ID Questions

[TRoutMac]

True that. There's no objectiveness when you reject a theory or something just because of the beliefs of the proposer... however, we all know that people are mostly not objective when it comes to topics like this. Many of them still believe that ID is going to be taught in Kansas thanks to the title the media gave to this topic, when in reality it is just that it will be stated that macroevolution is still doubtful... or to be more specific: that evolution is not a fact.

 

Exactly.

 

Look, I'll be brutally honest with you… and everyone reading this. Although I've been a Christian virtually my whole life (I'm 37) I do interpret the relatively recent discoveries of Intelligent Design theorists as support for Christianity. But notice, that's my personal subjective interpretation and it does not factor into the legitmacy of Intelligent Design theory. As I am fond of saying, "I could be wrong, I've been wrong once before." :confused:

[Biochemist]

...In the interest of full disclosure, the opponents of I.D. such as you find at this

forum will claim that the analogies I offered (and several others I have trotted out in other discussions) are fallacious. They have not been able to tell me why this is the case in any convincing manner. I insist, as do other I.D. supporters, that their validity and applicability is absolutely rock-solid and undeniable....

Tmac-

 

I have only scanned most of the ID threads because they seem to meander on interminably. But my impression is that the "science lobby" on this site defines "science" as that body of data that can be tested (and presumably confirmed, but at least supported) by the scientific method. That would mean that, in order to qualify as a "science", ID proponents would have to propose falsifiable hypotheses. There are (in my mind) a number of items that could be credibly proposed. But to be fair, the ID proponents have not made a lot of progress in that regard in the last 10 years. This is the same sort of treatment that the string theorists got when they were (and still are) trying to prove the Theory of Everything when all they had was mathematics. ID is not the only point of view that gets attacked for lack of falsifiable hypotheses.

 

Your archaeology example is good, except that archaeologists do (usually indirectly) propose a view of history based on their discoveres. Subsequent discoveries can (and often do) falsify those claims.

 

I can empathize with the basic science folks who regard the majority of ID proponents as light-weights. It seems to be true, but that does not mean we ought to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

I am also frankly a little irritated by the loose use of language around "evolution". Most IDers (apparently) have no problem with natural selection, punctuiated equilibrium, genetic drift, and extinction of species. All of these are examples of evolution. The rub is usually focused on speciation via mutation. Evidence for speciation by mutation is truly thin (as I have proffered in several threads here).

 

Thus, as near as I can tell, nearly all IDers are evolutionists. The battle is between ID and speciation via mutation. This would put ID on the same side of the fence with punctuated equiloibrium, since PE is generally at odds with speciation via mutation as well. Speciation via mutation would produce a gradual change picture, not a dramatic sudden shift in species count.

 

My two cents.

[Buffy]

Thus, as near as I can tell, nearly all IDers are evolutionists. The battle is between ID and speciation via mutation. This would put ID on the same side of the fence with punctuated equiloibrium, since PE is generally at odds with speciation via mutation as well. Speciation via mutation would produce a gradual change picture, not a dramatic sudden shift in species count.

Hey Bio! You're projecting again. I actually agree that most ID'ers are Evolutionists, but that the distinction is Macroevolution as being fundamentally different from microevolution, which is not in my book the same as the--pejoritive when you use it :confused: -- "speciation via mutation". Seriously, speciation is a gross oversimplification of the process of changes that trivializes the complexity of the process and makes all sorts of assumptions about what "mutation" as only capable of causing small incremental changes (something MortenS pointed out to you elsewhere that you did not respond to). Maybe you want to expand on what you really mean by this elsewhere, cuz in the past its you've kinda held it up and said "you knock it down, that's not my job", which is true, but not very useful without much further definition of what you mean by the terms involved.

 

To get back to the issue: ID really is pinned on the notion that Macro is fundamentally different from Micro, but the only "evidence" is that Macro can't be shown in real time, or worse, insisting that Evolution requires that Macro changes occur spontaneously usually by self-servingly misstating PE theories, rather than as the result of smaller--not necessarily gradual!--changes. Insisting that gradual change must be a monotonically increasing function is a restriction that is not required for these mechanisms to work, PE simply states that they are *selected* at environmental stress points that occur infrequently.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

ID really is pinned on the notion that Macro is fundamentally different from Micro

 

Buffy, do you believe that evolution occurs on a smaller, (in terms of amount of change) short-term scale as well as on a larger, longer term scale?

[pmaust]

Thank you.

 

You're welcome. Thank you for the discussion. :confused:

[Biochemist]

...I actually agree that most ID'ers are Evolutionists, but that the distinction is Macroevolution as being fundamentally different from microevolution...

Folks disposed against evolution do indeed use these words, but those are not the words that evoloutionists use. "Microevolution" probably means natural selection. "Macroevolution" would (probably) have to include speciation of any sort (whether by genetic drift, mutation or some other unknown mechanism. My point is that the imprecise aggregation of ideas blurs the actual point of discussion.

..speciation is a gross oversimplification of the process of changes that trivializes the complexity of the process and makes all sorts of assumptions about what "mutation" as only capable of causing small incremental changes (something MortenS pointed out to you elsewhere that you did not respond to).

Good memory. I finally responded to Mortens' post yesterday. It is in the "butterfly unlocks secret to evolution" thread.

Maybe you want to expand on what you really mean by this

I'm not sure what you are asking Buff. You are aware that I not a supporter of mutation as a general speciation mechanism. I think (as MortenS' links supported) that any genomic change is assumed to be a mutation, even in the absence of evidence. Coudl you do me a favor and clarify your question?

ID really is pinned on the notion that Macro is fundamentally different from Micro, but the only "evidence" is that Macro can't be shown in real time, or worse, insisting that Evolution requires that Macro changes occur spontaneously usually by self-servingly misstating PE theories, rather than as the result of smaller--not necessarily gradual!--changes.

Do me a favor and quit using macro or microevolution as meaningful words. Natural selection is often fundamentally different than speciation, although there is some overlap. And are you suggesting that someone has posited a soloution for the genetic mechanism in support of PE? What is it?

[TRoutMac]

That would mean that, in order to qualify as a "science", ID proponents would have to propose falsifiable hypotheses. There are (in my mind) a number of items that could be credibly proposed. But to be fair, the ID proponents have not made a lot of progress in that regard in the last 10 years. This is the same sort of treatment that the string theorists got when they were (and still are) trying to prove the Theory of Everything when all they had was mathematics. ID is not the only point of view that gets attacked for lack of falsifiable hypotheses.

 

Bio, I've heard participants in these discussions state endlessly that ID has failed to propose testable, "falsifiable" hypotheses. I marvel at the convoluted definition the "ID bashers" must have for what is "testable" if they think ID has failed in this respect. They seem to think that if they say it enough times, it will become true. Unfortunately for them, it's not true and I've demonstrated this a number of times. Rather than rehash all of that, I will simply say that anyone who believes that I.D. is untestable must abandon the SETI program, archaeology, and any other scientific discipline which relies upon the detection of design by an intelligent agent, human or otherwise. Either Intellligent Design is testable, or it's not. If it's not testable in this context, then it's not testable in that context either.

 

Your archaeology example is good, except that archaeologists do (usually indirectly) propose a view of history based on their discoveres. Subsequent discoveries can (and often do) falsify those claims.

 

I guess my response here is "so what"? Subsequent discoveries could potentially falsify Intelligent Design as well. Bottom line is, archaeologists must be able to recognize something that was "designed". If they couldn't, then they'd be digging for no reason whasoever because artifacts would simply blend in with the rest of the dirt. It's true that the things they find are generally thought to be designed by humans (except a few examples where there's wild speculation about alien involvement) but regardless of who the designers may or may not be, archaeologists differentiate artifacts from the dirt they're found in because they recognize artifacts are "designed".

 

Most IDers (apparently) have no problem with natural selection, punctuiated equilibrium, genetic drift, and extinction of species. All of these are examples of evolution. The rub is usually focused on speciation via mutation. Evidence for speciation by mutation is truly thin… Thus, as near as I can tell, nearly all IDers are evolutionists. The battle is between ID and speciation via mutation. This would put ID on the same side of the fence with punctuated equiloibrium, since PE is generally at odds with speciation via mutation as well. Speciation via mutation would produce a gradual change picture, not a dramatic sudden shift in species count.

 

IDers certainly believe in change over time, and we do accept the idea of small-scale evolutionary changes within a species. (generally defined as like animals which can interbreed) But beyond that, you'll find most of ID is very much at odds with the broader, more popular scope of evolution in which new species ared produced, whether gradually (gradualism) or suddenly (PE). It's my understanding that both of these terms describe the time frame and circumstances of speciation, and that both rely on some mechanism of genetic change which results in an increase in genetic information. The I.D. stance tends to be that it is not possible to generate genetic instructions (information) absent an intelligent source, so most I.D. proponents, in fact, reject both the gradualist and punctuated equilibrium models. See http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232 for more information.

[Biochemist]

.....I will simply say that anyone who believes that I.D. is untestable must abandon the SETI program, archaeology, and any other scientific discipline which relies upon the detection of design by an intelligent agent, human or otherwise. Either Intellligent Design is testable, or it's not. If it's not testable in this context, then it's not testable in that context either.

I do understand the point TM. And I don't intend to be dogmatic about the definition of science. But I will suggest that those folks who contend that science is defined by the use of the scientific method would reject the methodology of SETI or the general methodology of archaeology as "not science". These are the same basic scientists that hold string theory in low regard. If you are talking to folks of that point of view, use a different word than "science."

I guess my response here is "so what"?{that archaeological hypotheses are falsified}

Although it may not be clear, I am not arguing here. I am just trying to clarify that if anyone defines "science" as a body or work that is compliant with the scientific method, then there is a large body or technical work that is not science. Common language is useful for communication

IDers certainly believe in change over time, and we do accept the idea of small-scale evolutionary changes within a species. (generally defined as like animals which can interbreed) But beyond that, you'll find most of ID is very much at odds with the broader, more popular scope of evolution in which new species ared produced, whether gradually (gradualism) or suddenly (PE). It's my understanding that both of these terms describe the time frame and circumstances of speciation, and that both rely on some mechanism of genetic change which results in an increase in genetic information. The I.D. stance tends to be that it is not possible to generate genetic instructions (information) absent an intelligent source, so most I.D. proponents, in fact, reject both the gradualist and punctuated equilibrium models.

I did not know that most IDers reject PE as well. I will look at your link. My suspicion is that IDers are not particularly homogeneous. Evolutionists certainly aren't. My understanding is that there is no generally accepted (or even credible putative) mechanism for PE. It is the name of a problem (as reflected in the fossil record) not a mechanism for a solution.

[TRoutMac]

I do understand the point TM. And I don't intend to be dogmatic about the definition of science. But I will suggest that those folks who contend that science is defined by the use of the scientific method would reject the methodology of SETI or the general methodology of archaeology as "not science".

 

Thank you for what I think are sensible, thoughtful remarks. I understand what you are saying… if these scientists do reject the methodology of SETI, archaeology, then I would say that at least in that case they are being consistent to also reject Intelligent Design. And that's really what we're after here… logical consistency. Having said that, it is interesting to me that no one on this forum has taken that stance. Rather, in arguing against me they say my analogy doesn't apply, is fallacious, and that there's some reason (which they never clarify) why the SETI and general archaeology ARE valid disciplines of science, while Intelligent Design is not. This, to me, is entirely illogical and inconsistent. But I think you and I understand each other, and I'm glad of that, even if we may not agree on everything.

 

I did not know that most IDers reject PE as well. I will look at your link. My suspicion is that IDers are not particularly homogeneous. Evolutionists certainly aren't. My understanding is that there is no generally accepted (or even credible putative) mechanism for PE. It is the name of a problem (as reflected in the fossil record) not a mechanism for a solution.

 

Certainly, IDers are NOT entirely homogenous and I would never insist that they are. They have certain views in common, while others depart on certain other views. For example, many of the "leading" I.D. proponents seem to have no difficulty with a very, very old Earth. Personally, I do have difficulty with this, as I tend to favor a young-Earth view. However, I am not convinced in any absolute sense that Earth is any age in particular. More important than arguing what the age is or isn't, I am convinced of one thing… we cannot possibly know by any empirical means just how old the Earth is. And yet, scientists talk as though they do, and that irritates me. Regardless, I am not too critical of my fellow IDers who may accept an old Earth… maybe they're right, maybe not. But we will simply never know the answer to that question, and I think science would serve its purposes better if it were more honest about that.

 

Thanks, Bio. I appreciate your comments.

[Biochemist]

Thank you for what I think are sensible, thoughtful remarks.

My pleasure.

...For example, many of the "leading" I.D. proponents seem to have no difficulty with a very, very old Earth. Personally, I do have difficulty with this, as I tend to favor a young-Earth view. However, I am not convinced in any absolute sense that Earth is any age in particular...… we cannot possibly know by any empirical means just how old the Earth is....

This is an intresting point. I suspect we could "know" (within reason) the age of the earth (for example). I happen to be a old-ager (in the 4.5 billion year camp) but frankly, the quantity of information that one person has to digest to understand the premises of the view is staggering. I am not one of those folks that trashes young earth advocates. Most science folks do. I suspect this is mainly because most young-earth folks are not science folks. But some young-earth folks are, and they have some interesting issues that are not well addressed by the old earthers.

 

I do think that we can (however) collect enough empirical evidence to build a well supported view. It seems harder and harder to get your head around any defined body of knowledge anymore, given the increasing volume of data showing up.

[Edge]

I happen to be an old ager too. Yes, I know this is mainly based on what I have been told. But, however, astronomy (apparently) have determined that the universe is billion years old. I rarely see people objecting this, I guess I mean this is an accepted thing. And well, based on that I guess that the Earth should have formed a very long while ago... but dunno...

 

Now, an interesting question is... what would constitute evidence or definite evidence to conclude that macroevolution can happen?

[TRoutMac]

I do think that we can (however) collect enough empirical evidence to build a well supported view. It seems harder and harder to get your head around any defined body of knowledge anymore, given the increasing volume of data showing up.

 

I understand the basics of radiometric dating, and the existence of terrestial and extra-terrestial "clocks", etc. And regarding the latter, it's clear that all sorts of different ages are given by myriad different "clocks". And I also understand that the dating methods rely on various constants which we cannot know imperically to be "constant" over very long periods of time. Now, I understand that doesn't necessarily mean those methods are wrong… maybe those constants are constant. But over such periods of time we simply cannot know whether they are or are not.

 

But I don't want to be misunderstood here… I don't claim to know that the Earth is young. Ultimately, I'm just saying that for us to rely as we do on these age figures is pretty damned silly unless we build a time machine, send a guy back in time to when the Earth is being created, have his start a clock and leave it behind, and then check the clock in present day again. That would be the closest thing to empirical we could possibly get, and short of that, we ought to be clear that however old we my think the Earth is, that itself is just a theory, just a guess, and ultimately is not verifiable.

 

It's interesting to me that macro-evolution needs this long time period given by an old-age. (actually, I think it needs a lot longer than 4.5 billion years, because I don't believe macro-evolution could ever happen, regardless of the time available) After all, who would believe evolution on the macro scale could possibly take place in, say, 50,000 years? For "particles to people" evolution to happen, they absolutely must have an immense, unfathomably long time period, otherwise it won't sell. Intelligent Design, however, can exist quite comfortably whether the age is 10,000 years or 4.5 billion years.

[Buffy]

I'm not sure what you are asking Buff.

Fair enough. Don't have enough time to be coherent enough for you ( :confused: you know what I mean!). I'll start another thread soon.

Do me a favor and quit using macro or microevolution as meaningful words.

Oh my gosh! I'm trying! I keep saying the distinction doesn't have any useful meaning beyond cladistic classification! People keep putting words in my mouth that that means there's a useful scientific test for it!

 

For anyone who's listening: there isn't. Macro and micro are colloquial, inexact terms that are not very useful in proving anything about how evolution works or doesn't work. So listen to Bio, stop using them to do so.

Natural selection is often fundamentally different than speciation, although there is some overlap. And are you suggesting that someone has posited a solution for the genetic mechanism in support of PE? What is it?

Yah, I've been saying for quite a while that you're misinterpreting Gould. I'll save that for another thread, because it really has nothing to do with ID (which I think you'd agree about! :naughty: )...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Buffy, do you believe that evolution occurs on a smaller, (in terms of amount of change) short-term scale as well as on a larger, longer term scale?

Trout, do you believe that the mechanisms I mentioned above *absolutely* prevent any changes beyond some *arbitrary*--and more importantly as-yet-undefined--definition of the limits "micro-evolution" from progressing over time to produce larger changes? The only argument that I have ever seen that says that progessive changes are "impossible" is citing the debate between Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium, which really has nothing to do with saying that "macro" changes are impossible, just that they don't occur in a monotonically increasing fashion. PE does not refute Evolution, it posits that it proceeds in fits and spurts that are *exactly* correllated with environmental stresses that we can date. The Ring Evolution evidence that I cited earlier is, for most, a quite convincing example of evolutionary changes increasing over time: the largest changes are those produced by the largest geographic--and therefore genetic--separation. Whether this constitutes "speciation" is certainly a subjective judgement, but it does show increasing separation of genetic traits, and while you can certainly try to argue that these contemporaneously obervable evidences are "only micro-evolution", that is a subjective judgement that does not constitute disproof.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

Trout, do you believe that the mechanisms I mentioned above *absolutely* prevent any changes beyond some *arbitrary*--and more importantly as-yet-undefined--definition of the limits "micro-evolution" from progressing over time to produce larger changes?

 

Let me ask it this way, Buffy…

 

Do you believe that evolutionary change represented by a population of finches in the Galapagos whose beaks appear to change shape equates in magnitude with the evolutionary change represented by a one-celled animal becoming, over a span of time, a rhinoceros?

 

Since I expect an answer to my question, I'll try to answer yours now: Yes. Now, I'll try to explain…

 

The argument about the definition of species is a funny one… it amazes me (and this is not a criticism of anyone, just an acknowledgement of the complexity of things) that we (humans) cannot arrive at a suitable definition for something that most people think they have a clear understanding of.

 

Now, if there are doubts as to whether this breed of dog which can reproduce is a different species than that breed of dog which cannot reproduce, then I would think that there's little doubt that a giraffe is a different species than, say, an octopus. Agreed? So obviously beyond a certain threshold, the distinction between species is, well, pretty clear.

 

Perhaps I am relying too much on the distinction between "species" when I mention micro-evolution. Several times in the past I've used the sundew and Venus fly trap as an example of this, because I know there's at least one biologist out there who apparently believes that the fly trap evolved from the sundew. What I am saying is that natural selection absolutely prevents a sundew from becoming anything that has different structure and function that a sundew, for example, a fly trap.

[Edge]

There are many analogies one could make to illustrate, but one such analogy is the "phenomenon" of crop circles. I pick crop circles because there remains some controversy about who created them. Some remain convinced that aliens created them, others think humans (hoaxsters) have made them (count me in the latter group) but one thing is almost universally understood… they are the product of Intelligent Design, and I dare say you'd have a good laugh at my expense if I suggested they were the products of a random, undirected natural process. (and with good reason, too!)

About this analogy:

 

Seems kinda like diamonds, although not that complex, they are part of natural processes.

 

Not trying to disprive ID or to prove Evolution, just stating that natural processes may lead to complex things...

[TRoutMac]

About this analogy:

 

Seems kinda like diamonds, although not that complex, they are part of natural processes.

 

True, certain "laws" dictate the structure of diamonds. But note that that structure remains the same everywhere you might find diamonds naturally. But every crop circle is different, and more importantly, natural laws cannot account for the intricate, geometric design of crop circles. We know they are designed because of the characteristic of specified complexity, not just complexity. The way I think of the difference between specified and unspecified complexity is that specified complexity reveals intent. That doesn't mean I know "why" crop circles were made, but it does mean that we can tell that they were made with "intent"… in other words, "on purpose".

 

We see the same thing in biology: Intent. You don't get an immensely sophisticated information storage, retreival and processing system (DNA and its ancillary systems) without "intent". Again, that doesn't mean we know what the intent was, but we can certainly know these systems are the product of some conscious, intelligent agent's intent. They meant to do this, in other words.

 

Now, even as a life-long Christian, I can honestly say this gives me the creeps in a way. Again, thinking of DNA as source code for a software program, somebody wrote this. It's the only reasonable conclusion you can draw, and the implications of that are, well, sobering.