The question here is about genetic similarity and whether or not it is predicted by ID in the same way that it is predicted by common descent/evolutionary theory. Right?
If so - The answer is obviously not.
Genetic similarity is a logical consequence of incremental evolution that occurs as a result of small genetic changes. If closely related/recently-diverging species were not genetically similar we would have to fundamentally rethink the whole basis of evolution.
Evolution by incremental genetic change predicts genetic similarity and would be effectively falsified if this were not the case.
Conversely if different species with recent common ancestors were not genetically similar it wouldn't falsify ID claims about the origins of species or how change occurs. Because ID claims amount to nothing more than a post hoc rationalisation of what we actually see and the inclusion of "magic" somewhere along the line. There are no predictions. There is no possibility of falsification. And any "support" that genetic similarity supposedly provides for ID only comes about as a result of "Well it makes sense to me for a designer to do it like that" type thinking.
As the logical (and potentially falsifying) consequence of one hypothesis but simply the post-hoc subjective "support" of another - genetic similarity can only meaningfully be considered as evidence in favour of one of these two competing theories.
It was suggested that genetic similarity is also compatible with ID as well as common descent so it is ambiguous as to relatedness. I agreed that it is indeed compatible with both ideas. However, I suggested that common descent predicted similarity while ID did not.
All sorts of unfalsifiable nonsense can be made to be compatible with a given set of observations. But such claims do nothing to detract from the evidenced conclusions except give some cause for the tentativity that is present in any scientific conclusion anyway.
(1) behavior tentatively understood and explained by current theory, and (2) behavior not yet fully understood or adequately explained by current theory ... and that any magical behavior would be automatically cast into (2), without having to accept or rule out a possibility of it actually being magic, just unexplained ... because this is just how science works, not because of any preconception or bias on the part of the people involved.
But what we have in this thread is a phenomenon (genetic similarity) that is both explained by, and indeed predicted by, current theory and which would falsify that theory were it not the case Vs some vague proclamations that some hypothetical and un-evidenced designer would have done it that way too.
Surely there is no contest in terms of which of these two alternatives genetic similarity can be considered positive evidence in favour of — Right?
So far no-one has put forward any predictions that can be made from ID or given any reason at all to think that there might be a designer.
There was some loose talk about principles being indicative of a designer but when it was pointed out that an absence of such principles wouldn’t necessarily equate to an absence of a designer even these vague proclamations were revoked on the basis that neither the presence nor absence of principles really tells us anything about the existence of this hypothetical designer at all.
So I am left asking on what basis, other than human belief in such things, a designer is being postulated here at all?
Why should we consider this designer or give it any more credence than any other baselessly conceived of entity?
quote:What other predictions does ID make or at least claim to make and how do they compare to the predictions that common descent makes?
OK. So what is your answer to that question specifically?
I think this question is based on the assumption that there is an intelligent designer, not to use the fact that there are principles to prove a designer, but that if we accept that an intelligent designer exists that it could be, as a theory, suggestive that we should expect that there would be principles involved.
If we look around us and see these "principles" and then we assume that there is a designer and also assume that this designer will incorporate these "principles" in his design - It is hardly surprising that this exercise in circularity will result in the conclusion that there is a designer who incorporates the observed "principles" in his design.
But how anyone can think this is a valid exercise in logic or even evidence based reasoning I don't know......
quote: What other predictions does ID make or at least claim to make and how do they compare to the predictions that common descent makes?
To which you give the answer:
That there are principles and order.
You can’t meaningfully take the facts, take your preferred explanation, marry the two together on the basis it seems subjectively reasonable to you to do so and then claim that one is a prediction of the other.
When we talk about genetic similarity being a logical consequence, and thus prediction, of modern evolutionary theory we don’t just mean Well it seems subjectively reasonable to me personally to connect the two. We mean that genetic similarity is logically a necessary requirement of the theory and that it’s absence would cast serious doubt on the correctness of that theory (i.e. falsify it to some extent)
Similarly - In order to claim that the existence of principles are a necessary logical consequence, and thus prediction, of a designer you need to be able to demonstrate that principles are a necessary consequence of a designer and that an absence of such principles would equate to an absence of a designer.
Can you do this?
That's funny, I couldn't convince Bluegenes either.
Well that bluegenes fellow is an eminently sensible chap who, like me, is able to distinguish between genuine predictions and subjectively derived cause and effect connections with no real evidential basis.
So - Just to be clear - The answer "something-supernatural-did-it" you reject as valid in all cases (e.g. the death of buckthorn) except when it comes to the question of origins?
So, let me propose a hypothesis based upon my worldview.
You can propose whatever you like. But without any positive evidence in favour of that conclusion/hypothesis you are simply expressing the same old same old "God of the gaps" + "you can't prove me wrong" thinking that has been so discredited before.
1. I have a philosophical ideology that accepts that there is a higher power that is responsible for the existence of all that exists.
2. I have been unable to convert that philosophical ideology into a viable scientific hypothesis.
3. If anyone else has been able to do this, I would like to know how they did it and what those hypotheses are.
4. Assertions that no such supernatural entities can exist is not a logic assumption.
The point here is not one of deductive logic, proof, certainty or proclamations of impossibility about what can or cannot exist. The question here is whether there is any evidential basis upon which to elevate the notion of an Intelligent Designer above that of any other conceivable but un-disprovable human construction.
So far you haven’t offered any basis for doing so. And nor has anyone else. Even the vague hand waving about 'universal principles' seems to have been retracted.
Therefore, I am justified in asking questions 1,2 and 3.
Ask away . But don't expect much aside from personal beliefs being indirectly cited as some sort of justification for elevating one evidentially baseless proposition over the infinite array of other such possibilities.