Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I believe that most people don't have a problem with evolution per se. Let's face it, natural selection is a viable force. We have seen it. If there is artificial selection (methodical selection according to Darwin) then there is natural selection where changes in the environment makes the selection along with mutations that allows species to out perform their peers. We just don't give evolution credit for the unbridled power that darwinist's do for turning fish into quadrupeds and then apes into humans.
The evidence shows that evolution explains the creation of new species. Over time, many changes accumulate, which can create radical changes. What's to stop that? Certainly not irreducible complexity, because what has been thought to be IC has been shown to not be IC. Things can get re-purposed.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
The evidence shows that evolution explains the creation of new species. Over time, many changes accumulate, which can create radical changes. What's to stop that? Certainly not irreducible complexity, because what has been thought to be IC has been shown to not be IC. Things can get re-purposed.
I have never heard any credible source ever claim that IC were shown to be "not IC". If this were true, then why would there be a need to develop pathways that circumvent the IC argument through non direct evolution? As far as changes accumulating to create radical changes goes, experimentation has not shown that to be the case. Experiments on fruit flies has shown that many years of induced mutations on fruit flies will produce a fruit fly, a disabled fruit fly or a dead fruit fly (using Jonathon Well's argument). Lenski's LTEE has not done that well either, producing more evidence for ID than vice versa and the citric acid acquired functionality (Cit+) was not as initially claimed. Also Behe has argued (which he derived from experiments) that beneficial mutations actually work by breaking something else (A Mouse Trap for Darwin) what he refers to as devolving or devolution.
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I have never heard any credible source ever claim that IC were shown to be "not IC". If this were true, then why would there be a need to develop pathways that circumvent the IC argument through non direct evolution?
We might just not be agreeing on the definition of "not IC," so allow me to spell out what I meant more plainly. What has been claimed to be irreducibly complex has been shown to
[be] based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research.[4] Evolutionary biologists have published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe can evolve
and
In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
source That's what I meant.
As far as changes accumulating to create radical changes goes,
We need to be clear here, too. Here's an example of a gradual change creating something completely different:
oAnfA.jpg

experimentation has not shown that to be the case.
Experiments on the specific phenomenon in question are not the only process that can produce scientific results. Experiments on other phenomenon, by which we infer the existence of other phenomenon, are also possible. We have robust theories of star formation, but we haven't experimented by creating a star. Observations and predictions and maybe experiments possible in a lab can be done.
Experiments on fruit flies has shown that induced mutations on fruit flies will produce a fruit fly, a disabled fruit fly or a dead fruit fly (using Jonathon Well's argument).
Were there enough mutations to gradually add up to a new species? Without that, it's not proving that a new species - or genus, or family, or whoever you want to stop - couldn't develop.
Lenski's LTEE has not done that well either, producing more evidence for ID than vice versa and the citric acid acquired functionality (Cit+) was not as initially claimed.
ID is one thing, IC is another, we're on IC right now.
Also Behe has shown that beneficial mutations actually work by breaking something else (A Mouse Trap for Darwin) what he refers to as devolving or devolution.
Always? Necessarily? Has his work been challenged?
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
We might just not be agreeing on the definition of "not IC," so allow me to spell out what I meant more plainly. What has been claimed to be irreducibly complex has been shown to
They have not been shown to do anything. They have come up with possible pathways around direct evolution and backed it up with computer simulations. That falls under the heading of theory while IC's are direct physical evidence which is observable. As a physics professor once said in my QM class years ago, "two theoretical physicists can argue about their predictions on quantum energy levels but it only takes one experimentalists to blow them both out of the water"- paraphrase.
and

source That's what I meant.
No one cares what a court of law said. The end result was that ID (or rather the controversies of evolution) could not be taught in schools. That was the limit of the court's ruling. It does not extend into the scientific arena where debate still rages over the issues.
We need to be clear here, too. Here's an example of a gradual change creating something completely different:
View attachment 1865
A very good pedagogical illustration for young pliable minds but the fact that it was intelligently created defeats its purpose.
Experiments on the specific phenomenon in question are not the only process that can produce scientific results. Experiments on other phenomenon, by which we infer the existence of other phenomenon, are also possible. We have robust theories of star formation, but we haven't experimented by creating a star. Observations and predictions and maybe experiments possible in a lab can be done.
Yes, but I note that they are always surprised with a new discovery that no one expected. For example, exceeding the Eddington limit for maximum star mass which I believe was set at 150 solar masses before stars in the LMC were measured at over 200 SM.
Were there enough mutations to gradually add up to a new species? Without that, it's not proving that a new species - or genus, or family, or whoever you want to stop - couldn't develop.
The subject is lack of evidence not proving that a new species couldn't develop.
ID is one thing, IC is another, we're on IC right now.
I stand corrected.
Always? Necessarily? Has his work been challenged?
There is always a challenge and a rebuttal to the challenge - it's what they live for.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
They have not been shown to do anything. They have come up with possible pathways around direct evolution and backed it up with computer simulations. That falls under the heading of theory while IC's are direct physical evidence which is observable. As a physics professor once said in my QM class years ago, "two theoretical physicists can argue about their predictions on quantum energy levels but it only takes one experimentalists to blow them both out of the water"- paraphrase.
...
Can you make clear what definition of IC you are using?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
They have not been shown to do anything. They have come up with possible pathways around direct evolution and backed it up with computer simulations. That falls under the heading of theory while IC's are direct physical evidence which is observable. As a physics professor once said in my QM class years ago, "two theoretical physicists can argue about their predictions on quantum energy levels but it only takes one experimentalists to blow them both out of the water"- paraphrase.
IC says "This type of evolution is impossible," and those pathways show that it is not impossible. Not being impossible does not say that is how it happened, merely that it could have, and therefore is not impossible.

No one cares what a court of law said. The end result was that ID (or rather the controversies of evolution) could not be taught in schools. That was the limit of the court's ruling. It does not extend into the scientific arena where debate still rages over the issues.
That's true. Science is not done in the courtroom.

A very good pedagogical illustration for young pliable minds but the fact that it was intelligently created defeats its purpose.
Not at all. Your argument has nothing to do with the internal logical outline of that red/blue illustration, because you could make your argument against any possible statement, logical or not, that I could make.

Your argument therefore has nothing to do with the logic of the argument I'm making. Can you offer an argument against mine that actually has something to do with the internal logic of my argument, and not about the mere fact that I am making an argument, which is what your argument is about?

Yes, but I note that they are always surprised with a new discovery that no one expected. For example, exceeding the Eddington limit for maximum star mass which I believe was set at 150 solar masses before stars in the LMC were measured at over 200 SM.
Sure, of course. But the point was that you claimed that some experiment didn't show evolution (at least at the species level? maybe above? doesn't matter), and I replied that we don't necessarily have to observe evolution at the genus or family, etc. level (which we probably never will because it takes too long) or run an experiment that show evolution at that level, because science regularly observes other phenomenon and then infers conclusions about the phenomenon in question.

So the fact that some experiment didn't - and probably will never - show evolution at the genus or family level means nothing.

The subject is lack of evidence not proving that a new species couldn't develop.
I'm not sure I can parse that correctly, but doesn't this reduce to just a (supposed) lack of evidence for evolution in general? Perhaps we should stick to the IC question?

I stand corrected.
Yeah, but what about IB? ; )

There is always a challenge and a rebuttal to the challenge - it's what they live for.
True enough.
 

vibise

Well-known member
You falsify as theory by its predictions or at least gather evidence for or against. ID has made plenty of predictions among which was the future discovery of functionality in the now debunked "junk DNA". The trouble with Darwinists is that they can't accept defeat. A victory for ID would mean that a Ph.D in evolutionary theory is now obsolete and Dan Graur and those among the entrenched higher educational hierarchy can go back to pizza delivery.
Oh please, scientists as early as the 1970s were speculating about the possible functions of all that noncoding DNA, and it is investigations by actual scientists that are finding more and more functional elements in DNA.

ID creationists contributed nothing to any of these efforts, but now seek to take credit for "predicting" that functionality.

Much of our understanding of the functionality of all that DNA comes from comparative genomics, studies led by people skilled in biocomputation and phylogenetics, IOW, evolutionary biologists.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
IC says "This type of evolution is impossible," and those pathways show that it is not impossible. Not being impossible does not say that is how it happened, merely that it could have, and therefore is not impossible.
But then it could have does not mean that it did happen. The fact that such phenomenon have not been observed makes them an addendum to evolution for the purpose of circumventing IC. IC qualifies as evidence for ID.
That's true. Science is not done in the courtroom.


Not at all. Your argument has nothing to do with the internal logical outline of that red/blue illustration, because you could make your argument against any possible statement, logical or not, that I could make.

Your argument therefore has nothing to do with the logic of the argument I'm making. Can you offer an argument against mine that actually has something to do with the internal logic of my argument, and not about the mere fact that I am making an argument, which is what your argument is about?
First off this is not a macroscopic deviation from your original color. Your still end up with a color but with a difference frequency. It does not give tribute to the enormity of developing a new set of genes (or different genome after ENCODE) with new organs and set of instructions.
Sure, of course. But the point was that you claimed that some experiment didn't show evolution (at least at the species level? maybe above? doesn't matter), and I replied that we don't necessarily have to observe evolution at the genus or family, etc. level (which we probably never will because it takes too long) or run an experiment that show evolution at that level, because science regularly observes other phenomenon and then infers conclusions about the phenomenon in question.

So the fact that some experiment didn't - and probably will never - show evolution at the genus or family level means nothing.
Computer simulations (such as GA's and Avida) which can turn millions or even billions of years into minutes with the fastest modern computers were supposed to have remedied they gap. And for a while seemed to be offering promising results for evolution but as it turns out they using information oracles which is not available to blind evolution and is in fact injection of information by an intelligent agent. This was due to the work of Dembski, Marks, and Ewert and these simulations have been scraped from research and used mainly as teaching tools for undergraduates. Which, BTW, defies the Dover trials which prohibits ID from the classroom.
I'm not sure I can parse that correctly, but doesn't this reduce to just a (supposed) lack of evidence for evolution in general? Perhaps we should stick to the IC question?
I believe you brought the subject of evolution up.
Yeah, but what about IB? ; )
What is IB?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
But then it could have does not mean that it did happen. The fact that such phenomenon have not been observed makes them an addendum to evolution for the purpose of circumventing IC. IC qualifies as evidence for ID.
I'm not sure how to parse the first sentence, but I agree that showing that it could have happened does not say that it did happen. But that's not the purpose of N &P's paper. They were only trying to show that there was enough time for it to happen, and so refute the claim that there was not enough time for an eye to evolve.
First off this is not a macroscopic deviation from your original color. Your still end up with a color but with a difference frequency. It does not give tribute to the enormity of developing a new set of genes (or different genome after ENCODE) with new organs and set of instructions.
That's true, but no analogy is analogous in every detail (if it was, it wouldn't be analogy, it would just be a re-statement of the original situation, the thing that is being analogized). Also, no analogy is an argument. It's merely giving you the idea of how small changes build up to big ones.

Computer simulations (such as GA's and Avida) which can turn millions or even billions of years into minutes with the fastest modern computers were supposed to have remedied they gap. And for a while seemed to be offering promising results for evolution but as it turns out they using information oracles which is not available to blind evolution and is in fact injection of information by an intelligent agent. This was due to the work of Dembski, Marks, and Ewert and these simulations have been scraped from research and used mainly as teaching tools for undergraduates. Which, BTW, defies the Dover trials which prohibits ID from the classroom.
OK. that has nothing to do with the idea that you don't need to observe the phenomenon in question in order to make scientific conclusions about that phenomenon, you can observe other phenomenon and make inferences, and sometimes quite strong inferences.
I believe you brought the subject of evolution up.

What is IB?
Sorry, IB was a joke I was trying to make. Never mind.
 
Top