Why are We Disagreeing with ID?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

So it’s entirely subjective.

Do you think reasonable people will disagree with the reason that a car has wheels? They can disagree that a steak tastes good but reasonable people will agree that wheels allow a car to efficiently move.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Dan_Eastwood

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.

First. I understood the paper. There is more then one that make this type of claim. Separate origin by natural means vs common descent. This is not a test of design.

@Dan_Eastwood

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.

ID is a new concept and new paradigm. It took me a couple of years to get comfortable with it because I had many of the same objections that you do. Science is used to testing the properties of matter which are often predictable and easy to model.

The problem ID is going after is where the properties of matter are not powerful enough to explain what we are observing such as a purposeful arrangement of parts that perform a complex function. Mobility is an example of this type of function.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@John_Harshman

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.

Purposeful is inferred from the observation. Requiring an agent is a straw-man version of the argument.

What we are inferring is design or the work of a mind where matter, chance, selection drift etc struggle to explain the observation.

[Faizal_Ali]

I have come to the conclusion that speaking of the “reason” or “purpose” for the existence of any evolutionary adaptation is just too confusing to creationists. So we should, instead, say that these things have persisted thru evolutionary history by virtue of the benefits they have provided to the organism.

Yes, I know. The creationists will still be confused, anyway.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Do you think reasonable people will disagree with the reason that a car has wheels?

Apparently, you don’t understand what subjective means. A subjective opinion does not become objective simply because people may agree with your subjective opinion.

[Paul_King]

@colewd

First. I understood the paper. There is more then one that make this type of claim. Separate origin by natural means vs common descent. This is not a test of design.

But you obviously do not understand the point being made.

The paper is a test of common descent - which it passes.

Design offers no equivalent hypotheses TO test.

Which is not an advantage to design. Indeed, it indicates that design is not scientific at all.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

A subjective opinion does not become objective simply because people may agree with your subjective opinion.

I agree with your statement but reasonable people agreeing is evidence the opinion is based on facts and reason.

An argument becomes objective when it is supported by facts and reason. When an argument is supported by facts and reason then reasonable people tend to agree with it.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Paul_King

But you obviously do not understand the point being made.

The paper is a test of common descent - which it passes.

Design offers no equivalent hypotheses TO test.

Which is not an advantage to design. Indeed, it indicates that design is not scientific at all.

Good comments, all. I’d like to expand on that third point, there is no equivalent to test, AND there are near infinite alternatives that might be design, including the hypothesis of common descent, There is no theory to indicate hypotheses that are inconsistent with design.

There exist methods for testing hypotheses of ID which I would be forced to take seriously, and which I think the scientific community would take seriously. ID researchers could use these methods and be taken seriously if succeed or fail, but they choose not to do so. ID researchers refuse to put their ideas to the test, and therefore cannot be taken seriously.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Paul_King

But you obviously do not understand the point being made.

The paper is a test of common descent - which it passes.

@colewd

First. I understood the paper. There is more then one that make this type of claim. Separate origin by natural means vs common descent. This is not a test of design.

Yes it is test of common descent as I posted.

@Paul_King

Design offers no equivalent hypotheses TO test.

Do you really consider common descent vs separate origin a test? Design can be tested using Behe’s method. Do you understand the test you are showing causes the hypothesis of homoplasy to fail?

We observe homoplasy. How do you explain this?

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

Purposeful is inferred from the observation. Requiring an agent is a straw-man version of the argument.

What we are inferring is design or the work of a mind where matter, chance, selection drift etc struggle to explain the observation.

I hope you realize that was gibberish, though I realize my hope is in vain.

[lee_merrill]

@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.

So let’s grant this prediction fulfilled, that’s one prediction, but the tree of life is in disarray, that’s another prediction that needs to be fulfilled.

Also, one reason I agree with ID is because of abiogenesis, as in Koonin’s estimate (Koonin being no friend of ID) “that a coupled translation replication emerges by chance in a single O-region is P <
10^–1,018”.

[lee_merrill]

@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.

I mean inside the cell, the immune system is set up to produce such interactions.

@CrisprCAS9

@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.

I refer then to Behe’s chart, showing 1 new protein-protein interaction in humans (sickle-cell mutation), and none for p. falciparum and none (should be one) for HIV. So there should be more than one! If it’s all that easy to generate new protein-protein interactions.

[Paul_King]

@colewd

Yes it is test of common descent as I posted

Which evades the main point.

@colewd

We observe homoplasy. How do you explain this?

Typically it’s because similar selection pressures can result in similar solutions. The general resemblance between sharks, ichthyosaurs and dolphins would seem to fall into this category.

If homoplasy were due to modular reuse of features why isn’t the pattern of similarities more like that found in the development of human artefacts? Niles Eldredge studied the development of the cornet and compared it to the development of life.

Interview here: Paleontology and Cornets: Thoughts on Material Cultural Evolution | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text

The neatly nested sets of organisms that are the fallout of the natural evolution of life look very different from patterns of historical evolution of designed systems

[Faizal_Ali]

@lee_merrill

I refer then to Behe’s chart, showing 1 new protein-protein interaction in humans (sickle-cell mutation), and none for p. falciparum and none (should be one) for HIV.

How did Behe manage to determine every single protein-protein interaction in every single one of those species and when they arose? That’s quite a feat for a single person, especially one who is a not particularly good scientist and is prone to repeatedly making silly and obvious errors.

[CrisprCAS9]

@lee_merrill

I refer then to Behe’s chart

Which is wrong, as others have repeatedly said.

@lee_merrill

So there should be more than one!

How many? If there ‘should’ be three, and we’ve found two, I’d say we’re in a good place. If there ‘should’ be 10^12, and we’ve found two, not so much. And again, we’ve found more than two.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

I agree with your statement but reasonable people agreeing is evidence the opinion is based on facts and reason.

No, it isn’t. If we go to a flat earth meeting is their agreement evidence that their flat earth ideas are based on facts and reason?

[Faizal_Ali]

@CrisprCAS9

How many? If there ‘should’ be three, and we’ve found two, I’d say we’re in a good place. If there ‘should’ be 10^12, and we’ve found two, not so much. And again, we’ve found more than two.

Behe says there should be zero. Any at all are “beyond the edge of evolution.” So that he found even one already sinks his argument. But he does not admit it, so his fans don’t accept it.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@lee_merrill

I mean inside the cell, the immune system is set up to produce such interactions.

Through evolution by a combination of mutations, recombination, and selection. Textbook Darwinian evolution.

@lee_merrill

I refer then to Behe’s chart, showing 1 new protein-protein interaction in humans (sickle-cell mutation), and none for p. falciparum and none (should be one) for HIV. So there should be more than one! If it’s all that easy to generate new protein-protein interactions.

No. That still assumes protein-protein binding sites are like the universal solution to all survival challenges or forms of adversity faced by life. That thing over there wants to eat me, what do? Quick, make two arbitrary proteins stick together! That’s stupid.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@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…

No it doesn’t.

Just replace protein-protein binding with sand colored mice. Why don’t all mice evolve sand color in response to predation if it’s so easy? Because they don’t all live on sand.

It is selectable in principle if a new protein-protein binding site is beneficial =/= they must necessarily always be beneficial and so should evolve constantly as if an adaptive solution to any problem faced by an organism.

Having two proteins stick together isn’t necessarily adaptive. All I’m saying is should that be adaptive then there is almost always a selectable path from no binding to efficient binding, and that in many cases it takes as little as a single mutation to turn some part of a protein’s surface into a binding site.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@colewd

We observe homoplasy. How do you explain this?

A new version of USB is implemented in windows, linux, and apple. The USB is precisely and exactly the same for all three distant branches. Zero difference. Fully interchangeable. The hierarchy is not nested. That is design.

Bat wings and bird wings exhibit homoplasy. The wings are different. Hydrofoils on cetaceans, sharks, plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and seals demonstrate homoplasy. All these are environmentally driven modifications of prior traits and are different. That is descent.

Homoplasy supports descent, not design. That is the explanation.