Thank you Elizabeth for this opportunity-
Good day- Over the past many, many years, IDists have been telling people that intelligent design is not anti-evolution. Most people understand and accept that, while others just refuse to, no matter what.
With that said, in this post I will provide the evidence (again) that firmly demonstrates that ID is not anti-evolution. I will be presenting several authoritative definitions of “evolution” followed by what the ID leadership has to say about evolution. So without any further adieu, I give you-
Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution
”.
In order to have a discussion about whether or not Intelligent Design is anti-evolution or not we must first define “evolution”. Fortunately there are resources available that do just that.
Defining “evolution”:
Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”
Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable’ via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans. Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley
In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10
Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. (Perhaps someone will present some definitions that differ from those. Most likely I will only comment on any differences if the differences are relevant.)
With biology, where-ever there is heritable genetic change there is evolution and where-ever you have offspring that are (genetically) different from the parent(s) you have descent with modification.
Next I will show what Intelligent Design says about biological evolution and people can see for themselves that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution:
Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism (MAY 2000)
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”- Dr Michael Behe
Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.
Then we have:
What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?– a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.
Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of “The Design of Life”
and
And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life). Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142
And from one more pro-ID book:
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.– page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”
That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution- they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent”:
9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.
ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence. To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.
However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.
They go on to say:
10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.
CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that. ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.
And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)- both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.
Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations.
As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)
Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic.
Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case.
So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?
ID appears to be for evolution in every way apart from one specific thing, in Joe’s mind anyway.
ID is simply the idea that copying errors such as point mutations are not random but are telic. Despite the fact that Joe nor anybody else has ever presented any evidence in support of that (read “Not By Chance”) it’s the crux of ID for Joe.
So, Joe, given any mutations how can if it is random?
Joe, what’s the % of actual really random mutations?
99% random, 1% telic? What’s the ratio as far as you know?
If you don’t even have an idea of that on what basis do you claim that any are telic at all?
No a brain is physical- again your are confused.
More to the point evos say all mutations are random yet they cannot tell anyone how tat was determined.
And the mind is not? Therefore minds without brains are feasible, in that case. How many have you encountered so far?
So your counter claim is what, exactly?
“No, they are not random”.
I’m convinced!
Yeah OM is very confused…
Exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. If mutations were telic you’d expect that they would.
If you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml
That’s some basic information. In addition there have been many papers looking into this very question for example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml
Here’s one from 1952: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2984083
What’s your evidence that such mutations are nor random? Or is it a secret I can only find out by reading “Not By Chance” by any chance?
How have you determined that some mutations are telic? By reading “not by chance”? What was so convincing to you, care to share?
More to the point Joe says some/all mutations are not random yet he cannot tell anyone how tat was determined.
My problem is with your attitude Joe G; arrogant and self-righteous like a Young Earth creationist. Please don’t shorten my name to your lack of civility. Condescending language and culture war approach. Appropriate for USAmericans if not others! ; ))
“organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design” – Joe G.
Yet, there is *no evidence* of the designing and *no evidence* of the designer/Designer. That is a seriously weak EXPLANATORY position. It is highly speculative & probabilistic.
Can’t say when, can’t say where, can’t say how; just ‘can say.’ “Oh, say can you see??”
‘Technological evolution’ differs from ‘biological evolution’ in theory because one realm speaks directly, clearly, unequivocally about ‘designers,’ i.e. humans, while the other does not. Biological entites are not ‘conscious,’ or are they?
Behe’s lack of clarity re: ‘unevolvability’ is no one’s fault but Behe’s. Joe G is obviously FOR economic evolution, anthropological evolution, psycholoigical evolution, technological evolution, etc. except that he has a problem with (neo-)Darwinian biological evolution. Now things are clear, right?
here’s where joe provides his “formula” that determines if something is designed or is random.
it was conviently lost in “Teh Crash” but i’m sure joe will provide it again.
tybee, your elementary views of MN were worked-over in ‘the Crash,’ but perhaps you’re not ready to face that.
My problem with you, Gregory, is your ignorance.
There is plenty of evidence for design and therefor evidence for a designer.
What does the ToE boil down to?:
And Behe’s lack of clarity exists only in your head.
Wrong again- ya see, as I keep saying, I need to know what YOU accept as evidence and if you aren’t going to tell me then I cannot help you.
Tell me 1 fact about this “designer” you claim to have evidence for.
Just one.
What is your *evidence* that some/all mutations are not random and are in fact directed?
That’s simply not true. I already linked to exactly that research from as far back as the 1950’s! Do you want me to link to more?
But whatever. So for the sake of argument lets say that nobody knows if mutations are random or not.
What’s *your* evidence that they are directed? If you can’t tip the scales with evidence they they remain neutral.
Unfortunately for evos the only way to determine that all mutations are random in any sense of the word is to demonstrate that a living organism can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes.
Absent of that it is all a big guess- it’s like using an oscilloscope to probe a computer bus line and say that the 1s and 0s are random.
It existed.
Unfortunately that research doesn’t help you.
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/18/i440.full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb01358.x/abstract
But of course you will simply say that these do not support the idea that mutations are not random as they simply assumed they are.
Therefore you need to present your evidence for telic involvement. If you don’t do that then I don’t lose, you don’t win.
But right now you’ve not supported your claim at all, and the person making a claim should support it as you say!
Guys, read the rules. Joe, I’m looking at you.
Why?
Simple enough. All I would need is the record of an experiment, or series of experiments, where the data showed that any number of mutations found in any life form in the wild were directed. Such record to be sufficiently detailed as to allow anyone with the facilities to attempt to repeat the experiment(s). Simple enough, surely?
Elizabeth,
Give me the power to remove off-topic comments from my threads.
Ya see I attack only when attacked. And if you can’t see that then we have another issue.
Because they don’t know if something directed the mutations or not:
Unfortunately for evos the only way to determine that all mutations are random in any sense of the word is to demonstrate that a living organism can arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes.
Absent of that it is all a big guess- it’s like using an oscilloscope to probe a computer bus line and say that the 1s and 0s are random.
Joe, in the entire history of biology nobody has ever presented evidence that mutations are not random. Sure, the rates can be altered and other aspects can be non-random but your claim is that mutations are telic but you refuse to provide any evidence, you simply say that evidence I present “does not help my case”.
It might not help my case but you know what, I’m not trying to make one. It’s already been made.
What I’m after is for you to support *your* claim! And you simply can’t do that, can you?
Ah, and here we are. There is no evidence that mutations are directed so for Joe that’s evidence that they may be directed.
Ah, so prove a naturalistic origin of life then?
Watch those goalposts zoom!
The patter of 1s and 0s can be examined statistically. You remember, in a similar way to how you claim that design can be detected.
So, Joe, examine the patten of 1s and 0s and tell me if a mutation was designed or not?
OM in the entire history of biology nobody has ever presented any evidence taht all mutations are random in any sense of the word.
And Dr Spetner supported the claim.
look I have read text books and books by evolutionary biologists in order to understand te toE. yet you think you can argue from ignorance against ID
OM I have ALWAYS maintained that it all comes down to the OoL- ALWAYS. That you are too messed up to remember or just never read it, means nothing to me
Yup and that would say “random” even though it is obvious that they are not
Well, don’t attack back. It’s not hard. Just sit on your hands.
Joe,
But I don’t see how that can be done. If such a thing happened you’d simply say “How do you know those mutations were random – prove it”. Just as you’ve said here today.
So your solution is really a non-solution. A mirage.
Heads you win, tales I lose.
Do you have a way of resolving this issue that is not impossible? Or is that the foundation upon which your claims rest – the deliberate impossibility of testing them.
Why it it “obvious” – on what basis are you making that claim?
So the only way we can prove that mutations are random is to go back to the origin of life and observe it?
But even if we did that, how would we know that the mutations we are observing are in fact random?
Joe G,
In the entire history of biology nobody has ever presented any evidence taht all mutations are anything except random in any sense of the word.
In your own words, how did he do that?
Good for you. Now, given that your “method” of determining if a mutation is random or not is to go back in time to the origin of life and observe it and somehow determine if the mutations you are observing are in fact random or not, do you really expect this argument to be resolved any time soon?
Joe,
Is it possible, in theory or practice, to determine if a specific mutation is directed?
If so, how?
Joe,
Would you agree that if “the tape of evolution” was rewound and replayed it would play out differently?
I don’t see that you would because in your world mutations are directed and the tape would replay exactly the same as it originally did because that was the way that the designer wanted it.
Or do you have a different opinion?
Joe,
If I place a x-ray source next to a colony of e-coli and radioactivity causes mutations to happen, are those mutations random? The decay event that led to that specific mutation certainly was (you don’t dispute that do you?) so was the mutation itself similarity random, or not?
What does Dr Spetner say about that?
This thread is about Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution–
Either people agree or disagree. I you agree then please say so and if you disagree then by all means make your case.
All other comments are off-topic and will be placed in guano as soon as I am given those rights. And if those rights are not granted all off-topic comments will be ignored.
Not going to happen- please give me the rights to remove unwanted and off-topic comments from my threads.
That’s a big task,of course – but evidence is accumulating. I’ve given you references in the past showing that novel functions can arise from random processes, and here’s another.
http://www.genetik.tugraz.at/PCE2004/Literatur/nbt0102-76deletioninsertionRICE.pdf
So, I think I’ve adequately shown that novel proteins, functions, information and so on CAN arise from random processes.
Do you agree, Joe? If not, why not?
I can’t speak for Elizabeth, of course; – but I think I’m right in saying she revivified TSZ in part so there was a forum where posts would not be deleted just because a moderator found them uncomfortably difficult to argue against.
All it takes to be a happy poster at TSZ is a modicum of self-control!
Unfortunately evotards do not know anything about self-control as they cannot even stay on-topic.
Again:
This thread is about Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution-
Either people agree or disagree. I you agree then please say so and if you disagree then by all means make your case.
All other comments are off-topic and will be placed in guano as soon as I am given those rights. And if those rights are not granted all off-topic comments will be ignored.
How will we know, you ignore all questions in any case regarding your position.
Perhaps you could quote them and note “ignored”?
Joe,
You quoted:
And of course, all that is true.
So in what way is it off-topic to ask you about that in relation to the randomness, or otherwise, of mutations?
It seems exactly on topic to me. The point is if you can determine if that “guidance” is actually happening or not. So far your whole “argument” is that because nobody can prove it’s not happening then it definitely is happening.
Somewhat unconvincing.
Evolution theory says that the heritable variations in the genome arise from non-directed causes. Subsequent events are as a result of the interplay between any effects those undirected variations have on the organism, and the environment (and changes thereof) in which the organism lives.
ID has it that the variations in the genome are not random or probabilistic, but purposely directed by some external agency (whose identity we may not speculate about)
ID is therefore opposed to evolution, WHETHER OR NOT you include OoL in the purview of evolutionary theory
damitall,
Exactly so. One has to wonder why a being that has been alive millions or billions of years, who can perform actions indistinguishable from randomness and which evidently has a “plan” for life on earth, did not just create directly all the things it wanted without all the bother of evolution.
Directed Evolution = Desired Outcome.
Direct Creation = Desired Outcome.
Evolution = Many outcomes.
If we do this instead
Evolution = Desired Outcome
Then there is no difference between “directed evolution” and “evolution”.
Therefore, as you say, evolution is incompatible with ID. Biological life under ID is like a train, constrained to a single unalterable path, stopping at predefined stations.
That’s already been proven not to be the case by Lenski! The same generation of organisms do not have the same mutations when resampled. Therefore mutations *are* demonstrably random. Unless of course the designer just wanted to make it look like that. In which case there’s no way to progress with such a “trickster” designer in charge.
Poor Joe has never been able to understand that you can’t prove a negative. That’s why his ‘falsification’ of ID (“prove blind undirected processes did it!”) isn’t a falsification. No matter what evidence is produced for natural processes as the cause of biological variations, there’s no way to prove some supernatural power wasn’t behind the scenes manipulating the results.
Imagine what would happen if Joe went to Las Vegas, claimed all casinos were crooked, and demanded proof that the casinos weren’t using hidden supernatural forces to control the rolls of the dice? How long before he got thrown out on his ear?