authors that test fails statistically.

IF you even read the paper, THEN you certainly didn’t understand it.

@colewd

The test method of ID is identifying a purposeful arrangement of parts…hard stop.

Well accept methods for testing these hypotheses exist. Hard stop.
ID ignores accepted methods and instead proposes to prove that which it assumes.Hard fact.
This is why ID fails. Dead stop.

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

The test method of ID is identifying a purposeful arrangement of parts…hard stop.

Why? You have denied that “purposeful” requires an agent. So why does a purposeful arrangement of parts mean ID? Your entire argument here relies on equivocating between purposeful meaning functional, i.e. of selective benefit to an organism vs. purposeful meaning intended by some agent.