Does ID predict genetic similarity?

I think this speaks more towards the theological implications. It is more of a question aimed at one type of a designer (e.g. an omnipotent caring god). It only goes to the larnynx and around the larynx as far as I know. There are connections to the esophagus and trachea, but again this is a circuitous route for these features. Not really sure, but I would strongly suspect that the development of the nerves and neck vertbrae are strongly linked. The RLN still makes that same trip in giraffes as well resulting in 15 feet (IIRC) of extra nerve fibers just to make this strange route. I appreciate the effort, but at the end of the day we arrive at the same problem, a lack of a solid method for differentiating between ID and evolution. Genomicus has proposed front-loaded evolution which makes predictions post hoc. It boils down to a sharpshooter fallacy. Which genes were front loaded? Well, the ones that became ubiquitous. That is drawing the bull's eye around the bullet hole. Whatever evolves it will be claimed that it was front loaded.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I'd be fascinated to know how you know this.What I'm saying here is straightforward.Let's look at the hypothesis: "The world was intelligently designed."If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. If we found ourselves in a world which seemed to operate very consistently on predictable laws, but we identified the occasional miracle that broke those laws, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. And if we found ourselves in a world that appeared to have set physical principles that were never to our knowledge broken, that's perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.So, that general I.D. hypothesis makes no predictions concerning principles (or miracles), which was what I was trying to explain to GDR. A prediction would be necessary to the hypothesis, not just compatible.The O.P. question is straightforward. The answer is "no", the general hypothesis of an intelligently designed biosphere doesn't predict genetic similarity (or anything else, when you think about it) but it is compatible with it.

But the whole thing is magic. We just don't recognize because magic for us is the norm. We have an existence made up of mindless, probably non-dimensional or one-dimensional particles in which we perceive a 3 dimensional existence, as well as in which we can experience change with intelligent thought. How much more magic can it get?So we have the magic but within that magic is a set of principles and an order that govern our day to day existence. We sense that in our day to day lives.From the magic that is our existence it seems reasonable to me that there is an intelligence that is at the root of it. As from the simple observation of this world we can see that out of that magic comes order, then it seems reasonable that we should in our science be able to predict, as did Newton, that we can learn about the principles that govern our day to day existence.

How fascinating. I don't doubt it.Now, if you're in some way trying to defend the view that principles are a prediction of the hypothesis that the world was intelligently designed, then could you actually do it? You would need to make the case that intelligent designers of worlds are constrained by some force that obliges them to create worlds with principles.So, let's start with this constraining force which leaves them without choice on the matter. What is it?Edited by bluegenes, : missing letter

I don't agree that I do. Isn't that how science works? Someone through reason comes up with a hypothesis that he/she works with to see if they can prove it to be accurate or not. For example, string theory is a hypothesis that science is trying to prove or disprove but it is prediction based on human observation.As humans we can observe that when we create something there are principles involved. I submit that with our experience as intelligent beings, as a hypothesis it is reasonable to predict, based on the assumption that an intelligent designer exists, that there should be principles involved in the design.Of course it isn't conclusive, just as the evidence for the hypothesis which is string theory isn't conclusive, but it is a reasonable prediction.

"All B are A" is not a good reason to even suspect that "All A are B".Now unless you have a rational argument, for instance explaining how streams and rivers - and designers - could exist without underlying principles then you're just irrationally jumping to conclusions.

Hi herebedragons, thanks Cool. I feel that there is a somewhat gray but small dividing area:

1. science covers testable scientific predictions made from scientific hypothesis and theory based on observations of empirical evidence.
2. philosophy covers concepts from outright conjecture to informed hypothesis that are based on observations that may be tentative unconfirmed empirical evidence or are based on valid logic and math, perhaps extensions of untested theories.
3. the gray area is where we don't know if these informed hypothesis may be testable by methodology that is not yet available or whether theie falsification tests are valid because the situations of the test have not occurred - the "we don't know because we don't know" problem.

This latter is your only possible area of overlap as far as I can see.The skeptical open mind approach, imho, says that there may be something here, but we just don't have enough information yet to be able to discuss it without conjectures and guesses, concepts based more on opinions than facts and observations. It is better to wait for more information (which may never come), and spend our time working on what can be validated first, guiding our lives by our personal beliefs where they don't conflict with known facts, and by our personal knowledge of how things work where possible.Enjoy.

Hi bluegenes, Curiously, I did not say that I know this (and you should know better ... ) format altered: line breaks and reference numbers added.Note that the "never to our knowledge broken" in would include anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved but we don't know.And by observation we are certainly not in so it is not logical to consider it, as it is falsified ... by our admittedly slim set of evidence (1 universe).Similarly is also eliminated at this time, even though it operates "very consistently on predictable laws."The logical conclusion is that IF the universe was created that THEN it was done using a set physical principles that guide how it operates, , albeit again based on our admittedly slim set of evidence (1 universe).Just as the commands of a computer program guides how the program runs to achieve the desired results, if there were "bugs" in the program that had to be periodically fixed, then we have a situation, and without evidence of "bugs" being fixed we are in a situation, a well designed program from the start.But this is just a logical conclusion not knowledge per se (etc etc).It is also untestable without a second universe ... or a way of adequately testing the anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved but we don't know.Curiously, IF it were possible at some future date to adequately test the anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved, that this still leaves us with a possible universe that operates "very consistently on predictable laws" and is thus still consistent with my logic. And again, I agree with you here, that there just is not enough information on which one can form a valid testable prediction ...... but find it fascinating how you seem to see this problem so clearly here, but not at all on another thread ... Enjoy.

What qualifies as magic to you RAZD?

A hypothesis isn't a prediction (in the scientific sense of prediction). It is a proposed explanation of something that should make predictions. These would be things necessarily true if the hypothesis was true.Of course you can hypothesise to your heart's content. But what I was asking you to do was to demonstrate that principles are a prediction of intelligent design. Also, brains. Actually, we observe that we are subject to principles (the constraints of the physical world). That's why I can't design a magic carpet and a pair of seven league boots for you, much though I'd love to. It isn't by choice. So your observation here would be that known designers (us) are subject to principles.You then seem to want to make an inductive inference, based on your observation of ourselves as designers. You could make many of these, and put them forward as hypotheses. All designers design with brains, all designers are animals, all designers are subject to principles etc.A prediction of that last one would be that, if there were a designer of this world, he would be subject to principles. I think you need to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a prediction. The prediction, used in this sense, means something necessary to the hypothesis. If the prediction turned out to be wrong, the hypothesis would be falsified.If we found out in the future that what we consider to be physical principles of this world are actually all broken somewhere in the universe, and the place is actually completely unpredictable, that would not falsify the hypothesis that this world is intelligently designed, would it? Therefore, principles are not a prediction of that hypothesis.

Of course, I cannot speak for RAZD and would not presume to.For myself, magick would be to say it and thus make it so.Very early on in my study of Hebrew (decades ago and thus largely forgotten), I was given the literal translation of "Let there be light and there was light", as "Light be, light was."Speaking it into being. Now that's magick.What qualifies as magic to you?

Here's the exchange: How do you know that it's logical? Or did you mean "it seems logical to me" or "it seems reasonable to me." Note that GDR uses such tentative language when he makes similar claims.But I'm glad that we're agreed. You do not know that it is logical that any world designed by designers "would have principles put in place that govern how it operated on a mundane day-to-day basis".Concentrate on the phrase "any world" or your phrase "whatever universe". A prediction of the intelligent design hypothesis would apply to any world. It must be necessary. Therefore, in order to claim that the hypothesis predicts a world like this one in any respect, the designers would have to be obliged to include that feature (whether principles, stars, life, anything else).Now look below. You're going to make observations about this world, and then claim that it is a logical conclusion that: "IF the universe was created that THEN it was done using a set physical principles that guide how it operates".Your mistake is substituting "this universe" for "whatever universe" or "any world". What we observe in this universe would have been created if this universe was created. Yes, of course. That doesn't mean that anything we observe in this world is necessary to all possible created worlds. It doesn't matter which of the three that we're in. My point was that I.D. is compatible with all of them.Do you see the point, now? Sure, it's logical to conclude that, if this world was created, anything we observe in the world (including principles) was created. But that does not mean that I.D. of the world predicts principles (or stars), just as I.D. of biology doesn't predict genetic similarity. But you don't seem to agree. Shortage of information is not the point. That the I.D. hypothesis is compatible with both magic and non-magic is. It's compatible with anything. It doesn't predict anything about the world, so nothing falsifies it. Most of what you're misunderstanding on that other thread is different from what you don't seem to be able to grasp on this one.

Hi bluegenesYour position there is the same as you claim for GDR here: compatible but not a necessary prediction. I have shown you other compatible explanations that put you in the same position you list for the ID hypothesis here.Anyway further discussion does not belong here ...Enjoy.

Sort out the difference between hypotheses and predictions. GDR is making a hypothesis of sorts, but he seems to think it's a prediction. Here's an example of an inductive I.D. hypothesis.Animals can and do intelligently design.Animals are the only known source of artifacts.Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that intelligent design is exclusively an animal characteristic. A theory, like mine on the other thread, is not a prediction, but makes predictions that are necessary to it like: Obama is not the Antichrist. Obama being the Antichrist is logically incompatible with my theory, and would falsify it.No possible worlds are incompatible with the general hypothesis of intelligent design of the world. No, you've put forward the view that unsupported hypotheses damage theories, which is false. You're welcome to make your accusations on the Great Debate thread, but I'd advise you to disentangle your hypotheses from your predictions before you do, or you might be embarrassed.

more useless blather.You do not have a theory, you have only a conjectural hypothesis of the same quality as the ID hypothesis here, but are too blind to see it.See Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs.Enjoy.