Let’s Put This One To Rest Please

_{Barry Arrington

October 3, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Elizabeth Liddle from a prior post: “Darwinian hypotheses make testable predictions and ID hypotheses (so far) don’t.”

This statement is breathtakingly false. Let us take just one example. For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.

Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.

EL, you are entitled to your own private opinion. You are not entitled to your own private facts. And when you make it up as you go like this, be sure you will be called out.

Comments

@ UB LOL!equate65_{October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank,
I am confused by your argument.
There’s no reason to be confused, Mark. It’s all rather simple. Here is how it goes: - - - - - - - - - - - - - ID Proponent of yore: Protein synthesis is semiotic. ID Critic of yore: No it’s not. It’s purely chemical. You’re lying for Jesus in an effort to install a theocracy to control the world. ID Proponent of yore: No really, it’s semiotic. ID Critic of yore: Stupid creationist crank, when we say “information in the genome”, it’s just a metaphor. Idiot. - - - - - - - - - - - - - ID Proponent today: Protein synthesis is semiotic. ID Critic today: No it’s not, it purely chemical. You liars have been saying this same crap for 50 years (HT: Mike Elzinga). ID Proponent today: No really, I can use completely accepted observations within biology to demonstrate it. Not only that, but logical analysis demonstrates that information-based replication can actually work no other way. And not only that, but there are certain observable physical features of protein synthesis that not only link it universally to pre-existing organization, but also to higher intelligence. Mark Frank: Well if it’s a logical necessity, then it’s certainly not a prediction of design proponents, it’s a prediction of self-replication. And I don’t believe it anyway.Upright BiPed_{October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

@ 41 I believe what ID was arguing against, is the assertion by some defenders of Darwinism, that Junk DNA is to be expected and used this as an argument against ID.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/junk_dna_and_the_darwinist_res046611.html
Moran:
Excerpt: "This one is more contentious. There are many scientists who think that much of what we currently call "junk DNA" actually has a function. Even though they might be atheists, their prediction is the same as the creationists. I'm convinced that most of our genome is truly junk. I predict that the creationist prediction will turn out to be wrong. I wonder if it means that intelligent design creationism will be falsified?" http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-intelligent-design-creationism.html

Excerpt: "But what I found astonishing was why it’s so hard for people to accept that much of DNA must indeed be junk. Even to someone like me who is not an expert, the existence of junk DNA appeared perfectly normal. I think that junk DNA shouldn’t shock us at all if we accept the standard evolutionary picture. The standard evolutionary picture tells us that evolution is messy, incomplete and inefficient" http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2012/09/13/three-reasons-to-like-junk-dna/
equate65_{October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

oops "would cease to be conserved" not would "cases to be conserved" in my 41 above.Elizabeth B Liddle_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

#35 UB
The fact that life replicates itself was rather obvious to everyone, yet, ID predicted the underlying reality and materialism resisted it … good call Mark.
I am confused by your argument. You claim ID predicts the existence of semiotic systems in life. Presumably you agree that in general design does not predict the presence of semiotic systems in the thing that is designed – given the numerous counterexamples. So there is something special about life that means ID predicts semiotic systems whereas non-design theories do not predict semiotic systems. The only thing you have offered is that replication requires semiotic systems. If replication always required semiotic systems then semiotic systems would be predicted by any theory of life that accepted life replicates. So it is hardly a prediction of ID. So presumably you are arguing that replication requires semiotic systems if it is designed but does not require semiotic systems if it is not designed? Is that your point? It seems rather an odd claim.Mark Frank_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

#34 Mapou
I believe that the ID camp is wrong about this. We can extend the design hypothesis to include the intelligent reuse of existing designs.
As I said - there are lots of versions of ID around. If you make some assumptions about the motive and methods of the designer then indeed it becomes falsifiable. In your case it seems to rest on the amount of reuse versus reinvention. Perhaps it would be fair to say that examples of reinvention count against design whereas examples of reuse count for it?Mark Frank_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

Much non functional DNA is non-coding (but not all) but not all non-coding DNA is non-functional, as was known long before Ohno introduced the word "junk", and indeed referred to in Ohno's paper. And his paper did not put forward the "junk" as a prediction but as a conclusion, from the fact that given mutation rates, mutations of useful genes are much lower than would be expected. Indeed he actually proposed that the remainder of the DNA may serve the "useful but negative function" of spacing out the actual useful genes, and thus reducing linkage between genes. Clearly by no stretch of the imagination would an "Darwinian" theory predict that all DNA must code for proteins. And I'm still waiting to see any citation from any scientific paper that put forward non-functional DNA as a "prediction" from Darwinian theory. Darwinian theory would explain it handily, but not predict it, except in the sense that it would predict that functional sequences not needed in the current environment would cases to be conserved as Ohno suggested ("fossil remains" of "extinct genes" in the genome. And indeed this is confirmed.Elizabeth B Liddle_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

to be clear: “junk” doesn’t mean “non-coding”
From Wikipedia
In genomics and related disciplines, noncoding DNA sequences are components of an organism's DNA that do not encode protein sequences. Some noncoding DNA is transcribed into functional noncoding RNA molecules (e.g. transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs), while others are not transcribed or give rise to RNA transcripts of unknown function. The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. For example, over 98% of the human genome is noncoding DNA, while only about 2% of a typical bacterial genome is noncoding DNA. Initially, a large proportion of noncoding DNA had no known biological function and was therefore sometimes referred to as "junk DNA", particularly in the lay press. Some sequences may have no biological function for the organism, such as endogenous retroviruses. However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have important biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences. Other noncoding sequences have likely, but as-yet undetermined, functions. (This is inferred from high levels of homology and conservation seen in sequences that do not encode proteins but, nonetheless, appear to be under heavy selective pressure.) The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project suggested in September 2012 that over 80% of DNA in the human genome "serves some purpose, biochemically speaking". This conclusion however is strongly criticized by other scientists.
There is more if you want to read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNAjerry_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Just to be clear: "junk" doesn't mean "non-coding". Plenty of DNA sequences do not code for proteins, but for RNA sequences with regulatory or enzyme roles. The reason some DNA sequences are inferred to be non-functional is that they are not highly conserved - large variations are seen without apparent phenotypic consequences. This was why Ohno coined the term "junk". So if it is an ID prediction that there will be no non-functional DNA, I would like to see both the rationale for that prediction and the test for it.Elizabeth B Liddle_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

A few qeustions. How do you get from ID to the prediction of no junk. Would a junky genome lower the probability that ID it true? How (on earth...) would you get from "Darwinism" being true to the prediction of much junk DNA? As Elizabet says, the accumulation of nearly neutral junky sequences if very un-Darwinian. Finally, why do you think genomes aren't full of junk. (The best available evidence suggest they are)wd400_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

One of the things I teach is quantitative methods. One of the first exercises I give students, is to to derive a testable hypothesis from their theory, and draw a diagram of what their data will (probably) look like if their hypothesis is true, and what it will (probably) look like if their hypothesis is not true. I would like someone from the ID camp to construct such a diagram for an ID hypothesis.Elizabeth B Liddle_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Barry: I presume me mean me (it's Liddle, not Little). You write:
Let us take just one example. For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.
Sorry Barry that that example simply does not work. Darwinian theory would only predict unused sequences of DNA were it to be the case that unused sequences had no metabolic or other cost. It could certainly account for it - were we to see it, it would be evidence that unused DNA has little metabolic or other cost, and would be hard to explain (but not impossible) under an ID hypothesis. But it it's not something that Darwinian evolution would set out to predict. On the other hand what Darwinian theory would probably predict is that we would see homologous DNA sequences in organisms that were closely related as determined by morphological characters, and be able to trace knockouts (the GULO knockout in primates being a famous example) down the same inferred lineages. Whereas ID could account for anything, because the proposed ID is unconstrained. You can't say that ID predicts "no unused DNA" - why should it? It might be there waiting to be activate for some future need, as in the front-loading hypothesis. Or, for that matter, it may contain a coded message from the designer (cf Craig Venter) that we simply haven't decoded yet. And that is my point. Until ID makes a specific positive hypothesis, it can't go head to head with any non-design positive hypothesis. But lest you think I am claiming that science shows that ID is false, I am not. I am claiming that so far ID has not produced a falsifiable hypothesis, whereas they are produced all the time by evolutionary biologists. It's the stock in trade of the scientific method. And many are falsified. Famously, the prediction that genetic phylogenies would map near-perfectly on to morphological phylogenies was falsified, and instead, a complex map of genetic transfer between lineages was revealed, contrary to any prediction made under Common Descent. This meant a whole new hypothesis had to be developed to account for this "horizontal gene transfer". And tested. And was. I will certainly not "make up [my] own facts". And I will be first in line to cite Darwinian hypotheses that have been falsified. But not the "junk DNA" hypothesis. Nor will I accept that "no junk DNA" was a positive prediction of ID. It is neither positive, nor is it a prediction. Were it to be established (per impossibile) that a section of DNA had no function, it still would not falsify ID. It would be child's play to think of a reason why an ID might have inserted unused DNA into the genome. It's a lot harder to figure out why an ID might have disabled a vitamin C gene in a specific lineage, including our own. Yet harder if we also postulate separate creation for humans. And consider the human suffering that has resulted from it.Elizabeth B Liddle_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

If that is true then semiotic systems are a prediction arising from the fact life reproduces itself – not from it being designed.
The fact that life replicates itself was rather obvious to everyone, yet, ID predicted the underlying reality and materialism resisted it … good call Mark. Materialists have been skating the semiotic reality of genetic translation for decades, and like you, they continue to do so to this very day. This stems from the physical requirements of a semiotic system, and their prior commitment that those requirements – which include a relationship which cannot be locally derivable from physical law – must somehow become established by physical law alone.Upright BiPed_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
So for you the design hypothesis is something on the lines: Life was designed by a designer who wanted organisms to flourish and disliked reinventing the wheel. This is different from the common statement that ID makes no assumptions about the motives or powers of the designer.
I believe that the ID camp is wrong about this. We can extend the design hypothesis to include the intelligent reuse of existing designs. But you are mistaken that the ID hypothesis makes no assumptions about the designers. The hypothesis postulates that the designers are intelligent and had the means to perform genetic engineering. This is what the I stands for in ID.
It does indeed lead to predictions but would also be falsified if we can find examples of life which appear to reinvent the wheel – agreed?
Not at all. If an exhaustive genomic search of all lifeforms failed to uncover instances of design reuse (including lateral inheritance), then the hypothesis would be falsified. The hypothesis would not be scientific if such a search could not be conducted but we now have the means to do it. It is always possible that there are a few cases of reinvention, especially if there were many designers but that would not falsify the hypothesis.Mapou_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

#31 Mapou So for you the design hypothesis is something on the lines: Life was designed by a designer who wanted organisms to flourish and disliked reinventing the wheel. This is different from the common statement that ID makes no assumptions about the motives or powers of the designer. It does indeed lead to predictions but would also be falsified if we can find examples of life which appear to reinvent the wheel - agreed?Mark Frank_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

#30 UB
Life must organize matter in order to reproduce itself. Paintings don’t.
If that is true then semiotic systems are a prediction arising from the fact life reproduces itself - not from it being designed.Mark Frank_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @28:
And suppose the designer rather likes reinventing the wheel and repeating things? Then it would be intelligent to include redundant and non-functional items would it not? Or are you about to make some assumptions about the designer’s motives?
You are mistaken. What you are calling an assumption is actually the hypothesis. And ID theory can postulate that the designers were intelligent and did not like to reinvent the wheel. From this postulate, the theory predicts that design reuse will be observed in nature in the form of a hierarchical organization. The theory further predicts that design reuse will also result in lateral design transfers between distant species. This is what is observed.Mapou_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

There are countless examples of designed objects which do not include semiotic systems (the Mona Lisa being one). Therefore the hypothesis life was designed does not predict that there will be a semiotic system in the thing being designed – life.
Life must organize matter in order to reproduce itself. Paintings don't.Upright BiPed_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

UB #27 You were talking about ID predicting that DNA would be semiotic i.e. that there would be something semiotic in what the designer creates not in the designer itself. There are countless examples of designed objects which do not include semiotic systems (the Mona Lisa being one). Therefore the hypothesis life was designed does not predict that there will be a semiotic system in the thing being designed - life. (I also disagree that design requires a semiotic system at any stage - but that is a different issue)Mark Frank_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

#26 Mapou
It’s the intelligent thing to do. We can expect the same of life’s intelligent designers.
And suppose the designer rather likes reinventing the wheel and repeating things? Then it would be intelligent to include redundant and non-functional items would it not? Or are you about to make some assumptions about the designer's motives?Mark Frank_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

are you saying that it is not possible to direct matter without creating a semiotic system?
You asked me to suppose a designer did not want to use a semiotic system in organizing life. Okay, if there is no semiosis, then there is no translated information to created effects beyond chance/physical law alone. That basically leaves you with baby birds miraculously appearing in their nests looking just like their parents.
Pray where is the semiotic system in the Mona Lisa?
The most relevant answer to an irrelevant question: In the vision and sensory/motor system of the artist Leonardo da VinciUpright BiPed_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank @19:
You make a good point. Really it is almost impossible to make any predictions about what a designer might produce without making even more detailed assumptions about the nature of the designer.
The only inference we need to make about the intelligent designer(s) of life on earth is that they were intelligent and had the ability to do complex genetic design and engineering. We have a pretty good working definition of intelligence. We, humans, don't like to reinvent the wheel over and over. We go to great lengths to use existing designs whenever we can. It's the intelligent thing to do. We can expect the same of life's intelligent designers. Indeed, this is what we observe in the design of living organisms. Design reuse is the reason that lifeforms are organized hierarchically.Mapou_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

What happened to Jonathan Wells? He has not published anything since 2011. Does he have any plans for a new book?TheisticEvolutionist_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Excerpt: " the argument of a largely non-functional genome is invoked by some evolutionary theorists in the debate against the proposition of intelligent design of life on earth, particularly with respect to the origin of humanity. In essence, the argument posits that the presence of non-protein-coding or so-called 'junk DNA' that comprises 90% of the human genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris by blind Darwinian evolution, and argues against intelligent design. Finally, we suggest that resistance to these (ENCODE) findings is further motivated in some quarters by the use of the dubious concept of junk DNA as evidence against intelligent design."
http://www.thehugojournal.com/content/pdf/1877-6566-7-2.pdfequate65_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Indeed, checking, attesting to, and insisting on their credentials!Axel_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Everything Elizabeth says, particularly when said bombastically, needs to studied. I think she may have spent to long studying Scotsmen's kilts. I'm not saying anything more than that.Axel_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

You make a good point. Really it is almost impossible to make any predictions about what a designer might produce with making even more detailed assumptions about the nature of the designer.
Perhaps somethings are hard to get at but the designer often leaves forensic evidence that something was designed. Motive for the particular design or what the design is supposed to accomplish may be much harder to get at than the actual workings of a specific design. Right now we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the workings of the universe and in our corner of the universe, the workings of the genome and the epigenetics of a cell as to their function. It would be hard to know the full intent of the designer at this primitive stage of understanding. We can only marvel at how complex the design was and how smoothly it runs.jerry_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

This getting more and more hilarious.Axel_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Just noticed a typo in my #14 - it should read: #10 Jerry You make a good point. Really it is almost impossible to make any predictions about what a designer might produce without making even more detailed assumptions about the nature of the designer.Mark Frank_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

#16 UB - are you saying that it is not possible to direct matter without creating a semiotic system? Pray where is the semiotic system in the Mona Lisa?Mark Frank_{October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply