thecountryshrink
DB WilliamsA recent commenter wrote:
An inference is useful in so much as it makes a prediction that can be tested. If the prediction succeeds, we then have some validating evdence. If the prediction fails, we then have some invalidating evidence. Once an inference is very strongly supported by a wide and diverse range of validating evidence, it becomes knowledge.
Intelligent Deisign (I use the word Deisign with precise intent) makes no such predictions. It is not a theory. It is a vague guess that can be neither proven or disproven.
And when you read the basis for cosmology, it most definitely does not sound like religion.
Intelligent design makes numerous predictions, which can be tested. In fact, much recent evidence supports intelligent design over the predictions of purely naturalist evolution. For a long time, evolutionists have pointed to ‘vestigial organs,’ organs that were deemed to be evolutionary hold overs. Serving no purpose…. But the recent evidence has demonstrated so far that nearly all of these claimed vestigial organs serve a purpose. This is consistent with intelligent design theory. For years, evolutionists have referred to ‘junk DNA,’ purporting that much of our DNA is a byproduct of evolution and serves no purpose. Recent evidence has demonstrated that prediction to be false. Intelligent design makes a great many predictions: precision in universal constants, functional complexity, the precise nature of chemistry and physics allowing for the existence of life, functionality of ALL DNA and organs, the existence of life forms that defy otherwise apparent laws of nature (e.g., entropy), and the teleological abilities of humans to infer design when it is evident in a majority of cases (when the functional complexity is high enough this is 100% of the time).
So you quote, “All that is gold does glitter – but not all that glitters is gold.”
And I quote, “Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”
Just because you can’t see the designer, you infer non-existence. Yet, everything else that appears designed, you infer design because you can see it. Even a person who has never seen a car built, and has no knowledge of cars, could be reasonably expected to infer design.
Filed under: Intelligent Design, Religion | Tagged: atheism, Christianity, design, God, Intelligent Design
You don’t understand what counts as a ‘prediction’ under critical thinking.
If a prediction is not falsifiable, it is not a valid prediction. A prediction validates a theory by showing that something that could not have otherwise been predicted happened, and because of this the prediction being true is more likely than the prediction being false. The more unlikely the prediction is to be proven wrong before the experiment takes place, the more convincing the validation will be if it happens.
Conversely, the less likely the prediction is to be proven wrong before the experiment takes place, the less convincing the validation will be if it happens.
This is why falsifiability is important. In order to count as a convincing, valid prediction, it must be put forward in such a way that it could be proven wrong.
Intelligent Deisign does not do this. All ID does is to retroft existing data into an idea. That is a neccesary step when trying to turn an idea into a valid theory. But alone, it is not sufficient.
The idea must also make valid predictions.
Evolution can be proven wrong. If fossils are found that are significantly out of range of the predictions of evolution, evolution is wrong. Give me fossil bunnies in the cambrian, or fossil primates in the cretacious, or modern-day cow fossils that are older than auroch fossils.
There is no way to prove Intelligent Design wrong, because it does not make valid, testable predictions. Hence, it is an unprovable guess – not a theory.
The best Intelligent Deisign can hope for is to say ‘this piece of evidence cannot be explained by evolutionary theory’. Usually, there turns out to be an evolutionary explanation anyway – but even if it was true that evolution can’t explain a given piece of evidence, this doesn’t mean that Intelligent Deisign is right.
For Intelligent Deisign to be proven right, it must make a prediction of a future observation – that is, an observation hat has not happened yet – in such a way that, should that observation not occur as predicted, Intelligent Deisign would be shown to be incorrect.
Evolutionary theory does this all the time – and it’s always validated by the evidence. But to the best of my knowledge, Intelligent Deisign has never made such a prediction, and I can’t even work out what such a prediction would even look like.
All that is gold does not glitter – but all that glitters is not gold.
All that is designed is complex – but all that is complex is not designed.
Based on intelligent design, I made those predictions before it was proven to be the case. Whether you accept this or not is up to you. I made several falsifiable predictions.
On fasifiability, Dembski has a good writeup that addresses your point. He asserts that ID is falsifiable whereas evolution is not.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm
There is a certainly level of functional complexity that is always designed despite your appeal to the ‘not all that glitters is gold’ argument. I suppose next you’ll want to make the snowflake argument….
I’ll open the reference and get started with the reading. However, before doing that I can state that you’re flat out wrong when you claim that
Evolution is falsifiable: Fossil bunnies in the cambrian woud do the trick.
Still, I’ll save it until I’ve read the article.
I am interested in support for your claims about specific prediction from ID ‘theory’ and their validation by testing against reality. If this is the case then there will be published material (in credible scientific journals – not books or web sites which don’t receive proper peer review).
Could you please give me a list of the papers containing the material you claim?
Sorry for the double-post. I mangled my blockquote tags, and I’m a stickler for good formatting. Can you delete my previous comment, please?
Here’s some problems with the article:
This is flat out wrong. Darwin did not test design and invalidate it. Darwin hypothesized about the mechanisims of naturalistic evolution and validated some of those hypothesese through observation and analysis.
That’s the first problem with this article. In the opening paragraph the author pretends to be arguing against Eugenie Scott, but as of this paragraph he is starting to argue against a position that she does not hold.
More to come as I find it.
Hmm… Minor semantic objection here. Calling the modern understanding of evolution ‘Darwinism’ is a bit fishy. It makes it sound like good ol’ Chuck was the alpha and the omega of evolution. Darwin is one of the giants of evolution, this is true. But we’ve moved on a lot since his day, and Darwin would probably be astonished at the progress we’ve made since his time.
Evolution does not depend on the authority of Charles Darwin. It depends on the evidence.
More to come. I’m reading the article at work, so I can only do drips and drabs at a time. I’ll get there.
Bah! Again!
My kingdom for an edit/preview button.
Heh. This paragraph is wrong in two ways.
Firstly, have a squiz at the current research on the Evolution of flagella. This research may not have been peformed before the article was written, so the author can be excused on that count.
However, the research on the evolution of the flagella has been done. It’s not irreducibly complex.
Now, the response from an Intelligent Deisigner will be to either a) deny the evolutionary explanation for flagella, or b) move the posts. After all, just because flagella could have evolved, there’s still other things that evolution hasn’t explained yet. Any one of them could prove to be irreducibly complex. We can posit that things are irreducilby complex faster than biologists can prove that they’re not, so we’ll always have a valid theory, right guys? Right?
Wrong. By the author’s own argument, Intelligent Deisign is either falsified or unfalsifiable.
Here he’s just flat out wrong.
Taxonomy, embryology, paleontology and the study of genetics all make similar, mutually reinforcing predictions about how creatures evolved. At this point in the game, the various groupings are pretty damn solid. There’s still room for refinement near the edges – for example, the current investigations into epigenetics.
However, if we find something blatantly out of place, evolution is toast.
The idea with evolution is that primitive fish slowly changed into primitive amphibians, which slowly changed into primitive reptiles, which slowly changed into mammals, which slowly changed into primates, which slowly changed into humans. If you go back down the tree and turn off at any other point, you get a different modern-day species of animal.
If you find a primate fossil that was around before reptiles evolved, evolution is toast. This counts for any one of the clades. Find me a fossil from a given clade that is significantly more ancient than the parent clade, and evolution will have been falsified.
This has never happend. Evolution has been validated to the point that we can safely consider it to be factual.
Leaving work to go home, now. Will continue on the article when I get home.
Hmm… I lost the flagella link in my repost. Oops.
Back again.
Haven’t got more to say on this than I have already covered, but I’ll try to wrap up a general response.
His argument basically boils down to this: Irreducible complexity does not falisify evolution (nor should it). Therefore, evolution is unfalsifiable.
This is total hogswash.
Irreducible complexity – as it is currently understood – can’t of itself disprove evolution. This is because ‘irreducible complexity’ is a fancy way of saying ‘we don’t know how or when this got here’. It’s a cover for ‘we’re ignorant of how this got here’. Ignorance of a subject isn’t evidence for or against anything. Period.
If, on the other hand, an Intelligent Deisigner came along and said ‘Aha! I have discovered vestigial organ X in such-and-such a species! X could not have evolved for such-and-such a reason. I think that the way X got here because the designer gave such-and-such a species X – all in one go – under Y circumstances.
Therefore, if we take such-and-such a species that doesn’t have organ X, and put it in Y circumstances, the designer will then give X to such-and-such a species all in one go – there will be no transition, and so evolution will be disproved.
If our Intelligent Deisign proponent made such a claim, and then this claim was validated – this really would falsify evolution.
Now, I’m sure you think that this is unfair – that Intelligent Deisign need not predict that the Deisigner would perform for us in such a way. And you’re right, It need not.
I’m just trying to establish the difference between:
a) Pointing at something complex and saying ‘We’re ignorant of how that got here, so evolution is wrong’, and;
b) Actually making a falsifying prediction that could not be arrived at through evolutionary theory and then validating that prediction through experiment.
Option b) has a good chance of falsifying evolution. Option a) can’t falsify evolution for two reasons. Firstly, ignorance is not evidence for or against anything – ingorance just isn’t evidence, full stop. Secondly, even if evolution turned out to be wrong, Intelligent Deisign would still need to be validated by some kind of falsifiable prediction in order to be a valid theory. Intelligent Deisign doesn’t win by default on the unlikely event that evolution is proven to be incorrect.
Let’s see – the next section is on just this topic, funnily enough. CONFIRMATION. I can’t wait.
Wow. This guy just keeps getting worse.
Here he takes the merest twig out of the forest of evidence in support of evolution. Then he says ‘It’s just a twig! That doesn’t account for anything on its own! Evolution isn’t supported by significant evidence!’
OF COURSE EVOLUTION ISN’T SUPPORTED MERELY BY INSECTS DEVELOPING INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE YOU FOOL!!!!!
(Note: That outburst isn’t directed at you, Shrink. It’s aimed at Dembski)
No evidence, huh?
Evolution has much more going for it than mere small-scale change. Small-scale change was the hint that gave us the idea of evolution on a large scale. Evolution on a large scale is very, very well supported by the evidence.
Pulling out twigs and then pointing out that a single twig cannot prove anything as large as evolution doesn’t even qualify as a logical fallacy. It’s not even wrong. It’s just stupid.
My opinion of Dembski is plummeting. Hmm… I suppose it’s time to see what he thinks the evidence for Intelligent Deisign actually is – he’s been building up to it quite steadily.
Dembski spends two paragraphs establishing the SETI search for prime numbers. Fair enough. Then he throws out this doozie:
Let’s just check that again – it might have gone past you.
No. The thing that would be significant about recieving a sequence of prime numbers from the depths of space would be that it came from the depths of space as a form of electromagnetic radiation.
Le sigh.
However, he then creates a very weak metaphor between finding prime numbers coded into electromagnetic radiation being emitted from the depths of space – and finding something on our planet that is ‘irreducibly complex’ – which, as I have already mentioned, is just a cover for ’something we cannot currently explain’. He even ties this in with the favorite dodge of Intelligent Deisign proponents – the bogus probability calculation.
The problem with the probability calcluation is that it says ‘look here – this thing is really complex’. But complexity is precisely what evolution sets out to explain in the first place. Trying to use complexity to argue against evolution is like using the fact that objects fall to argue against gravity. It’s not even wrong.
Back to it.
Got distracted. This is the last post for the night. Still two more sections to go. I still have PREDICTABILITY and EXPLANATORY POWER to get through. Ugh. This is getting to be less and less fun by the minute.
I don’t really feel the need to reproduce Dembski’s closing remarks on the subject of CONFIRMATION. He really just goes on with more of the same, relying on the reader not noticing the false analogy between pulsations of sequential prime numbers in the electromagnetic spectrum and biological complexity.
Dembski’s argument goes like this:
1. The following sequence:
|-|||-|||||-|||||||-|||||||||||-
Is one possible configuration from 32^2 states. This works out to odds of 1/1024, or something in the range of 0.0009765625%
2. 0.0009765625% odds are really small.
3. Therefore, sequence 1. must be designed.
This falls apart, because ANY random collection of 32 lines and dashes will have exactly the same probability. By Dembski’s argument, white noise is just as unlikely as the sequence of primes.
He’s trying to infer the information content of a string based on how improbable that string is. That’s just stupid.
The real reason sequence 1. is significant is because the sequence of primes has a much higher level of information than white noise. To define my term, I am using ‘information’ in the sense used by Shannon in information theory. I haven’t touched information theory in a very long time – my BSc. in computer science was a few years ago now – but I still remember the gist of how it works. Mark Titchener was one of my lecturers – though I doubt he would remember me at this point. You don’t understand much of what a man like Titchener tries to teach you about IT – but in the course of a few semesters he at least manages to communicate what IT isn’t.
And before you jump up and down, it is mathematically and computationally demonstrable that evolutionary processes can – without intelligetn design – increase information in the sense that I am using.
So once again, his fancy metaphor is just a giant smoke-screen to cover up the fact that he’s basing his argument in favor of Intelligent Deisign on his personal ignorance as to how flagella – or other so-called ‘irreducibly complex’ organic structures could have evolved.
I’m happy to go into IT in more detail if you like. But IT is pretty dry to non-computery types, so I’ll pass for now. If you want me to give more information on this, I’d actually be pretty keen to go into it. Just say the word.
That’s it for tonight. I’ll swing back again tomorrow. If you feel that I’m harassing you on the topic, just say the word and I’ll piss off.
Ken, the papers do exist, but they are somewhat scant. I believe part of the reason for this is an entrenched mind-set in the biological sciences against Intelligent Design and favoring evolution. Peer review, at it’s best, may help to insure that better studies are published, at it’s average, it allows for the reviewers to express their bias, and at it’s worst, it is nothing more than a political tool.
That said you can find some information here:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design-peer-reviewed-faq.htm
Here is a list of ID articles in peer reviewed journals (source EvoWiki).
S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,‿ Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,‿ Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,‿ Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,‿ International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775. Citation count: 1.
M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,‿ Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417.I.. Citation count: 1.
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,‿ Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002):325-342.
You say:
You mean to tell me that this is not done by evolution?? Please tell me how evolution could be proven wrong.
Ubiquitious Che, if you read my first article, you would find that ID theory does not per se disagree with many aspects of evolution (i.e., natrual selection).
Please tell me what you personally stand to lose, or what is the risk to you, if ID is given some credence in the scientific community. Or why it’s so important to you to fight against it.
Evolution proposes a few basic mechanisms. Random mutations, natural selection, and mate selection. Apart from that, there should be no characteristics that exist that do not meet these criteria. How can this be falsified?
ID makes no such assumption. ID agrees with natural selection. But why are the millions of intermediary fossils lacking?
And mammal fossils have been found coexisting with dinosaurs. But that’s beside the point for ID.
You quote frequently, “All that is gold does not glitter – but all that glitters is not gold.”
But you ignore that all organisms have at least one parent. Please explain the origin of the initial creature that was able to give rise to subsequent creatures. Evolution cannot explain this. Also, your assertion that that cosmology does not attempt to explain what happened before the “big bang” is blatantly false. There may be some cosmologists who take this position, but my explanation of the cosmologists viewpoint is essentially accurate.
ID does not assume the 4 variables that are important for evolution as being the only important variables (mate selection, natural selection, random mutation, and survival of the fittest).
Years and years of evolutionary theory impeded progress in genetics and medicine because of the assumption of vestigial organs and ‘junk DNA.’ The explanatory power of a theory is important, but also the practically applied power is also significant. What threat do you perceive in the notion or theory that the characteristics of life forms have a ‘designed’ purpose?
Ubiquitous Che, please feel free to go as deep into computers as you desire. That is my second career. Or it was my first career. You’ll not lose me with any aspect of computer science, math, or statistics. So please feel free.
When you think about testability, I think you have to consider the possibility of a designer with either position that you take. If you take a purely naturalistic evolution perspective, you are trying to come up with theories or evidence that disprove what is the obvious and common sense observation that things with a certainly level of functional complexity are designed. This is implicit in the theory of evolution… One of the basic underlying philosophical assumptions. Intelligent design has a different basic philosophical assumption–that there is a designer.
So both theories have a basic problem. How to address the possibility of a designer. Most often, purely naturalistic evolutionists dismiss this out of hand, “It’s not science!!” Because their starting point with science uses the same philosophical premise, “There is no designer. There is no God.”
The more I think about it, it may be as difficult as Dembski writes to disprove the existence of a designer. But this is also a problem for science and for naturalistic evolution. Because it goes to the basic assumption. You can frankly come down on either side of the issue. There is evidence on either side, but with either position you take, it is a position of faith. Meaning that you can never prove it for certain.
But back to the utility of naturalistic assumptions versus design assumptions. In what way has a naturalistic assumption of evolution resulted in demonstrably positive discoveries that are beneficial to society? If you can’t point to anything, then it is just an interesting mental excercise and nothing more.
Che,
Bunny fossils in the “wrong place” assumes that we have a orderly strata. We don’t we have “living fossils”, and ” Lazarus Taxon”, and living animals which were thought to be extinct due to the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.
Adding to that, if we do find a rabbit in the “wrong place2, it would not falsify evolution because darwinists would say that there had been “contamination” or something like that.
Dating mistakes have happened quite a great deal, so fossils would not falsify the belief that the living world is the result of unguided, impersonal forces of nature.
Secondly, how come you don’t give a falsifiable criteria within Biology? why did you go to Paleontology?
Thanks for the list of peer-reviewed papers. I was familiar with several of them and have looked at the others – to the extent possible without subscription (usually abstracts can be accessed).
None of them provide the evidence you claim – usually being about aspects of evolution, not intelligent design. Meyer’s paper was different, being only a review and obviously aimed at discrediting evolutionary science – by argument, not data. It has rightly been criticised by the journal’s editors for its quality. They point out that the review process was subverted in this case and have since tightened up their processes for ensuring quality.
I will post specific comments on these papers, and your claims of them as evidence for support of ID prediction son my blog (http://openparachute.wordpress.com) in the next few days (in case you wish to challenge my conclusions).
As I’ve talked about before Ken, peer review is frought with problems for someone who wants to make a study of ID. So, they are often left trying to conceal what they are studying. Given the pressures to ‘publish or perish,’ and the real risk of being ‘expelled’ for advocating and ID position, is it any wonder there are not more papers? Using a lack of peer-reviewed articles as evidence against ID is specious, because of the deeply entrenched bias in that system.
I’ll point to a couple more references that illustrate my points about “junk DNA,” which was based on a naturalistic evolutionary assumption.
http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm (A lot of references here tearing down the notion of 95% junk DNA.)
Come on!
You claimed these papers provided evidence supporting ID theories! The fact is that they don’t. Didn’t you check them – or are you just taking these lists at face value because they are on an ID site? If so I can point to papers (on these lists) which include co-authors who reject the whole concept of ID.
Perhaps you could then point to an actual example of a good scientific paper supporting ID which has been rejected. Surely the ID militants would have outlined the history of rejection and published it in one of their own forums.
As someone who has experience peer-review in publication from both sides many times I can say that it is fraught with problems - if you don’t have evidence. I have experienced rejection when I have advanced an idea or mechanism as just a speculation. The answer was to go back and do the work, collect the evidence and resubmit. And what do you know – the paper was accepted.
So peer review not only prevents the literature from being swamped with speculation/ideas with no supporting evidence. It also encourages scientists to improve their submissions, collect the evidence, etc.
I have produced a little parable outlining this whole issue of peer review and the complaints that ID people make about it – see Isaac Newton and intelligent design.
This ‘expelled’ scenario is a fraud – an attempt to cover up the fact that there is no real work being done in ID. It’s aim is to get a ‘free ride’ for idea – to be accepted as science without doing the work, testing the hypotheses, collecting the evidence.
Ken…really… I think you have a skewed perspective. I have also published in peer reviewed journals, so I know the experience as well. I think you missed the point that researchers will not even risk it because of the scorn of colleagues and fellow researchers. Not to mention that nearly all peer-reviewers would reject any paper just for using the word ‘design.’ And actually my references are from non-ID sites.
I know what it was like in graduate school. ALL of the professors in my program thought that anyone with an inkling of belief in God were stupid or uneducated. Fortunately, I had the good sense to keep my mouth shut. I really believed that I stood a real chance of getting kicked out of the graduate program if I expressed my beliefs (well before the movie or the publication of stories and books on the issue). The expelled scenario is reality… It may not seem that way from your perspective because you probably view it as a threat to your entrenched notions of the world. It’s like the old saying, “If you want to know about the water, don’t ask a fish.”
I’ll pose the same question to you, that I posed to Che, “In what way has a naturalistic assumption of evolution resulted in demonstrably positive discoveries that are beneficial to society?” Convince me that naturalistic evolution is more than an interesting mental exercise.
[...] recent blog post (Does Intelligent Design Make Testable Predictions?) claimed “Intelligent design makes numerous predictions, which can be tested. In fact, much [...]
“nearly all peer-reviewers would reject any paper just for using the word ‘design.’” I disagree – a brief search (http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q=design&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search) found 24,100,000 papers including the word ‘design’.
Aren’t you just being paranoid about attitudes towards religious believers. In my career I worked alongside many religious scientists. There was a never a problem and I certainly don’t think they were ashamed of their beliefs. These scientists were able to work well because they based their findings on evidence – not belief.
The fact is that there are many outstanding scientists who have no problems with a belief in a god. Ken Miller and Francis Collins are well known.
You have not been able to back up your statement that “Intelligent design makes numerous predictions, which can be tested. In fact, much recent evidence supports intelligent design”. Your list of 6 supporting papers do not do this and you now look for excuses.
Perhaps you should, instead, actually look objectively at the evidence
Cute argument on the use of the word design Ken. You knew what I meant.
No, it’s not paranoia. Thanks for the concern though. Other scientists are “just fine” with others having religious beliefs, but they sure as heck better not try to bring any of their notions into the science realm.
You asked for peer reviewed papers. Did you discount all the research on vestigial organs and junk DNA? That was specifically what I was referring to in my post. That information is widely available if you wish to search it out on your own.
I think the fact that you are stirred up on the issue points to the real problem. You don’t want there to be an intelligent designer. It doesn’t fit with your worldview.
Here is just one example of the scientific bias and problem with peer review:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3730
I also note that you conveniently “forgot” to answer my question.
My concern over the ID campaign is purely in defense of science. I’m quite happy for people to have religious beliefs. However, science is about evidence – not people’s religious desires.
This is accepted by many, if not most, religious people. It’s just that the Wedge people wish to change the whole basis of science to make such desires acceptable as a scientific theory.
In the process they are quite prepared to distort facts, even ignore facts. You have done this by making a claim about the 6 papers you quoted.
Did you check any of them out? If not – why give them as evidence for your claims?
Are you not concerned about the truth?
Ken, those 6 papers are irrelevant to my arguments. They seem to be important to you, because you have criticized them on the basis of atheist talking points about them. What you do, is ignore the more significant issues, and focus on irrelevancies.
Have you considered the evidence of junk DNA. I just have to repeat myself over and over with you because you are stuck on an irrelevant issue that I have already addressed. Go ahead, and repeat the same thing again, and do not answer my question as you obviously cannot. As to truth, I’ve already addressed that matter. You seem to be the one who is not concerned with truth, only your worldview.
“Ken, those 6 papers are irrelevant to my arguments.” Then why use them to support your argument!
It doesn’t matter what one’s religious beliefs are – these papers did not support your claims at all! Any honest scientist would come to that conclusion whatever their religion.
I concentrated on those papers because you recommended them. And because it is a common tactic for proponents of ID to quote irrelevant papers.
I actually don’t think you knew anything about the papers but were just pulling out a list to make your claims look good. Hardly honest of you. But you have not given me an alternative reason for choosing these papers.
OK my comment on your junk DNA. I think it is a stupid term – it’s similar to Behe’s idea of irreducible complexity. To declare beforehand that parts of DNA have no function is the same as declaring beforehand that there is no mechanism for a complex feature of an organism to arise.
These arguments are based on lack of knowledge because, despite one’s declaration, future research may well show how the complex feature arose and what the previously unrealised function of the DNA fragment is.
Both ideas are unscientific. Forget about them.
More interestingly, the redundancy (repetitions) which seems to be built into DNA does appear to tell us something about molecular mechanisms occurring during evolution.
But also interesting – you have written a post about intelligent design. You have made claims for it which have been show to be wrong. Now, surely if you believe that ID is an acceptable theory then you should be happy that it is investigated according to it’s inherent claims. To sidetrack the issue and raise real or imaginary problems with evolutionary science is hardly advocating for ID.
The fact is that evolutionary science is very alive – it is aware of issues and problems. It is constantly investigating these. A brief look at the literature (far, far more than the 6 papers you claimed for ID) shows how active the science is. Knowledge is never complete – we are always dealing with ‘gaps’.
Thats the nature of science.
Can you point to any ‘gaps’ in ID theory that are currently being investigated?
Actually, I think I misunderstood what you were looking for. I thought you just wanted some peer reviewed papers, not papers specific to my claim. I went back and re-read your original post. So, that was my mistake. You didn’t actually read them yourself. You just scanned the abstract and got some talking points off of some anti-ID sites.
I was referring specifically as evidence in my post to years of asserting junk DNA and vestigial organs. It’s not a term I made up, or a term that the ID folks made up. This was done by genetic researchers. Do a search on google scholar, pubmed, or another site. So, if they are ‘unscientific,’ then why was all that research allowed to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals? I’ll not forget about it, because it points out how scientists’ assumptions based on their notions of naturalistic evolution went astray. In other words, they made a prediction based on their theory that was falsified. You want me to go ahead and ignore that.. I had predicted that the whole junk DNA assertion would turn out to be false before it happened based on ID.
You make an assertion here, but don’t back it up.
I agree with you that research on microevolution is very active. Beyond that, you don’t have much. Microevolution is consistent with ID.
I’ll attempt to answer the question you end with, after you answer the one I have asked multiple times.
Hmm… It’s a bit out of my depth, but what about this:
I don’t know how much weight that carries.
And have ERV’s come up yet? I always thought that this video was rather good.
‘Che wrote:
Beats me too. Can only get the abstract without paying.
As to the video, it’s interesting, but has no references. I don’t really have the background in biology to evaluate the veracity of the video.
AIG has some articles on the subject, although again, I’m not sure they directly relate to the video.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/proceedings-microbe-forum
Reference!
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2001186
Seriously, it only took 10 seconds to find that. All hail google.
Another one – this time, it’s referenced:
http://darwinsbeagles.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/endogenous-retroviruses-and-human-evolution/
Another one – also referenced:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
And here’s a pdf on the same subject, also referenced:
http://www.hindawi.com/getpdf.aspx?doi=10.1002/cfg.216
Read the article on pubmed. Seems vastly different from what was presented in the video, and as near as I could tell supported none of the assertions in the video. Where do the stats come from that are used in the video?
Che read the other articles. You might also find these posts to be of interest.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/where-did-sea-anemones-get-human-genes/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/pandasthumb_fails.html