Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,136 Year: 5,393/9,624 Month: 418/323 Week: 58/204 Day: 34/24 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 4 of 507 (898704)
09-28-2022 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by evolujtion_noob
09-27-2022 7:55 AM


Why couldn't the ID proponent just claim that the designer guided the experiment psychically?
They could claim such a thing, which is the problem. Once you throw parsimony out the window you give up any chance of doing science.
quote:
For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19922/19922-h/19922-h.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by evolujtion_noob, posted 09-27-2022 7:55 AM evolujtion_noob has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 37 of 507 (900329)
10-26-2022 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by WookieeB
10-11-2022 3:46 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieB writes:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
That's a subjective opinion. There's really no science there.
A purposeful arrangement of parts.
Again, that's a subjective opinion, not science.
Then you haven't been paying attention. 1) If an undirected process could be shown to be able to produce the specified complexity (ie, functional arrangement of parts, specified information), then that would falsify ID's claims.
That would require an objective measure of specified complexity, which doesn't exist.
Lenski's experiment would probably be the best yet modern attempt, since it has run 75,000 generations or so (equating to what would be about 2 million years of human development), but even there nothing novel has appeared.
What is or isn't novel is based on subjective opinion, not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 3:46 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 38 of 507 (900331)
10-26-2022 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by WookieeB
10-25-2022 8:48 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieB writes:
DESIGN
dictionary.com definition
Webster definition
Cambridge dictionary definition
Longman dictionary definition
Argument from definition is not science, nor is it an experiment.
I never said I was trying to overturn science. You asked for a definition - that's all. I gave you many definitions, that's all. You didn't like my definitions, so I gave you more. Now at this point, if you still don't like it, you are either lazy, too stupid to understand basic language, or are incapable of being clear in your requests.
What we need are falsifiable and objective criteria and measurements of design. All we are getting is subjective opinions about what looks designed, or just bare assertions that something is designed.
On the flip side, you won't see any of us claiming that evolution is scientific because life looks evolved. That's meaningless. Instead, we have specific measurements we can make, such as phylogenetic signal, sequence conservation, or mutation frequencies. We have statistical tests and null hypotheses.
From what I can see, the argument for design boils down to the subjective opinion "It looks designed to me". That's it.
In the case of your "A" and "B", we are talking about a more directed and meaningful location. I already broke down some of the probabilities (being as conservative as I could in the space of possibilities) and already was hitting probabilities in the 1 in 10^15 range, and we had barely scratched the surface. So, for a purposeless chance of something at minimum 1 in a couple trillion (and not even adding in the above paragraph), AND considering you referenced the possible-purposeless-entry at least 3 times without blinking (further indicating it actually was a purposeful entry), it meets the criteria to be 1)unlikely, and 2) matching an independent patter. That is 'how I, specifically, would decide that A and B are purposeful'.
Every person is born with about 50 mutations in a 6 billion base diploid genome. The chances of getting those specific 50 mutations is 1 in 6 billion to the 50th power, or 1 in 8x10^488, which is a really big number. Therefore, you would claim that every single mutation seen in the human population is designed because they chances of each and every person being born with those exact mutations is so improbable. In fact, you would claim every single random process is actually designed because every single random process will produce extremely improbable results.
This is the Sharpshooter fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by WookieeB, posted 10-25-2022 8:48 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 39 of 507 (900333)
10-26-2022 5:40 PM


Where's the Beef?
What I find most interesting is why ID proponents strive so hard to deny that anything novel developed in experiments like those carried out by Lenski. If ID is true, why shouldn't we see something novel emerge in these types of experiments?
According to many ID proponents (e.g. Behe himself), design can be the result of some sort of guidance by a designer in otherwise natural processes, such as the guidance of mutations. So why shouldn't we see these guided mutations occurring in these experiments? Why shouldn't we see the emergence of irreducible complexity in Lenski's experiment? Why is the expectation that we won't see design?
Let's use the example of the bacterial flagellum. Behe seems to think that this structure could have come about through unlikely mutations in a process that would look the same as what we consider random mutations. If this is the case then we should see the slow buildup of mutations and structures until we get the full bacterial flagellum. So why don't we see this?

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 43 of 507 (901245)
11-07-2022 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by WookieeB
11-06-2022 1:53 AM


Taq writes:
I gave sufficient and satisfactory definitions of all those words. And that is all you asked for - definitions. You didn't ask for arguments relating to some other idea. There should be no call for me to write an essay as to the meaning of the words design, purpose, and purposeless when simple dictionary definitions suffice. My meaning of those words is the same as the many dictionary references I made.

Why do they have to be more?
Look at the title of this thread. In order for ID to be falsifiable you need objective criteria for determining purpose. Otherwise, all you have is a subjective opinion which does not get ID to being on the level of falsifiable or scientific.
In your opinion, life is designed. Ok. That's just an opinion, and one that science has no reason to take seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by WookieeB, posted 11-06-2022 1:53 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 45 of 507 (901261)
11-07-2022 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by WookieeB
11-06-2022 1:36 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
1) Cumulative selection could not have a target in mind. So there would be no direction it is aiming for.
Why would evolution need a target? This highlights one of the flaws of ID thinking.
ID thinking consistently suffers from the Sharpshooter fallacy. You are assuming that the adaptations we see were the targets, but they are simply where evolution landed. There is direction in evolution, but it is towards higher fitness and not towards a specific adaptation. This is why we often see different solutions to the same problem in independent lineages, such as the different camera eyes in vertebrates and cephalopods or the different wings on birds and bats.
2) Any selected ‘step’ would have to exist on its own, there is nothing that would ‘know’ where or if it was heading anywhere after that, so having any target in mind would be meaningless.
Nor does water know where downhill is, but it still flows downhill. Rain doesn't know that it's target is the Pacific ocean, but it still gets there. Natural processes didn't have the Grand Canyon as a target, yet it still produced it.
You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.
3) Except for the selected ‘step’ existing itself, that would do nothing to help make a multi-part complex system, as you would need all the parts (steps) together to build the larger system. (like the ABCVSNMYXFPZTLJIWDHGERKUOQ)
Why wouldn't adding parts create a multi-part complex system?
4) If you envision multiple separate ‘parts’ somehow arriving on scene together (unlikely), there would also have to be an accounting for how the parts interact, or fit together. It is unlikely that such parts would be ‘fitted’ for each other arriving separately and with no relation to each other, so getting them to match is a matter of unlikely times unlikely, and that extends exponentially for each part that you would consider for the larger complex system.
Nature is not limited by what you can imagine. You also assume that the modern parts are the same as the parts when they first arrived.
We could use the multipart complex mammalian middle ear as an example. It is made up of 3 highly adapted bones (i.e. the malleus, incus, and stapes). If you remove one the whole thing stops working. In the fossil record, we many transitional reptile to mammal fossils demonstrating how two bones in the reptilian lower jaw moved up into the mammalian middle ear.
Also, you reflexively challenge evolution as if ID is the automatic answer if other explanations fail. That is just a God of the Gaps. ID needs evidence of its own. It needs to explain where these things came from, and why we see specific patterns in nature, such as a nested hierarchy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by WookieeB, posted 11-06-2022 1:36 AM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by WookieeB, posted 12-05-2022 1:21 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 50 of 507 (903154)
12-05-2022 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by WookieeB
12-05-2022 1:21 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieB writes:
And it is your opinion that life came from unguided evolution.
Umm, no. I have objective evidence and testable theories.
For example, this thread:
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367
Can ID explain why transitions outnumber transversions when comparing the genomes of different species?
Perhaps you should ask that question of Richard Dawkins or dwise1. It is their model that uses a target.
How so?
ID thinking consistently suffers from the Sharpshooter fallacy.
quote:
An example please!
Example:
"For the alphabet example, let's start with generation 0 with characters in reverse order, 26 placeholders (ie: ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA) just to demonstrate 0% of a match starting out. Your example seems to model having all 26 letters potentially change or set at once, which is perfectly fine. So if the first change results in the Alphabet you would have just witnessed a 1.6244×10^37 event."
I agree with the first sentence. But the second sentence does not necessarily follow from the first. For one, you haven’t defined what the “problem” is or you are ad hoc making one up after the fact. Secondly, for all the power that evolution is supposed to have, I find it very amusing that your supposed “different” solutions are pretty much the same (ie, camera eyes). How is it that two (or often more) very different lineages independently developed highly complex systems that are basically the same, all via unguided processes. That is quite a coincidence! And yet it supposedly happens all the time with evolution.
They aren't the same eye. That's the point. The retina faces in a different direction. The cells that make up the retina are different. There are many, many differences.
So? Is anyone saying the Grand Canyon was designed? I don’t see the connection. Water following a law-like process is not a surprise. That a lot of water following laws carved out the Grand Canyon, though really cool, is no surprise either.
What is the probability that we would get a canyon that looks exactly like the Grand Canyon? Pretty improbable, right? Therefore, according to design theory, it had to be designed because it is so improbable.
Of course you need to add parts to create a multi-part complex system. But you need ALL of the parts there, and they have to have been fitted together properly before you have any system.
Those are claims without evidence. Can you demonstrate this for any IC system? Can you show us the entire history of that system in order to support your claim?
Take the mammalian middle ear. In reptiles there is just a single middle ear bone. In mammals there are three. We can actually see the transition of two jaw bones into the middle ear, creating a multi-part system. The original single bone system worked without the addition of two extra bones, and it still works in other vertebrates. The three bone system works better, and we can see how parts were added to this IC system.
Your claim quoted above is just a claim based on ignorance, and very little else.
So what. 2 bones does not hearing make. It is all assumed[ that the two bones moved from the jaw to the ear. Though of course that has not really been shown how. If anything, you have something in the roughly general location that is of the right substance, but nothing to show that they were the right shape or interacted from a chewing or jaw function to that of a hearing one. You still have a lot of detail to write from your imagined story.
We have the transitional fossils showing how 2 bones moved into the middle ear.
Really??? Exactly where have I done that? Swap the words evolution and ID, and I can say the exact same thing about you.
Where have you ever detailed the mechanisms of design and the steps of how IC systems were built?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by WookieeB, posted 12-05-2022 1:21 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 54 of 507 (903756)
12-16-2022 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-16-2022 3:31 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
You need to remember that Evolution had concluded that the change of freq alleles, COFA or change in freq allele, CIFA, is not guided intelligently or not controlled or not guided, or not manipulated.
What the hell is a freq allele?
Just so we are clear:
"An allele is one of two or more versions of DNA sequence (a single base or a segment of bases) at a given genomic location. "
Allele
Claiming that

"Rather, the evolutionary model is that all those features evolved together."

is one of the most unscientific claims, for it has no evidence whatsoever. How could a non-guided, non-manipulated COFA. CIFA could arrive and form, say, the eye or ears or nose?
Evolution is guided. It is guided by fitness. This is what allows beneficial alleles to increase in frequency, deleterious alleles to decrease in frequency, and neutral alleles to randomly fix. This is natural selection, and we can observe it occurring in real time.
Evolution and its supporters must first show that a non-manipulated COFA or CIFA is the SOP (standard operating procedure) for the change in biological world.
You need to show us what in the hell you are talking about.
Now, the old ID was correct to say that if there is no novel allele that will be formed by using COFA or CIFA, then, Evolution is not science. Where will Evolution get a new novel allele through COFA, CIFA?
New alleles are produced by mutations.
The reason humans are different from chimps is the mutations that separate our genomes. The sequence of our DNA genomes is different, and mutations are what cause those differences. Mutations are what cause the difference between alleles. This is Evolution 101. If you don't understand this basic concept then you have no reason to be criticizing the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-16-2022 3:31 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-16-2022 7:42 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 82 of 507 (903953)
12-19-2022 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-16-2022 7:42 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Fitness could guide? Really? There is no test for this. That is an unscientific claim.
It is tested all of the time. For example, expose bacteria to agar containing antibiotics and you can get selection for mutations that confer antibiotic resistance.
In the SW of the US we can also see selection for mutations that produce black fur in rock pocket mice:

Just a moment...
Populations of mice that live on black basalt volcanic landscapes have the dark fur allele selected for by nature. We can even determine which genes are mutated.
Beneficial? There is no test that "fitness" could distinguish beneficial X to non beneficial X, and the dividing line between the two Xs. It is a fairy tale. Provide test for these criteria.
That very thing was done in the paper on mouse fur color.
Are you talking about Twitter Files that were deleted like the files for Hunter Biden? There is no test that "fitness" could delete files, oh sorry, I mean, delete bad genes, since how do you know that fitness recognizes bad and good genes? Please, provide on how you arrive in this criteria.
Again, this very thing was done in the paper on mouse fur color. In areas with black volcanic rock the black fur color is beneficial and the light brown color is deleterious, so the mutations for black fur color are predominant in the black basalt population. The opposite is true for the light brown desert where the black fur color is selected against because it is deleterious.
Oh, a while ago you claimed "fitness" did it, and now you newly claimed that "natural selection" did it. Which one?
The word "fix" and "selection" imply control and manipulation or intention, but change in frequency alleles, CIFA and change in frequency alleles, COFA, are not controlled, as per Evolution's basis. So, which one are you talking about?
It is both. Mutations can be affected by fitness or fix neutrally.
You must provide first universal criteria and dividing line between fix and unfixed X, or selected and unselected X, etc., with numerical value or limit so that science could progress and could measure your claim.
If you don't know what these terms mean then you have no business criticizing the theory of evolution. Apparently, you don't even know what the theory says.
Where did mutation get the new alleles if allele is defined as "An allele is one of two or more versions of DNA sequence (a single base or a segment of bases) at a given genomic location". Remember that to avoid a 100% cloned individual, change is imminent. so, do not simply claim, show it where mutation get the new allele.
Compare the genomes of any two individuals. The differences are the mutations.
That is a claim that has no support. You are pre-suppositioning and pre-concluding that humans did come from chimps.
No, I'm not. There's mountains of evidence for shared ancestry between humans and chimps. For example:
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367
There are no transitional fossils and no missing links that fit to the description of COFA and CIFA.
Here are the transitional fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-16-2022 7:42 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-19-2022 9:50 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 83 of 507 (903954)
12-19-2022 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-18-2022 1:31 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
It is so easy to show how stupid Evolution is.
You don't even know what selection is. You don't even know how genetics works. How can you claim that Evolution is stupid if you don't even understand what it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-18-2022 1:31 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-19-2022 9:53 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 87 of 507 (904013)
12-20-2022 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-19-2022 9:50 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
I will reiterate that I am not saying that there are no changes in biological world, since when parents (as gen 1) produce 4 individual offsprings (gen 2), anybody could see that they are not 100% perfectly cloned. There are differences, but they do not evolve, they just interrelate.
Interrelate? What is that?
Also, if you understood the theory of evolution you would already know that evolution occurs at the level of the population, not at the level of the individual organism. Again, it is quite clear that you don't understand the theory of evolution.
That is very basic. Since words always convey meaning, especially when you use that in science. Thus, what is your criteria and limits between selected to non-selected, and their numerical limit or value?
Selection is a statistically significant departure from random fixation and random distribution.
For example, the case of the brown and black mice.
If they were randomly distributed across their range we would expect to find as many black mice in the light brown desert as we do in regions covered in black basalt rocks. We don't. Instead, we find a really high concentration of black mice in areas covered with black basalt rocks and none in the light brown desert. The same is true of the light brown mice. We can even show that the two populations of different colored mice interbreed, and that the black allele is dominant over the light brown allele. Even though there is free interbreeding we don't find the black allele spreading out into the light brown desert. We can even track the mutation for black fur in these populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-19-2022 9:50 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-21-2022 5:44 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 88 of 507 (904015)
12-20-2022 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-19-2022 9:53 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
I just do not buy the stupidity of Evolution for I do not want to be intellectually stupid.
You don't even understand how evolution works, or how genetics works. How can you say something is stupid if you don't even understand it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-19-2022 9:53 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-21-2022 5:36 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 104 of 507 (904130)
12-22-2022 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-21-2022 5:36 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
I knew how Evolution works, that is why I knew how to criticize and replace Evolution.
No, you don't. You don't even understand what a mutation or an allele is. You don't know how natural selection works. You don't even understand the basics of the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-21-2022 5:36 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 105 of 507 (904132)
12-22-2022 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-21-2022 5:44 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Interrelate is the new explanation in Biology, for change of/in frequency alleles and the origin of species.
There's no such thing as a frequency allele.
I knew Evolution and its claim as you had stated, but I do not even care since I always relied on reality, not on someone's invention of reality like Evolution.
In reality, there is no such thing as a frequency allele. Apparently, you aren't basing your ideas on reality. You also don't understand what mutations are or how natural selection works, both of which are part of reality.
Again, what you are witnessing and seeing in both black and white rats are not evolution, but simply interrelation at works, to save their lives. rats will never become another new species, they will always stay as rats.
How does interrelation produce what we are observing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-21-2022 5:44 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-23-2022 3:12 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 120 of 507 (904199)
12-23-2022 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-23-2022 3:12 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
I will repeat that I do not care about the stupid explanations of Evolution about mutation or natural selections, since they are all wrong anyway.
The problem is you don't even know what mutations or natural selection are, much less what any theory says about them.
WHY WRONG? Because Darwin did not have criteria between control to un-control change in frequency alleles.
There's no such thing as frequency alleles. That is something you made up.
I did not say frequency alleles, I said change in freq alleles, and I do not care. Evolution is wrong anyway.
There's no such thing as freq alleles, either. You don't even know what Evolution says, so how can you know it is wrong?
Interrelation, from Biological Interrelation uses intelligence to deal with life and living organisms.
The main mechanism is Intelligent Selection, and not Natural Selection. Nature does not select.
Based on what evidence? What are the criteria you are using?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-23-2022 3:12 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024