Moving from suspicion to evidence for ID

In several threads evos and IDers have brought up reasons to suspect ID versus evidence necessary to prove ID.It has been mentioned that while suspicion is enough to start a scientific investigation, criteria for evidence of design must be solidified BEFORE such an investigation can be undertaken (otherwise we are just twiddling our thumbs, or navel gazing).What I am interested in seeing--- especially from IDers as they are the ones making a claim that science must investigate ID--- is:1) what would make them suspect ID and2) how to move from that suspicion to actual evidence.Here's my contribution:1) A sudden evolutionary change in an organism, within one generation, to allow it to fit into a new ecosystem it does not currently have contact with.2) Potential evidence for this would be fossil evidence indicating a sudden change in an organism that unquestionably allowed it to survive an environmentally related extinction event.Obviously an organism can't know a comet is going to hit and so change in advance, but an intelligent designer seeking to preserve a specific organism, would.There's a starter.------------------
holmes

Holmes,I've really appreciated your posts concerning the Intelligent Design Creationism debate. I hope you didn't think your post #220 at "A Thought..." went unnoticed, since I think that should stand as the last word on IDC. Everyone reading this should read that one EvC Forum: A thought on Intelligence behind Design right now.Another great IDC one liner:I'm afraid I don't have as much patience as you do for these New Age Travis 'Taxi Driver' Bickle types who spout feel-good IDC rhetoric like it's going out of style and seem completely unable to fathom opposing views. I don't expect online conversions or admissions of defeat, but it would be nice to have some progression to the discussion instead of Warren's sporadic pronouncements and Barry's Magic Happy Love Science routine.I predict this thread will end up like Peter's "The Hypothesis of ID?" thread, which gave the movement so much undue credit that it failed to garner even one response from the IDC camp. Your attempt to prime the pump with a provisional hypothesis is magnanimous, but I have to say it doesn't make much sense to me. IDC is all about Warren or Barry or Mike Gene, etc., harboring such contempt for Nature that the only possible thing that could impress them is the presence of some New Age unifying intelligence directing the proceedings. To these folks, the dazzling reality of Nature pales next to the gaudy peep show of IDC.I'm fed up with their accusations that the only way someone would subscribe to the mechanistic-evolution theory is if their need to excuse their amorality and rank atheism demanded it. I'm fed up with their using computer analogies to make points about nature, then turning around and saying that the analogy proves their point. I'm fed up with their substituting the words "Intelligent Design" for any plausible mechanism, then calling us closed-minded for not accepting that as an explanation of any worth. I'm sick of the way they ask us for evidence of the power of the replication/variation/selection process, then dismissing the evidence as 'merely possible.' And I'm sick of the way they paste a half-assed hippy mysticism on top of the grandeur of Nature and expect science to back them up.They're all yours. I quit.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

I was wondering if this thread would turn out to be like Peter's earlier--- and worthy, even if ultimately unsuccesful--- effort to call IDers to task.Anyway, since nothing has popped up yet, let me thank you for your compliments. I'll have to remember to hire you for any press releases I need made.Let me also return the compliment. There are a number of very good writers on EVC and you are definitely one of them. In fact, I'm going to have to remember that "gaudy peepshow" line. This is not to say you are only good for witty banter, I will also remember your cogent arguments.As an aside... What does the "tierra de ciegos" tagline you currently use mean?I hope your "I quit" statement doesn't mean you'll disappear from EVC altogether. I tend to quit on specific individuals--- like Syamsu is on my deadlist, and Warren is about to enter it if he doesn't respond to the next question I give him--- but feel some odd urge to try and combat the dumbing of science where I see it.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Here's my contribution:

​

1) A sudden evolutionary change in an organism, within one generation, to allow it to fit into a new ecosystem it does not currently have contact with.

​

2) Potential evidence for this would be fossil evidence indicating a sudden change in an organism that unquestionably allowed it to survive an environmentally related extinction event.

​

Obviously an organism can't know a comet is going to hit and so change in advance, but an intelligent designer seeking to preserve a specific organism, would.

​

There's a starter.

---

1. The problem here is how would you then distinguish between design and say an invading species that though never having lived in that environment wipes out the indiginous competition i.e. rabbits in Australia? Rabbits were designed for Australia?... or more likely their high fecundity and extremely high reproductive output and short breeding cycles make them widely adapted when no rabbit predators are present...also a single evolutionary change in one generation would have to get over the hurdle of the entire field of genetics i.e. occurrence of an adaptive trait that appears without the mutation and transmission of genetic material...prions can within an organisms lifetime affect them phenotypically...however, this is detrimental to the organism and it is affected by underlying genetic factors.2. Problem one is that to date, all genetic studies of pre-adaptation have shown that it does not occur...so their is already a body of counter-evidence that would have to be explained away. Second, how would you precisely be able to show that the transition preceded the event i.e. pre-adaptive rather than normal evolutionary process?I think the problem is there is still no testable hypothesis for intelligent design that has been proposed...until this is done there is no way to even proceed to the empirical testing phase.Like Mr. Hambra, I think Warren and any other ID proponent will drop their little ID is evident line and then quickly depart without furthering their arguments....ID is simply not any more similar to science than believing that the ghost of Liberace controls gravity...cheers,
M

Hint: So far they're all Spanish translations of English aphorisms. As is the username.

Holmes,You can't get rid of a bad penny like me so easy. I'm exhausted with playing the IDC Shell Game, but there is still plenty of good conversation to be had here at EvC. Mala hierba nunca mata.Incidentally, the tagline (previously translated by crashfrog, if I'm not mistaken) means 'in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.' I think it says something about awareness, our certainty that we know all we can know.And Quetzal could give me a little more credit, considering he's named after a rock band. My taglines are all legitimate Spanish refranes, though I admit the handle is the title of a CD from not-so-famous rocker Juan Perro. Did you know the name BradMcFall is from 'Caddyshack'?------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el quetzal es el Rey.

A rock band? Really? Never heard of 'em. My username comes from the common name of Pharomachrus mocino, family Trogonidae (note the pretty picture). So there . It'd be interesting to track down whether the original was English or Spanish (or Greek, for that matter) of the taglines. Sorry about your username, I was making up all these really interesting meta-philosophical reasons behind why someone would call themselves "Mr. Hunger". Not my fault you chose to show your erudition by putting everything into Spanish... ;p----------
En la tierra de la hierba mala, el quetzal es el Rey[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 08-07-2003]

and double apologies to holmes for sidetracking his excellent thread. I'll shut up.

Mr. Hambre, my Nicaraguan girlfriend wanted to let you know that "tuerco" is actually spelled "tuerto". I thought maybe it was just a change in spelling (ie. Nicaraguan vs. Spain) but all evidence that I have seen points to a misspelling. As an aside I have also enjoyed reading your posts as well as others here. This website has been nothing short of fantastic.[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 08-07-2003]

So far this thread has verified the hypothesis that I'm a bored bean-counter who's a mere dillettante in the areas of natural history and Spanish. Double or nothing DBlevins doesn't have a girlfriend. Any takers?------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-07-2003]

I'm sort of fond of the proverb "Si su tia tenia cojones, seria su tio." ( It needs about four accent marks, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to put them in.)

I'm partial to Saber mucho y decir tonteras, lo vemos todos los das. It's the unofficial motto of the Internet. And present company is excluded.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

Hmmmmm. Well this isn't exactly the scenario I was talking about (no organism would appear to have suddenly become a rabbit). My guess is... note this is a guess... paleontologists would be able to determine whether land bridges allowed a new species to enter a region and take over.In the case of rabbits a future paleontologist would hopefully be able to determine that human activity created a pseudo-landbridge for the rabbit. Hey, don't get me wrong here. I understand that there is no evidence like this right now. I am simply answering the question, what would suggest to me that "design" had happened in an organism.I followed from this that designers tend to make changes for a reason. Most of the time before that change is necessary. For example one would not wait until entering the water, to give up making cars to make a submarine.So for me if fossil evidence began popping up that a change occured within a species (this means pretty clear changes from one specific species to its descendent) which preceeded its necessity (paleogologic evidence in the region), that would suggest design.If a body of evidence accumulated along this line that alterations in body design preceeded any contact with the new environment, I would consider this real evidence for someone or something tinkering with an organism. Granted the source of the change would remain open until other evidence came in (discovery of alien labs?).This is would not be easy. But why should it be? We are talking about evidence that life is INTELLIGENTLY designed. Foresight beyond simply reacting to the immediate, is a sign of intelligence and may be the only one we can count on when looking at organisms that everyone (even IDers) acknowledge change from generation to generation.------------------
holmes

Okay everybody, I may be a dilletante in natural history but I have no knowledge of spanish, so this thread is seriously getting beyond me. Either provide translations or CUT IT OUT!!!I can't stand jokes that I don't understand!Then again, if IDers would like to post their responses in Spanish, perhaps that would be a good idea. It would certainly make any response seem much more credible to me. I wouldn't take that bet. After all, who would guess I am dating a minor porn star? You can NEVER tell a book by its cover.------------------
holmes

I don't know whether I'm more fascinated because I've never dated a porn star or because I've never dated a minor.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.