Comment #17904

Posted by Don T. Know on February 24, 2005 07:42 PM (e) (s)

Instead opponents should come up with a good argument on why teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the state education science mission statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions. Presenting only one life science theory in classes without alternatives breeds ignorance and violates the mission statement.

As soon as a SCIENTIFIC alternative to evolution is forthcoming, I’m sure those responsible will appropriately modify the curriculum. Ignorance would be to cloak religion as science and “teach it” in the science classroom in order to appease fundamentalists who won a publicity campaign.

Comment #17907

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 07:54 PM (e) (s)

The guy’s name links to ; why not send it there?  But fix that misspelling of his name: “Diepnbrock”.  Also, a mention of what “theory” means is warranted, and it might be nice to contrast the number of peer reviewed articles on ID with the number on evolution published in the last … 50 years?  Year?  Week?  Day?

Comment #17914

Posted by Grand Moff Texan on February 24, 2005 08:30 PM (e) (s)

OT:  Powerline -vs- Pharyngula (in a show with everything but Yul Brenner): 

here and here.

Comment #17915

Posted by Keanus on February 24, 2005 09:01 PM (e) (s)

I like you piece Jason, but only wish it could be shorter. I’m prone to such prolixity and so I often wrestle with trying to cut my prose, usually believing that every word is critical. But given the tenor of Mr. Diepenbrock’s article and the prospect that it might make it into his paper, brevity might give your response more power. It now runs to more than 1200 words; no more than half of that would give it much more punch.

Comment #17942

Posted by Neurode on February 25, 2005 01:43 AM (e) (s)

I think that Jason and company may be missing the point here.

Like Darwinism, Intelligent Design is an interpretation of biological data, and as such, it has as much right to be in science classrooms as Darwinism. In fact, it has approximately twice as much right to be there as Darwinism, because it is confirmed at approximately twice the rate.

Here’s why. We can reduce the basic Darwinian hypothesis to the following pair of assertions:

1. Although adaptive mutations are independent of fitness, they may be taken for granted (no further explanation required).

2. Due to natural selection, these mutations accumulate exclusively along certain lines of inheritance characterized by “fitness” (i.e., along those lines consisting of organisms which survive long enough to successfully reproduce).

Any instance of evolution confirming the Darwinian hypothesis does so through 2 alone. That is, because 1 posits no relationship between mutation and fitness, but merely takes something for granted, it is not a substantive part of the hypothesis.

On the other hand, the ID hypothesis asserts that:

1’. The occurrence of beneficial mutations is related to fitness (in a hypothetical design process).

2’. Identical to 2 above; since natural selection is trivial, ID is allowed to incorporate it as well.

Any instance of evolution confirms the ID hypothesis through both 1’ and 2’. That is, because 1’ posits a relationship between mutation and fitness rather than merely taking something for granted, and since this relationship accounts for the observed fact that some mutations are adaptive, it has substantive hypothetical content. Since the ID hypothesis makes twice as many relevant explanatory assertions as the Darwinian hypothesis (including natural selection), and since the data confirm both of these assertions, the ID hypothesis is confirmed at a correspondingly higher rate. [QED]

Of course, it would be fine to confine the classroom treatment of long-term biological change to just the data. But if the Darwinian interpretation of these data is to be included in the lessons, then ID needs to be included with approximately twice the urgency.

The problem is not merely that many high school teachers fail to understand the actual differences between these competing hypotheses; more generally, they fail to understand the logic of scientific confirmation. This is fair neither to the students they are paid to educate, nor to the taxpaying citizens who pay them to do so.

Unfortunately, their counterparts in the university system, including Jason here, have not been helping them fill the gaps in their knowledge. Instead, Jason and others have been making matters worse by openly displaying the same kinds of ignorance and prejudice.

Obviously, Jason and his fellow pundits need to behave more responsibly in this regard.

Comment #17948

Posted by ts on February 25, 2005 02:05 AM (e) (s)

Any instance of evolution confirms the ID hypothesis through both 1’ and 2’.

There is no question that all instances of all phenomena confirm the “hypothesis” that “goddidit”.  But scientific hypotheses are confirmed through observational negation of potentially disconfirming tests.  There are no potentially disconfirming tests for ID, whereas there are millions of potentially disconfirming tests for the theory of evolution that have been observationally negated.

they fail to understand the logic of scientific confirmation

A spot of humor there.

Comment #17949

Posted by Neurode on February 25, 2005 02:14 AM (e) (s)

“…there are millions of potentially disconfirming tests for the theory of evolution that have been observationally negated.”

Humor indeed.

Comment #17951

Posted by ts on February 25, 2005 02:23 AM (e) (s)

I like you piece Jason, but only wish it could be shorter.

I think the basic problem with the piece is that it’s aimed at someone who is already familiar with the theory of evolution and the evidence that supports it, but anyone who refers to evolution as “only one life science theory” clearly hasn’t got a clue.

Comment #17955

Posted by Neurode on February 25, 2005 02:31 AM (e) (s)

Another problem may be that the theory of evolution is so trivial that virtually any other “life science theory” properly contains it (unless, unlike ID theory, it denies long-term biological change of any kind). Thus, even were it true to say that “millions of potentially disconfirming tests for the theory of evolution have been observationally negated,” disconfirming tests for these other theories would be negated in the bargain.

Comment #17958

Posted by DonkeyKong on February 25, 2005 02:47 AM (e) (s)

Fact or Fiction?

Fact:  There is a lot of evidence for evolution as stated by Darwin.

Fiction:  Evolution has never been disproved or discredited.  Survival of the fittest looks to NOT be the mechanism that filters out the longer surviving species which are often the least fit at the bottom of the food chain.  The concept of a single ancestor is unnecessarily restrictive and no serious effort has been made to preserve it as it would involve holding on to the amino acid to cell step which modern biology has been totally unable to duplicate .  The evolution of the first lifeform from amino acid has been dropped from the evolution bandwagon (Darwin mentioned a common ancestor but most evolutionists believe in evolution from amino acids) because it has no proof and cannot be duplicated despite numerous efforts.

Fact:  There is very good evidence for descent from common ancestor in DNA because similiar species have similiar DNA and even similiar junk dna.

Fiction:  Evolution is the only possible explaination for that.  The fact that similiar DNA produces similiar appearance is not an astounding discovery.  When put that way it is obvious that similar appearance and similar DNA would go hand in hand.  The assertion that the cause of this similiarity is descent from species to species is consistent with the evidence but  that is not sufficient to show that other explainations are inconsistent.  Just as the theif was 6 feet tall does not mean that a man is a theif by virtue of being 6 feet tall.

Fact:  Most scientists believe in evolution.

Fiction:  The number of scientists who believe something makes it more true.  Science is not a democracy.  Theories strength is based only on their ability to explain NEW data.  If you picked 1 million points on a graph at random I could make an unlimited number of functions that would interscect each and every point, as you add more points my infinite list would shrink but would still remain infinite.  That is why science requires theories to be able to objectively predict the future or at least make predictions about things that are not currently known.  It is after all predicting and altering the future that is of interest to us when we study science.

Fact:  Evolution has proven micro-evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Fiction:  Evolution has proven macro-evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.  There is a staggering amount of data that is consistent with macro-evolution, but consistent with and proof of are two different thigns. 
Example:  for a long time 99.99% of  scientists though women were born with a set number of eggs to be fertilized and that at a certain age they used the last one, this theory was consistent with the evidence, however it is wrong, women make eggs using stem cells and lose the ability to do so as they age.

Fact:  Science is very powerful and describes pretty much everything we know about our world. 

Fiction:  Science is usually right.  In fact science is usually wrong.  In fact each topic in science even the winning ones are mostly wrong.  Most of the detailed assertions from the field of evolution have been wrong.  It is only because after correcting for these errors evolution remains very similiar to its origional form that we call it a powerful theory.  Most of the assertions of evolution from what type of environment the first cell evolved in to the planet that the first cell likley evolved on to if it was RNA or DNA have been proven wrong (if only by virtue of two or more incompadible theories existing).  This is largly because for any event there are multiple theories each with a set of assumptions about unknown facts, as those facts become known we quickly forget the incorrect theories and marvel at how smart the one lucky guy who was correct was.

Fact:  Teaching religion in school is against the American seperation of church and state.

Fiction:  It is ok to teach an reproducible theory of creation that is inconsistent with many peoples religious beliefs withotu pointing out that it is the weakest scientific theory taught in High School level courses.  The fact that you CANNOT evolve a human from a monkey shows that you DO NOT understand evolution in the same way that you understand gravity or light or any of the other science mainstays (except large scale science which is also mostly guesses like evolution).  Had we taught that women have a set number of eggs and it was against others religious beliefs we would have been guilty of teaching an anti-religion that turned out to be false dispite having every bit as much support from the science community as evolution currently enjoys.

Comment #17977

Posted by plunge on February 25, 2005 04:44 AM (e) (s)

Wow, now that couldn’t have been anymore confusing if you tried.  I’m still not sure whether the fiction part is meant to be sarcastic, sincere, or switches midstream.  What?

I’ll just point out one problem with your account, which is that similarity of DNA throughout life is only one part of the story.  The rest of the story is that DNA isn’t always similar, and these differences are arranged in a very particular way: in a way that just so happens to fit with the general arrangemnt of common descent.  That is, we’ll find some feature, say, blood clotting in all animals AFTER a certain common ancestor, but none that split off before.  It’s a lot more complicated than that, but the reality is that we can pick almost any feature or gene and then triangulate back, looking through modern animals, to where a common ancestor would have been.  Surprise surprise, but all these different, indepedant triangulations happen to match up not only with each other, but with the fossil record, and also with the geographic distribution of species, and so on.

So many DIFFERENT lines of confirmatory evidence giving the same detailed picture: that would be an utterly astounding coincidence if the arguments for each of these lines of evidence were in error.  If they were all in error, we would expect them to give DIFFERENT wrong answers.  Instead, the answers they give are coordinated.  And truth is far more likely to explain coordination than several errors just happening to come out wrong the SAME way.

Comment #17978

Posted by aarobyl on February 25, 2005 04:49 AM (e) (s)

DonkeyTroll wrote:

Fact:  There is a lot of evidence for evolution as stated by Darwin.

Fiction:  Evolution has never been disproved or discredited.  Survival of the fittest looks to NOT be the mechanism that filters out the longer surviving species which are often the least fit at the bottom of the food chain.

Yeah !

And more of the same sort :

Fact : children exist.
Fiction : they are born. Where in fact they are borught by stork.

Fact : Earth is round.
Fiction : Earth is spherical. It is in reality a flat round disc.

Comment #17981

Posted by jonas on February 25, 2005 05:15 AM (e) (s)

Neurode,

in contrast to the preceeding compliation of mostly discredited anti- evolutionist assertions, which have no bearing on the discussion at hand whatsoever, you have at least stated the problem well. If ID wanted to be a scientific theory instead of a religious-cultural movement, it would have to define what its explanations, models and predictions are. The simplest model of course would be: ‘Under ID everything is like under evolution, just more directed.’ (summing up your two points).
Having done this, there are three possibilites:
- A process or being doing and implementing the design could be postulated and tested for. As evolution has no room for design, ID would become the accepted theory for instances in which the test had been positive and a possible alternative hypothesis for occurrences of similar nature, and should be treated as such in the science curriculum.
- In the absence of an ID process, some cases could be found under which our bare bone ID hypothesis seems to have some merits. E.g. a conspicious lack of sub-optimal structures which seem unavoidable given previous homologous morphologies, or an extreme accumulation of beneficial mutations within very few generations, would make the phylogeny appear directed. If these cases were sufficiently common and well tested (the latter excludes all of Behe’s and Dembski’s hobby-horses), a mention, that completely undirected evolution does not explain these occurrences well, would be in order, both on high school and college level, but always with the caveat, that no model for this apparent direction exists, and any identification based on philosophical or cultural preferences would probably be misleading.
- As long as nothing of the above happens, ID falls under Occam’s razor, as it needs an additional unknown factor to explain exactly the same processes that evolution can explain without. Hypotheses like this have no place in a science class, as they can add nothing to knowledge or skill.

Comment #17983

Posted by jeff-perado on February 25, 2005 05:44 AM (e) (s)

DonkeyKong:

At least now you not only have evolutionists to quibble with, but also Behe and Dembski to argue with, because Behe claims that both macroevolution and common descent are true, and Dembski says that “design” is a probability-based mathematics problem that is dependant on human’s ultimate knowledge of the universe.  Thus both would vehemenantly disagree with your assertions of fact/fiction!

Neurode:
Your assertion about evolution:

Here’s why. We can reduce the basic Darwinian hypothesis to the following pair of assertions:

1. Although adaptive mutations are independent of fitness, they may be taken for granted (no further explanation required).

2. Due to natural selection, these mutations accumulate exclusively along certain lines of inheritance characterized by “fitness” (i.e., along those lines consisting of organisms which survive long enough to successfully reproduce).

Do NOT agree with the accepted views on evolution.  For example:
your (1) states that mutation is independant of fitness.  This is true, but mutations are niether ignored nor beneficial to fitness, they may accumulate without regard to fitness, until such point that they cannot be cut without affecting fitness, so random mutations do have an effect on fitness in the long run.  Also, there is the problem (on your part) of negative mutations.  A negative mutation will immediately have an adverse affect on fitness.  So wqe see from the observations of biology that positive mutations may not effect fitness for the long period, negative mutations have an immediate and catastrophic effect on fitness.

Also, there is the problem of your assertions on the ID side.  Your argument can easily be reduced to a pointless debate on all positive mutations being due to the “intelligent designer” and all negative effects being doe to, what? Exactly???  Finally, how does the suboptimal performance of so many biological functions play into your interpretation of ID, and its forcing inot agreement of 1’ and 2’?

Finally, I will repeat, exactly what version of ID (non-)theory are you subscribing to; Behe’s common descent/god-created super bacteria ID, the no-macroevolution god-created “kinds” ID, or the YEC the earth is only 6,000 years old and all organisms are descended from the “kinds” brought upon Noah’s ark?  (Finally, please define “kinds” as NO IDist has yet defined it in any consistent or useful manner.)

Comment #17988

Posted by David Heddle on February 25, 2005 08:17 AM (e) (s)

I’ve said this before. It always strikes me, as a scientist but non-expert, that Behe’s arguments are much more persuasive than the popular-science level responses. Jason’s article on evolution blog counters IC with:

This claim is wrong as a simple matter of logic. The fact that every part is necessary for the system to operate in its present environment does not imply that every part was necessary in every stage of the system’s evolution. It is possible that initially a particular part was beneficial, but not necessary, for the system to function. Later changes might then have rendered the new part essential. Another possibility is that irreducible complexity could arise by the elimination of redundancy.

Nobody, in my view, who is on the fence, will find that might-have-been could-have-been argument very compelling. If it is true that there are more sophisticated arguments against IC, you guys need some pedagogical whizzes to render those arguments accessible to a broader community.

Comment #17989

Posted by Don T. Know on February 25, 2005 08:19 AM (e) (s)

Like Darwinism, Intelligent Design is an interpretation of biological data, and as such, it has as much right to be in science classrooms as Darwinism.

What “interpretation?” That something looks like “God did it?” Is there a definition of “intelligently designed” that is universally and objectively understood among scientists?

From what I can tell, ID is one man’s (or one religion’s) subjective evaluation as to whether something is “designed” or not. One religionist’s design is a scientist’s unsolved puzzle.

BTW, my “interpretation” of the data is that aliens were involved in seeding the first cell. This also “explains” the data. So, may I put that into a scientific curriculum as well?

Comment #17992

Posted by Neurode on February 25, 2005 08:47 AM (e) (s)

Jonas writes:

1. “A process or being doing and implementing the design could be postulated and tested for.”

A generic design process and agency have indeed been postulated, and as explained, have been “tested for” with approximately twice the success of the Darwinian hypothesis.

2. “…no model for this apparent direction exists, and any identification based on philosophical or cultural preferences would probably be misleading.”

The absence of a culture-fair ID model (of evolutionary causation) is not entirely clear. What is clear is that (1) the Darwinian hypothesis not only offers no causative model whatsoever for adaptive mutations, but merely takes them for granted; and (2) the ID hypothesis acknowledges the existence of a cause-effect relationship between fitness criteria and adaptive adaptations, thus taking the necessary first step toward an explanatory theory and model.

3. “…ID falls under Occam’s razor, as it needs an additional unknown factor to explain exactly the same processes that evolution can explain without.”

Evolution does not explain, or even attempt to explain, adaptive mutations. In science, (previously unknown) causal factors must be introduced to explain observed effects.

4. “Hypotheses like this have no place in a science class, as they can add nothing to knowledge or skill.”

In science, causes are inferred from effects. As a case in point, ID infers a generic design process from observed adaptive mutations. The design inference is science in action, and any science class which omits it is cheating students out of the knowledge and skill to properly evaluate the cause-and-effect relationships addressed by various scientific hypotheses.

Comment #17993

Posted by Flint on February 25, 2005 08:58 AM (e) (s)

A generic design process and agency have indeed been postulated, and as explained, have been “tested for” with approximately twice the success of the Darwinian hypothesis.

Baffling. Yes, of course. Goddidit! This has been postulated, it’s a universal explanation, it’s easy to test for — just point to anything at all and recite ‘goddidit’ — and it never fails.

Now, if I could only get Neurode or anyone else to specify some test ID might fail, and the theoretical reasons WHY it might fail. The ability to explain absolutely everything with no evidence required isn’t the great strength of a ‘scientific theory’ Neurode seems to think it is.

The design inference is the exact opposite of science in action, it is the denial of the entire scientific method in action. Once again, we see the Big Lie technique, this time pared down to its hilarious essence.

Comment #17994

Posted by Neurode on February 25, 2005 09:14 AM (e) (s)

Don T. Know writes:

1. “What ‘interpretation?’ That something looks like ‘God did it?’ Is there a definition of ‘intelligently designed’ that is universally and objectively understood among scientists?”

Obviously, “intelligently designed” means that something can be described as the outcome of a process which occurs prior to realization under the guidance of something which can be described as “intelligent”, i.e., which is capable of recognition and purposive adaptation. This is quite clear. Since this is precisely the kind of process required for a causal explanation of adaptive biological mutations, it is scientifically warranted.

2. “From what I can tell, ID is one man’s (or one religion’s) subjective evaluation as to whether something is ‘designed’ or not. One religionist’s design is a scientist’s unsolved puzzle.”

No, ID is a generic hypothesis addressing the massive scientific evidence for the occurrence of adaptive biological mutations. This hypothesis has been around for millennia, but was only recently invoked in the context of modern biological science.

3. “BTW, my “interpretation” of the data is that aliens were involved in seeding the first cell. This also “explains” the data. So, may I put that into a scientific curriculum as well?”

Your hypothesis offers only an intermediate explanation of the data; to offer a real explanation (involving aliens), one would need to explain the aliens themselves. Moreover, although there is ample evidence of biological adaptation in nature, there is very little evidence that aliens are responsible. Therefore, your alien hypothesis merits only cursory mention in a science class.

Comment #17995

Posted by bcpmoon on February 25, 2005 09:20 AM (e) (s)

David Heddle:
I think the difference is that Behe is using definitive language (“This cannot evolve”) when he should rather state possibilities (“This has probably not evolved”). You are right, the usual scientist knows about the tentative nature of science and even if a theory is well tested there might be a small possibility that new data leads to a fundamental change. This leads to the careful choice of words which is not convincing to the public but perfectly understood by fellow scientists.
Perhaps the scientist should resort to a more effective, PR-like style, by simply stating that “there was initially a particular part that was beneficial, but not necessary, for the system to function.” This would not be true in an absolute sense, because you normally do not have those parts in hand, but true as the only possible explanation, unless you want to invoke God as deus ex machina.

And finally, as Behe states that an IC system cannot have evolved (my passive leaves me here), then even a possibility makes that statement null and void unless Behe can prove that this possibility is not viable in that context.

Comment #17996

Posted by Monty Zoom on February 25, 2005 09:27 AM (e) (s)

Scientific Method:

1. Look at all of the available data, and from the data create a hypothesis or theory that is supported by the data.

2. Test hypothesis.

3. If test fails, then rework theory and repeat.  If test succeeds, then it becomes “Scientific Law.”

Anything that does not work via the above scientific method is NOT science and should not be taught in a SCIENCE classroom.

Since ID cannot in any way be tested, it is not science.  It can in no way be made “scientific.”  It is just coloring in the unknown areas with “magic.”  No respectable scientist would ever say, “We don’t know how this works, it must be some all powerful and knowing force that did it.”  This is the realm of pseudo-science and superstition.

Further, ID cannot be used for any further scientific purpose.  It is a dead end.  The mechanisms for “Darwinism”???  can be used in a myriad of ways.  For example evolution can be use to predict why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. It is a useful tool for further scientific study.  ID isn’t.

Comment #17997

Posted by Guardsman on February 25, 2005 09:40 AM (e) (s)

Neurode:

Your hypothesis offers only an intermediate explanation of the data; to offer a real explanation (involving aliens), one would need to explain the aliens themselves. Moreover, although there is ample evidence of biological adaptation in nature, there is very little evidence that aliens are responsible.

It is quite true that there is ample evidence of biological adaptation but there is very little evidence that God did it.  Perhpaps you can explain God and demonstrate why he is the designer rather than aliens, or even super-intelligent ancient cockroaches.

Comment #17998

Posted by David Heddle on February 25, 2005 10:02 AM (e) (s)

Monty Zoom:

No respectable scientist would ever say, “We don’t know how this works, it must be some all powerful and knowing force that did it.”

Comment #17999

Posted by Mark D on February 25, 2005 10:09 AM (e) (s)

Neurode:

Your hypothesis offers only an intermediate explanation of the data; to offer a real explanation (involving aliens), one would need to explain the aliens themselves. Moreover, although there is ample evidence of biological adaptation in nature, there is very little evidence that aliens are responsible.

Funny.  Your hypothesis offers only an intermediate explanation of the data as well.  To offer a “real” explanation in the above scenario, you would have to be held to the same standard and explain the Intelligent Designer itself.

Moreover, there is *no* evidence of intelligent design being responsible for life, only reasoning based on fallacies such as the Argument from Incredulity and the Argument from Ignorance.  Not to mention a heaping dose of circular reasoning.

Comment #18000

Posted by Neurode on February 25, 2005 10:14 AM (e) (s)

Monty Zoom recites the scientific method as follows:

“1. Look at all of the available data, and from the data create a hypothesis or theory that is supported by the data.

2. Test hypothesis.

3. If test fails, then rework theory and repeat.  If test succeeds, then it becomes ‘Scientific Law’.”

Fortunately for the ID hypothesis, it has passed these tests. (By the way, are you aware of the logical intricacy of this definition? It’s really about model theory, an extremely involved branch of mathematics - not empirical science - to which every science student needs a much more thorough introduction than is ordinarily provided.)

MZ: “Since ID cannot in any way be tested, it is not science.”

As previously explained, the ID hypothesis has already been extensively tested, and the continuing occurrence of adaptive biological mutations in nature continues to confirm it. Therefore, it is scientifically warranted.

MZ: “It can in no way be made “scientific.”  It is just coloring in the unknown areas with “magic.”  No respectable scientist would ever say, “We don’t know how this works, it must be some all powerful and knowing force that did it.”  This is the realm of pseudo-science and superstition.”

ID is scientific, even by the (seriously flawed) falsifiability criterion. Specifically, the ID hypothesis can be falsified simply by demonstrating that adaptive mutations have ceased to occur in nature. (By the way, what about soi-disant “respectable scientists” who say “We don’t know how this works, but since we haven’t managed to figure it out, we’re damned if anybody else is going to get the chance!”?)

MZ: “Further, ID cannot be used for any further scientific purpose.  It is a dead end.” 

If that were true (and it isn’t), then the Darwinian hypothesis, which excludes any explanation whatsoever for adaptive biological mutations, would be a veritable long walk off a short pier.

MZ: “The mechanisms for “Darwinism”???  can be used in a myriad of ways.”

While Darwinism (the Darwinian hypothesis and its associated philosophy) has managed, a bit too easily, to assimilate mutation mechanisms discovered by scientists in various core disciplines, it offers no explanation for their consistent adaptive potential. A lack of explanation can scarcely be called useful. On the other hand, while natural selection can be a useful concept, Darwinism does not have a lock on it (just as it does not have a lock on ordinary mutation mechanisms, to which ID merely adjoins such additional causal influences as are required to construct an explanation of observed biological phenomena).

MZ: “For example evolution can be use to predict why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.”

No, it can’t. The appearance of resistant strains, as opposed to their subsequent selection, is not explained or even addressed by the Darwinian hypothesis.

Comment #18001

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 25, 2005 10:24 AM (e) (s)

Diepenbrock wrote:

Instead opponents should come up with a good argument on why teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the state education science mission statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions.

You know, I’m quite sure that in the 2 or 3 or however many public hearings they’ve had by now, that’s pretty much what every pro-science speaker has done.  Unless Diepenbrock thinks that every single one only talked about the potential embarrassment that the board is bringing down on them, he could have tried listening to one or two of these people and actually taken their arguments into consideration.  But why bother even acknowledging those people?  It’s so much easier to pretend as if no one has even tried to answer the challenge

This is hackwork at its worst, lazy and dishonest.

Comment #18002

Posted by E on February 25, 2005 10:29 AM (e) (s)

Neurode,
  You keep making statements that the ID hypothesis has already been extensively tested, but so far I haven’t see you post a shred of evidence to back it up. I want studies, reputable journal articles etc.  It’s time to put up or shut-up.

Comment #18003

Posted by Enough on February 25, 2005 10:40 AM (e) (s)

He has posted “evidence”.  He’s comically stupid and misinformed, but he’s still posted what he believes backs up ID.  He claims mutations are the act of a designer, and that’s his evidence for ID.  There’s certainly enough published work documenting gene mutations, so kudos Neurode, you’ve debunked over 150 years of work.  Go collect your Nobel prize.

Comment #18004

Posted by Neurode on February 25, 2005 10:40 AM (e) (s)

E says: “Neurode, you keep making statements that the ID hypothesis has already been extensively tested, but so far I haven’t see you post a shred of evidence to back it up. I want studies, reputable journal articles etc.  It’s time to put up or shut-up.”

I think you know what I’ve been saying here, E; the evidence for the basic Darwinian hypothesis, whatever you may consider that evidence to be, can be reinterpreted as evidence for the design hypothesis with double the confirmation. As far as concerns what studies get funded and what articles get published in “reputable” scientific journals, that’s both irrelevant and a political can of worms in its own right. So if it’s not too much to ask, let’s keep it simple and stick to the issue being addressed.

Comment #18005

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 25, 2005 10:42 AM (e) (s)

It always strikes me, as a scientist but non-expert, that Behe’s arguments are much more persuasive than the popular-science level responses.

Persuasive, but always qualified with that nasty two-letter word, “if.”

Behe argues persuasively that IF a structure in biology could be found that is irreducibly complex, that would tend to suggest intervention of a greater intelligence.

Alas for Behe, he has not found such a structure.  When he appeared here in Dallas for the Campus Crusade for Christ a few years ago, he was asked whether he was researching those things he had put forth in his book as potentially irreducibly complex — and he said he was not, partly because his further research had indicated things were not as he thought, and partly because he couldn’t figure out how to test it.

Sure, Behe’s test is persuasive.  But nothing anyone knows passes Behe’s test of being irreducible.  Behe does NOT say, but should, that if nothing meets his test, his hypothesis should not be considered valid.

The difficulty comes when people refuse to accept the disproofs.  As Neurode demonstrates, the facts don’t necessarily persuade creationists to see the light.

Comment #18006

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 25, 2005 10:44 AM (e) (s)

Neurode wrote:

On the other hand, the ID hypothesis asserts that:

1’. The occurrence of beneficial mutations is related to fitness (in a hypothetical design process).

No, the ID hypothesis says absolutely nothing about mutation.  All the ID hypothesis says is that some aspect of living things was “designed”, and all the details, including mutation, are left for people to puzzle over.  Leading ID advocates explicitly state that the method of design is not what ID is about. 

Another problem may be that the theory of evolution is so trivial that virtually any other “life science theory” properly contains it (unless, unlike ID theory, it denies long-term biological change of any kind).

This is just plain silly.  Creationist life science “theories” explicitly denounce common ancestry, and that’s what the majority of ID advocates adhere to.  If it’s so trivial, why is it that the vast majority of IDCs reject it? 

Even if some variant of ID incorporates common ancestry, natural selection, and everything else, this does not make it at least as good as evolutionary theory.  The ways in which it differs from standard theory must themselves be evidenced, or else it’s worse than standard theory.

Comment #18008

Posted by Russell on February 25, 2005 10:48 AM (e) (s)

Consummate Sophist Neurode wrote:

Like Darwinism, Intelligent Design is an interpretation of biological data, and as such, it has as much right to be in science classrooms as Darwinism.

Really? All interpretations have equal right to be considered on equal footing in science?

In fact, it has approximately twice as much right to be there as Darwinism, because it is confirmed at approximately twice the rate.

Well, 2.174 times the rate, by my calculations. Readers with sufficient wisdom or lack of masochism will have stopped reading at this point. You know you’re in for some serious sophistry when you see that.

Now here comes the Strawman setup:

We can reduce the basic Darwinian hypothesis to the following pair of assertions:

1. Although adaptive mutations are independent of fitness, they may be taken for granted (no further explanation required).

2. Due to natural selection, these mutations accumulate exclusively along certain lines of inheritance characterized by “fitness” (i.e., along those lines consisting of organisms which survive long enough to successfully reproduce).

Except not really, since - despite the fact that it’s consistent with all experimental biology, #1 doesn’t count. So now our strawman is reduced to one assertion (“#2”). Now here comes the Jedi mind trick:

On the other hand, the ID hypothesis asserts that:

1’. The occurrence of beneficial mutations is related to fitness (in a hypothetical design process).

2’. Identical to 2 above; since natural selection is trivial, ID is allowed to incorporate it as well.

“Is related to”? What do you suppose that means? Maybe “Is (somehow) caused by”? Hard to know. But how this competes with the massively documented mechanisms of nucleic acid copying infidelity, only IDers seem to know.

Any instance of evolution confirms the ID hypothesis through both 1’ and 2’. That is, because 1’ posits a relationship between mutation and fitness rather than merely taking something for granted, and since this relationship accounts for the observed fact that some mutations are adaptive, it has substantive hypothetical content. Since the ID hypothesis makes twice as many relevant explanatory assertions as the Darwinian hypothesis (including natural selection), and since the data confirm both of these assertions, the ID hypothesis is confirmed at a correspondingly higher rate. [QED]

Classic! Didn’t I see that in a Monty Python skit? Totally meaningless - for reasons already discussed. But, hey, with all those fancy primed and unprimed numbered assertions, and of course the learned “QED” thrown in, gosh! It looks like real logic!

The problem is not merely that many high school teachers fail to understand the actual differences between these competing hypotheses; more generally, they fail to understand the logic of scientific confirmation.

Oh geez! Are they going to learn it from this kind of example?

Obviously, Jason and his fellow pundits need to behave more responsibly in this regard.

I regard sophistry as the most irresponsible form of pedagogy.

Comment #18009

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 25, 2005 10:53 AM (e) (s)

Neurode wrote:

I think you know what I’ve been saying here, E; the evidence for the basic Darwinian hypothesis, whatever you may consider that evidence to be, can be reinterpreted as evidence for the design hypothesis with double the confirmation.

Unfortunately, not all interpretations are equally valid.  Some are unparsimonious, illogical, incoherent, contradicted by well-confirmed facts, or at odds with other well-accepted theories. 

Simply “reinterpreting” evidence is not by itself a valid scientific excersize.  You have to show why your interpretation can explain things we weren’t able to explain previously, and what sorts of new evidence that your interpretations predicts.  (And no, appeals to magic are not explanations, nor can they predict anything.)  This is precisely where ID has failed.

Comment #18011

Posted by Neurode on February 25, 2005 10:58 AM (e) (s)

Steve writes:

1. “No, the ID hypothesis says absolutely nothing about mutation.  All the ID hypothesis says is that some aspect of living things was “designed”, and all the details, including mutation, are left for people to puzzle over.  Leading ID advocates explicitly state that the method of design is not what ID is about.”

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself: the ID hypothesis says that certain biological adaptations can be described as the outcome of a process which occurs prior to realization under the guidance of something which can be described as “intelligent”, i.e., which is capable of recognition and purposive adaptation. If you want to add extra baggage, you’ll need to lug it yourself.

2. “This is just plain silly.  Creationist life science “theories” explicitly denounce common ancestry, and that’s what the majority of ID advocates adhere to.  If it’s so trivial, why is it that the vast majority of IDCs reject it?”

What “the majority of ID advocates adhere to” is beside the point. If you want to criticize the specific beliefs of a specific subset of ID advocates, you need to address them specifically rather than over-generalizing. 

3. “Even if some variant of ID incorporates common ancestry, natural selection, and everything else, this does not make it at least as good as evolutionary theory.  The ways in which it differs from standard theory must themselves be evidenced, or else it’s worse than standard theory.”

This is not true, as we see from the confirmation argument presented above. Although the ways in which such a theory differs from the standard theory must now be carefully explicated, the first crucial tests have already been passed.

Comment #18012

Posted by Flint on February 25, 2005 11:15 AM (e) (s)

Well, I asked neurode to specify a test ID could fail, and so far he has carefully ignored this basic notion. Lots and lots of doubletalk, but no method.

Apparently, the ONLY test for design is whether or not something is believed to exist. Life? Believed to exist, so it passes the design test. Hell? Believed to exist, so it passes the design test.

On the other hand, we rarely get someone who can say nothing in so many big words. When you can’t explicate, obfuscate!

Comment #18013

Posted by David Heddle on February 25, 2005 11:22 AM (e) (s)

I’d advise Neurode NOT to post a test ID can fail. That path leads to weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Comment #18014

Posted by Russell on February 25, 2005 11:41 AM (e) (s)

I’d advise Neurode NOT to post a test ID can fail.

Pay attention, David! Neurode has already explained that any data confirming evolution automatically confirms ID, two times over!

I’m curious. Being the master logician you are, what do you think of Neurode’s argument, David?

Comment #18016

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 25, 2005 11:46 AM (e) (s)

Neurode wrote:

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself: the ID hypothesis says that certain biological adaptations can be described as the outcome of a process which occurs prior to realization under the guidance of something which can be described as “intelligent”, i.e., which is capable of recognition and purposive adaptation.

Which says absolutely nothing about mutation, so my point stands. 

By the way, I hope it’s apparent to you that the above gobblety-gook could mean anything, which is where the real problem lies.  Scientific theories have a need to be clear and concise, not equally consistent with any wild fantasy one can come up with.

What “the majority of ID advocates adhere to” is beside the point. If you want to criticize the specific beliefs of a specific subset of ID advocates, you need to address them specifically rather than over-generalizing. 

You’re the one who said that evolution was so “trivial” that “virtually any other” so-called life science theory could incorporate it.  Well, apparently not what the vast majority of ID advocates believe in!  It’s clear that you were the one who was overgeneralizing. 

The successes of evolutionary theory cannot be merely dismissed as being easily subsumed by any other theory, because in fact no other theory makes the same predictions. 

[quote]This is not true, as we see from the confirmation argument presented above. Although the ways in which such a theory differs from the standard theory must now be carefully explicated, the first crucial tests have already been passed.

What confirmation are you talking about?  What crucial tests?  You’ve posted nothing about these, and have instead argued that your “reinterpretation” is valid all by itself without any additional evidence. 

I’m beginning to think I’m wasting my time here, since you seem to enjoy dragging people around in circles.  Post some evidence, or admit that you have none.

Comment #18017

Posted by Les Lane on February 25, 2005 11:48 AM (e) (s)

Neurode wrote:

As previously explained, the ID hypothesis has already been extensively tested, and the continuing occurrence of adaptive biological mutations in nature continues to confirm it. Therefore, it is scientifically warranted.

This should make Motoo Kimura would turn over in his grave. It’s hard to believe that Neurode has actually looked at nucleic acid sequences.  Both mutation pattern and causal randomness (Luria-Delbruck) argue against design.

Neurode’s conclusion suggests propositional logic in the absence of analytical thinking.  This may be acceptable in ID, but it’s enough to set an experimental scientist’s eyes rolling.

Comment #18018

Posted by Russell on February 25, 2005 11:49 AM (e) (s)

What “the majority of ID advocates adhere to” is beside the point. If you want to criticize the specific beliefs of a specific subset of ID advocates, you need to address them specifically rather than over-generalizing.

It just gets better and better! Not only do we need to allow that the “ID interpretation of the data” is just as valid as mainstream biology, now we have to allow an infinity of conflicting ID interpretations. It’s going to be a long (and pointless) year in high-school biology.
Here’s an idea: let’s  - just arbitrarily -restrict ourselves to stuff that actually gets published, and is part of the ongoing dialog, in respected scientific journals.

Comment #18019

Posted by DonkeyKong on February 25, 2005 11:50 AM (e) (s)

The difference between evolutionists

“Scientific Method:

1. Look at all of the available data, and from the data create a hypothesis or theory that is supported by the data.

2. Test hypothesis.

3. If test fails, then rework theory and repeat.  If test succeeds, then it becomes “Scientific Law.””

And real Science

Scientific Method:

1. Look at all of the available data, and from the data create a hypothesis or theory that is supported by the data and detailed enough to predict non-trivial results.

2. Test hypothesis with NEW previously unknown results preferrably in a controlled setting that can eliminate all potential causes that are not part of the theory.  To gain real weight your hypothesis must be stated in detail enough that non-believers can test your framework with tests that you do not control and did not anticipate.

3. If test fails, then rework theory and repeat?  If test fails then your theory loses favor.  If test succeeds hundreds of times with opponents unable to come up with tests that tend to discredit it, then it becomes “the accepted THEORY”

A clear example of where the evolutionists scientific theory is inferior is when you go to vegas to see a “magic” show.  A magic show pulling a bunny out of a hat is much more acceptable using the rules you outlined.  The fact that followers of evolution use similiar logic and rarely predict things BEFORE then occur greatly weakens their claim to science.

Comment #18023

Posted by Prince Vegita on February 25, 2005 12:20 PM (e) (s)

Russel wrote:

Here’s an idea: let’s  - just arbitrarily -restrict ourselves to stuff that actually gets published, and is part of the ongoing dialog, in respected scientific journals.

And none of that crap about how IDists can’t get stuff published; they are free to interpret the mountains of data already available as they wish.  Now let’s see if they can come up with a coherent research program. 

Given their past inabilities to conduct literature searches, I’m not holding my breath.

Comment #18026

Posted by Henry J on February 25, 2005 12:29 PM (e) (s)

Re “All  interpretations have equal right to be considered on equal footing in science?”

It’s turtles all the way down!

Comment #18027

Posted by frank schmidt on February 25, 2005 12:46 PM (e) (s)

DonkeyKong, your statement

A clear example of where the evolutionists scientific theory is inferior is when you go to vegas to see a “magic” show.  A magic show pulling a bunny out of a hat is much more acceptable using the rules you outlined.  The fact that followers of evolution use similiar logic and rarely predict things BEFORE then occur greatly weakens their claim to science.

is a prime example of Lucyism (the Peanuts character, not the hominid):

If you can’t be right, be wrong at the top of your voice.

Before you embarrass yourself further, why not look up some of the relevant science on the subject? My favorite is the so-called adaptive mutation (Cairns mutation) story that is well-covered in the primary literature and on the web. Andrea’s site is an excellent place to start.
Now go do your homework like a good boy, and don’t come back until you check your work.

Comment #18028

Posted by GCT on February 25, 2005 12:47 PM (e) (s)

David Heddle wrote:

I’d advise Neurode NOT to post a test ID can fail. That path leads to weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I presume that you are at least in part referring to the earlier thread where this was disputed.  Must I remind you that your test would only have served to change your particular religious/philosophic perspective?

I for one, would really like to see Neurode come up with this test.

Neurode wrote:

Your hypothesis offers only an intermediate explanation of the data; to offer a real explanation (involving aliens), one would need to explain the aliens themselves. Moreover, although there is ample evidence of biological adaptation in nature, there is very little evidence that aliens are responsible. Therefore, your alien hypothesis merits only cursory mention in a science class.

A couple things spring to mind here.
1.  Do you really think we should spend time on the alien theory, even in only a cursory mention?
2.  You still have not explained who the “intelligent designer” is.  If you require that of the alien explanation, then it’s only fair that you pony up about who/what your designer is as well.  So, let’s hear it.

From what I can tell, the only thing you’ve really said is that you think mutations are not random, but guided by the designer, therefore ID is right and evolution is wrong.  Maybe we should teach your opinions on everything in every class?

Comment #18030

Posted by Neurode on February 25, 2005 01:05 PM (e) (s)

To my statement that

“The ID hypothesis says that certain biological adaptations can be described as the outcome of a process which occurs prior to realization under the guidance of something which can be described as “intelligent”, i.e., which is capable of recognition and purposive adaptation,”

Steve Reuland responds

“…Which says absolutely nothing about mutation, so my point stands.”

Somehow, Steve has divined that biological adaptations of evolutionary significance can occur without adaptive genetic mutations! One can only observe that this is consistent with Steve’s sad admission that he finds the above statement to be “gobbledygook”.

Apparently on a roll, Steve continues: 

“What confirmation are you talking about?”

I’ve already explained that to my personal satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of anyone else who understands that a “relationship” between two phenomena, e.g. a causal relationship between fitness and mutation, is confirmed by data which exhibit the relationship, e.g., by the widespread occurrence of biological mutations which have positive adaptive value. So it seems that Steve is the one who’s trying to lead us around in circles. But just to avoid any unnecessary confusion, let me elaborate a bit.

If the function “mutation” were independent of the property “fitness”, then there would be no reason to expect beneficial adaptations to arise from mere genetic copying errors. That would be a bit like expecting the random scribbles of a palsy victim to result in acceptable modifications to a complex engineering or architectural blueprint in a highly significant percentage of cases, even where the blueprint is constantly subject to new and unpredictable environmental constraints. Therefore, to confirm that fitness figures as a causal parameter in the mutation function, one need merely look for a significantly high ratio of adaptive mutations to deleterious mutations of like extent. And what do you know? The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations!

Apparently, Steve and perhaps a few others here feel that this alone is insufficient, perhaps because for reasons known only to them, they expect this ratio to be “sufficiently high” under what they consider to be “ordinary” causal circumstances. After all, why can’t we just take all of these adaptive mutations for granted, especially when this would allow certain sectors of the scientific community to pursue business as usual? Why shouldn’t we simply decide that in some strange, causally inexplicable way, the “laws of nature” (whatever those are) somehow convert the “randomness” (whatever that is) of DNA copying errors to the “probability” of beneficial phenotypic changes, thus obviating any need for a deeper explanation?

Here’s why: no matter how you cut it, the theory of long-term biological change embraced by Steve and company has a ragged, gaping hole in it where an explanation needs to be. And until they can verifiably fill this hole, the explanation is “in play”, scientifically speaking, under the terms outlined above. The ID hypothesis qualifies as “scientific” on those terms.

I hope that Steve doesn’t find this too confusing.

Comment #18031

Posted by Bill Ware on February 25, 2005 01:07 PM (e) (s)

Neurode

The “Theory of ID” has never been presented in a scientifically valid format.

IDers are all over the place when it comes to agreeing how much evolutionary theory (if any) they are wiling to accept before ID “kicks in.”  The irreducible complexity (IC) formulation, which is to provide an “objective” measure supporting their propositions, contains an “R” factor, or “rejection region” which allows for the dismissal of signs of complexity which are “obviously” a result of natural causes, not ID. And who determines what falls into this rejection region? Why it’s the ID investigator himself! As more natural causes fill in these “gaps,” and enter the rejection region, ID “theory” eventually evaporates into thin air.

From: here, choose “Criteria for Scientific Theories” from the right side bar. (I can’t put in the direct link because the “censor” wouldn’t allow dashes.)

When a beneficial mutation occurs, you give ID credit. When all the neutral and harmful mutations occur, I guess D’oh does it.  Whatever the low odds for beneficial mutations, they can all be accounted for by random processes. Nothing supernatural is required. Or do you believe that God picks the Power Ball winners?

Comment #18032

Posted by GCT on February 25, 2005 01:13 PM (e) (s)

Neurode wrote:

Here’s why: no matter how you cut it, the theory of long-term biological change embraced by Steve and company has a ragged, gaping hole in it where an explanation needs to be. And until they can verifiably fill this hole, the explanation is “in play”, scientifically speaking, under the terms outlined above. The ID hypothesis qualifies as “scientific” on those terms.

So, according to you, there is a hole, and ID is scientific because we are justified in filling in any hole with “goddidit.”  That explains it.

You still need to meet your burden of explaining who/what the designer is, and why he/she/it is not detected when he/she/it apparently is fiddling around in our (and every other lifeform on the planet’s) DNA all the time.

Can I also infer that you think that all mutations are beneficial, thus proving that some designer is tinkering around?

Comment #18035

Posted by Les Lane on February 25, 2005 01:35 PM (e) (s)

Neurode wrote:

If the function “mutation” were independent of the property “fitness”, then there would be no reason to expect beneficial adaptations to arise from mere genetic copying errors. That would be a bit like expecting the random scribbles of a palsy victim to result in acceptable modifications to a complex engineering or architectural blueprint in a highly significant percentage of cases, even where the blueprint is constantly subject to new and unpredictable environmental constraints. Therefore, to confirm that fitness figures as a causal parameter in the mutation function, one need merely look for a significantly high ratio of adaptive mutations to deleterious mutations of like extent. And what do you know? The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations

Total horeshit

A good example of what you step into by relying on propositional logic.

Comment #18036

Posted by Russell on February 25, 2005 01:36 PM (e) (s)

While all of Neurode’s comment reads, to me, like one long exercise in non sequitur, I want to focus on just this to see if there’s something I’m missing:

Therefore, to confirm that fitness figures as a causal parameter in the mutation function, one need merely look for a significantly high ratio of adaptive mutations to deleterious mutations of like extent. And what do you know? The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations!

Now, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying a testable prediction of ID is that the number of “useful” mutations that occur will greatly outnumber the number of harmful mutations. And your test for that is to look at nature and ask what genetic variations (i.e. mutations) are there to be seen. But of course all the significantly deleterious mutations will have been culled by natural selection, so you’re not asking what is the ratio of fortunate to unfortunate mutation events, you’re asking: does nature select for fortunate over unfortunate mutation events. Guess what ToE predicts?

Comment #18040

Posted by Neurode on February 25, 2005 02:19 PM (e) (s)

Les Lane, whose mother apparently neglected to wash out his mouth with a sufficiently harsh grade of shop detergent, says:

“Total horeshit … A good example of what you step into by relying on propositional logic.”

Alright then. Let’s get away from the logic and have a look at the universal ontogenic map you apparently have in mind, complete with a thorough statistical analysis. Many people would like to see the ironclad calculations proving that random genetic deterioration automatically engenders a remarkable assortment of beneficial adaptations, thus making gibbering fools of the enemies of Darwin (and Las Vegas to boot). Or perhaps you have other evolutionary mechanism(s) in mind…

[Russell - I should think that it might be better, for scientific purposes, to make some effort to count the deleterious mutations before nature kills them off and sweeps them under the carpet. That way, you can avoid confounding the target effect with the effects of natural selection. But I’ll bet you already thought of that…]

Comment #18041

Posted by Flint on February 25, 2005 02:25 PM (e) (s)

Neurode is rejecting the notion that there is a selection process in operation, on the grounds that the selection process works. So we look around, see only the tiny percentage of mutations that survived the filter of selection, and conclude that because selection is so selective, it can’t be selective after all! How wonderfully simple. It must have been designed.

Sometimes you have to read this stuff several times. Did he actually say that? Yes, he did! I can picture Neurode at the roulette table, noting only the (small percentage of) winners, noting that they are ALL winners, pretending the losers simply don’t exist, and concluding that the winners must have caused the roulette wheel!

This is a LONG way from honest confusion or even coherent argument. It explains why parody is impossible.

Comment #18042

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 25, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)

Neurode wrote:

To my statement that

“The ID hypothesis says that certain biological adaptations can be described as the outcome of a process which occurs prior to realization under the guidance of something which can be described as “intelligent”, i.e., which is capable of recognition and purposive adaptation,”

Steve Reuland responds

“…Which says absolutely nothing about mutation, so my point stands.”

Somehow, Steve has divined that biological adaptations of evolutionary significance can occur without adaptive genetic mutations!

Um, no, I’m quite confident that biological adaptations are the result of mutations, but ID advocates are not.  It is often implied by IDists that something other than mutations — alien engineering for example, or Behe’s personal hypothesis of “Poof!” — must be responsible for adaptations.  You stated that “adaptive mutations” are part of the ID hypothesis, then you provided a definition of ID that says nothing about mutations.  I’m glad you’ve proven my earlier point.

“What confirmation are you talking about?”

I’ve already explained that to my personal satisfaction…

That doesn’t sound too hard.  The rest of us though require evidence.  You’ve still presented nothing beyond your “reinterpretation” that the mere existence of beneficial mutations is somehow evidence for ID. I must say that’s probably the funniest thing I’ve ever seen on this blog (and I’ve read a fair number of Dave Scott’s posts).

If the function “mutation” were independent of the property “fitness”, then there would be no reason to expect beneficial adaptations to arise from mere genetic copying errors.

Of course there would.  The mere fact that the adaptive landscape is structured guaratees that random perturbations in a population will cause some members to be better adapted.  The fact that directed evolution experiments work so well proves quite conclusively that mutations don’t need a causal connection to fitness.  Given that the researcher defines fitness in a directed evolution experiment, you’d have to believe that the mutagen was reading the researcher’s mind, rather than simply producing mutations at random. 

That would be a bit like expecting the random scribbles of a palsy victim to result in acceptable modifications to a complex engineering or architectural blueprint in a highly significant percentage of cases, even where the blueprint is constantly subject to new and unpredictable environmental constraints.

This is just the old and tired “tornado in a junkyard” argument, which demonstrates on your part a fundamental misunderstanding of the very basics of evolution. 

Therefore, to confirm that fitness figures as a causal parameter in the mutation function, one need merely look for a significantly high ratio of adaptive mutations to deleterious mutations of like extent.

And we don’t see this when we observe the effects of mutations.  Most mutations are neutral or deleterious.  Beneficial mutations are comparatively rare, though they do happen.

There is no evidence that mutations are connected in any way to fitness.  Cairns and Hall once thought they might have discovered such a thing, but that turned out to be wrong.

And what do you know? The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations!

That’s due to something known as natural selection. 

Your subsequent remarks demonstrate that either you don’t understand the concept, or have chosen to disregard it. 

Apparently, Steve and perhaps a few others here feel that this alone is insufficient, perhaps because for reasons known only to them, they expect this ratio to be “sufficiently high” under what they consider to be “ordinary” causal circumstances.

No, I expect the ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutations to be fairly low.  And it is.  How you could be confused on this basic issue is beyond me.  The ratio that gets fixed within a population is a different matter entirely, because selection guarantees that beneficial mutations spread whereas deleterious ones get weeded out.

Why shouldn’t we simply decide that in some strange, causally inexplicable way, the “laws of nature” (whatever those are) somehow convert the “randomness” (whatever that is) of DNA copying errors to the “probability” of beneficial phenotypic changes, thus obviating any need for a deeper explanation?

Putting your massive confusion about mutation aside, the whole problem we’re having here is that a deeper explanation has not been forthcoming from you, despite people having asked you for one.  That was the whole point of me having asked for evidence when you asserted that ID had passed “crucial tests”.  What tests has it passed?  You haven’t named a single one.

Comment #18043

Posted by Flint on February 25, 2005 02:34 PM (e) (s)

What tests has it passed?  You haven’t named a single one.

On the contrary, he has mentioned one test — the test of whether the ID ‘explanation’ meets his satisfaction. It does. Test passed. Nothing else really matters, does it?

Comment #18046

Posted by DaveScot on February 25, 2005 02:50 PM (e) (s)

neurode wrote:

the evidence for the basic Darwinian hypothesis, whatever you may consider that evidence to be, can be reinterpreted as evidence for the design hypothesis with double the confirmation. As far as concerns what studies get funded and what articles get published in “reputable” scientific journals, that’s both irrelevant and a political can of worms in its own right.

Perfect.

The problem is obvious.  Any bright individual that’s bothered to look at the evidence in light of both mutation/selection and design can see which is a better fit.  Therefore atheists like Dawkins and his band of merry men can’t let even a whisper of criticism of the modern synthesis into a classroom lest more bright people start to dig deeper and reach the inevitable conclusion that his peer and former world renowned atheist Antony Flew arrived at recently.  If they can continue the fraud of saying Darwinian evolution is confirmed without a doubt by 150 years of testing no one bothers to question it.  Heck, anyone that’s bothered to read “The Origin of Species” knows that Darwin made spectacular mistakes (heritable acquired traits is a beauty) galore which, in and of itself, means that the trite “150 years of confirmation” is a lie.

Comment #18047

Posted by bcpmoon on February 25, 2005 02:51 PM (e) (s)

Regarding Neurode:
At first I thought that my command of English is not so good as to understand what he means. But slowly it transpires that he really just dresses the usual misconceptions about evolution in fancy speak. I have seen “tornado in a junkyard”, “randomness as cause of beneficial mutations” (forgetting selection by the way), “random mutations are always harmful” so far. Had he been clearer in his statements, this discussion would have been shorter, I guess.

Comment #18048

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 25, 2005 02:56 PM (e) (s)

Russel wrote:

Now, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying a testable prediction of ID is that the number of “useful” mutations that occur will greatly outnumber the number of harmful mutations.

I think we’ve seen the ultimate saltational leap in the evolution of creationism.  They’ve gone from arguing that beneficial mutations never occur to arguing that nothing but beneficial mutations occur!

Comment #18049

Posted by Enough on February 25, 2005 02:57 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot, do you have a crayon lodged in your brain?  You’ve had everything in your post painfully explained you multiple times, or debunked, and yet you continue to repeat the same crap.  Are you just copying random things off of answeringenesis and posting them here?  What’s wrong with you?  Stop cluttering threads with your useless tripe.

Comment #18050

Posted by bcpmoon on February 25, 2005 02:59 PM (e) (s)

davescot wrote:

Heck, anyone that’s bothered to read “The Origin of Species” knows that Darwin made spectacular mistakes (heritable acquired traits is a beauty) galore which, in and of itself, means that the trite “150 years of confirmation” is a lie.

Are you kidding? Confirmation does not mean that the founding work of Darwin has to be confirmed to the letter again and again! That is the aim of Religion (Bad Religion more to the point). There are no holy books in science. Just because religion is founded on scripture, that does not mean that every human endeavour is the same.
The core ideas have been refined, tested, confirmed and reworked to fit the data for 150 years. Given this length of time, it is surprising how much of the original work still stands. I do not know, which other work {of a single author, just to rule out scripture ;)}did pass the test of time so well.

Comment #18053

Posted by bcpmoon on February 25, 2005 03:03 PM (e) (s)

davescot wrote:

Heck, anyone that’s bothered to read “The Origin of Species” knows that Darwin made spectacular mistakes (heritable acquired traits is a beauty) galore which, in and of itself, means that the trite “150 years of confirmation” is a lie.

Are you kidding? Confirmation does not mean that the founding work of Darwin has to be confirmed to the letter again and again! That is the aim of Religion (Bad Religion more to the point). There are no holy books in science. Just because religion is founded on scripture, that does not mean that every human endeavour is the same.
The core ideas have been refined, tested, confirmed and reworked to fit the data for 150 years. Given this length of time, it is surprising how much of the original work still stands. I do not know, which other work {of a single author, just to rule out scripture ;)} did pass the test of time so well.

Comment #18054

Posted by Les Lane on February 25, 2005 03:04 PM (e) (s)

Neurode wrote:

Alright then. Let’s get away from the logic and have a look at the universal ontogenic map you apparently have in mind, complete with a thorough statistical analysis. Many people would like to see the ironclad calculations proving that random genetic deterioration automatically engenders a remarkable assortment of beneficial adaptations, thus making gibbering fools of the enemies of Darwin (and Las Vegas to boot). Or perhaps you have other evolutionary mechanism(s) in mind…

More total horseshit. I see little point in euphemism. Failure to grasp undergraduate biology, (total) unfamiliarity with primary science literature, and underdeveloped analytical skills are stereotypes we expect from ID idealogues. Don’t reinforce them.

You’ve defined mutation based on preconceptions (others have noticed).  Are you clear on propositional logic and why it’s a disaster in science?

Comment #18055

Posted by DaveScot on February 25, 2005 03:06 PM (e) (s)

Flint

Falsifiability is not a requirement if there’s verifiability.

The nature of negative evidence makes it practically impossible to falsify some explanations.  However, if the explanation can be confirmed by positive evidence there’s no need to be falsifiable.  That should be evident to even the casual observer.

Mutation/selection appears to be non-verifiable and evidence which any objective person would view as falsifying it is rejected out of hand because nobody can come up with an alternative to mutation/selection which adheres to the materialism dogma.

ID may not be falsifiable but it is verifiable.  I’m not convinced it’s been verfied but the evidence certainly supports it a lot better than the mutation/selection hypothesis which has failed so many predictions yet trundles along like everything lined right up for it it’s gone from hypothesis to faith-based dogma.

Comment #18057

Posted by Russell on February 25, 2005 03:07 PM (e) (s)

Neurode, who I'm becoming convinced is, just for laughs, pretending to be an IDist to see how ridiculous an argument will get a response, wrote:

[Russell - I should think that it might be better, for scientific purposes, to make some effort to count the deleterious mutations before nature kills them off and sweeps them under the carpet. That way, you can avoid confounding the target effect with the effects of natural selection. But I’ll bet you already thought of that…]

Indeed I did. And that’s why I’m wondering why you would write

The world is entirely populated by organisms which have accumulated vast numbers of highly adaptive (and/or non-harmful) mutations!

(emphasis added to indicate no attempt was made to look at pre-selection mutations)

Comment #18058

Posted by Prince Vegita on February 25, 2005 03:09 PM (e) (s)

The problem is obvious.  Any bright individual that’s bothered to look at the evidence in light of both mutation/selection and design can see which is a better fit.

Yup.  Mutation/selection/drift/recombination.  Wins hands down, b/c design hasn’t even brought their team.

Therefore atheists like Dawkins and his band of merry men can’t let even a whisper of criticism of the modern synthesis into a classroom lest more bright people start to dig deeper and reach the inevitable conclusion that his peer and former world renowned atheist Antony Flew arrived at recently.

What about all those theistic evolutionists who both outnumber and agree with those atheists?  Christ you’re dishonest.  Shouldn’t you be against bearing false witness?

What the hell is a “world renowned” atheist?  Funny thing though, Flew admitted that he wasn’t aware of the evidence and has since recanted that portion of his “conversion”.  So basically he did what everybody else does:  toyed with ID out of ignorance (note that he never actually accepted it).

If they can continue the fraud of saying Darwinian evolution is confirmed without a doubt by 150 years of testing no one bothers to question it.  Heck, anyone that’s bothered to read “The Origin of Species” knows that Darwin made spectacular mistakes (heritable acquired traits is a beauty) galore which, in and of itself, means that the trite “150 years of confirmation” is a lie.

Wow, you just contradicted yourself.  Are you talking about Darwin’s original theory or the modern synthesis?  Because the modern synthesis has none of the heritability issues of Darwin’s original theory.  Your hyperbole aside, though, for the most part Darwin got it right; he was just unaware of the mechanisms of heredity.  This of course has no bearing on the correctness of selection.  Had he pulled Mendel’s book off the shelf before he died, the field would’ve been accelerated about 50 years.

Comment #18061

Posted by DaveScot on February 25, 2005 03:39 PM (e) (s)

bcpmoon

The only thing of Darwin’s original work still standing is common ancestry and descent with modification.  And he wasn’t the first to propose either of those as anyone involved in animal husbandry over the last umpteen thousand years knew of heritable traits and descent with modification.  The most important thing, the mechanism by which phylogenesis operates, Darwin posited to be the primary result of inheritance of acquired characters… which is totally wrong.  Mutation/selection, the all powerful patch applied to Darwin’s spectacular failure, remains to this day a huge extrapolation from a: [observed but limited powers to modify] to b: [all encompassing unobserved power to modify].  All this time and it still remains just an extrapolation with no confirmation.  I don’t believe