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?
There are fossils that show a transition between two forms. They are transitional fossils.
You yourself said in the OP
Transitional forms are an expected consequence of evolution. You don’t dispute evolution, therefore why do you deny such fossils exist?
As I have told you- they accumulate via several different ways.
If my position has nothing then why are you so keen to say that ID is not anti-evolution?
So ID is not anti something that you don’t think exists anyway? that’s very good of you Joe.
You can have evolution without having a transitional form/ fossil.
No, I’m asking you specifically what you mean when you use that term. If you are asking me for evidence of X you’ll have to describe it better then “it’s a process”. There are many processes in biology, you want specific answers then pick a specific process.
I think you answered the wrong question. I asked if you dispute any other part of evolution as it’s currently understood other then “are mutations totally random”.
Do you?
Can you? Please explain? Sure, you can if it does not fossilise (most things don’t) or never evolves past it’s initial state. But that’s not what’s we’re talking about, is it?
Here is a tentative list of transitionals. Which of these do you accept are actually transitional? Any of them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
If ID is not anti-evolution you should in fact accept them all as transitionals, you’ve no reason not to. Do you?
No you think they exist, you just don’t think they can do anything other then change the size of a beak or two.
The way they accumulate- just as I said.
If that- what do you have? You don’t appear to have anything more than that and Lenski
If you have natural selection, you would have evolution but not necessarily any change of form.
As for your question-begging list you need biological / genetic evidence that supports it.
Evolution itself is not random. The environment is not random. DNA is not random.
Please provide citatinos that show that dawkins, darwin, mayr, simpson, coyne, et al. use the phrase “blind and undirected processes” in the same way as you do.
So, Joe, give me an example of a “blind and undirected processes” in relation to Biology, or simply admit that you can’t. It’s easy really.
funny thing is Joe if you search for ‘”blind and undirected processes” dawkins’ in google you only get hits to your blog and UD.
http://tinyurl.com/7xrmhst
So I’m going to have to insist on that citation that shows that Dawkins uses it at all, never mind in the same way as you. And even if he does use it, what specific process do you think he has in mind?
Seems to me that’s two more things then you’ve got. And two is infinity bigger then zero.
Ah, and we finally reach rock bottom.
Joe, sure, there exist “living fossils” whose outward appearance has not changed significantly in millions of years. But that, I think, does not help you.
And I need biological / genetic evidence that supports the idea that transitional fossils can even exist at all?
Yet you keep saying, and the point of this entire thread, is that ID is not anti-evolution.
How can it be true that you are not anti-evolution yet simultaneously deny the plain existence of transitional fossils?
Oh, yes, that’s right….
In “ID world” exactly how do mutations accumulate then? What’s different in ID to evolution?
How do you know they are not random? I know I’m repeating myself here but…
Perhaps I should just go and read “Not by Chance”? It seems you are unable to put that argument into your own words, perhaps unsurprisingly.
Joe G,
“Mutation only” would be blind, having the environment involved would be “mutation AND selection”.
The reason music forms change is not simply because writers blindly come up with new chord progressions or melodies, but the fact that audiences and the record buying public accept them.
It is a market-driven system and evolution could be modeled the same way, as a free market enterprise.
If your product is accepted, whether better or worse than a competitor’s, it will take over that segment of the market.
I’ve moved a bunch of posts to Guano.
Moderation comment here. Feel free to whinge about it there.
In what way is evolution not random?
Dawkins has said that natural selection is blind and that mutations are undirected- ALL evolutionists say that:
So here is the evolutionary references to support my claim:
Eric B Knox, “The use of hierarchies as organizational models
in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49:
Then we have:
and:
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.
What Causes Mutations?:
Causes of Mutations:
DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation:
And finally:
The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative
September 9, 2005
The only “selection” is artificial selection. natural selection is just the/ a misnamed result of three processes
Except you don’t even know if you have those two things.
Evolution does not require transitional forms/ fossils…
Blind != Random….
Nope, the random part is with the mutations- as I said you have serious mental issues
So evolution simply stops at the first form and never changes?
Oddly that’s not what we observe!
Non-sequitur and actually stasis is observed
Joe, thanks for posting your OP. That clarifies a lot for me, I think, about where you are coming from.
Do I take it, then, that your position is that evolutionary processes basically work, but that the heritable variance (the novel genetic sequences) are purposefully introduced by an Intelligent Designer, rather than being the result of physics and chemistry?
Natural selection is blind, genetic drift is blind. The mutations are random, ie undirected, unguided, cahnce events (allegedly)
Put them together and you get blind and undirected processes, duh.
So if the random part are the mutations then what is this about?
What processes do you have in mind?
So, Joe, if you accept this definition:
Then ID is anti-evolution as
Evolution is not guided.
It’s not planned.
Yet ID is both of those things by definition, so by your own words you’ve shown that ID is anti-evolution!
GAs Elizabeth- the programming would guide the mutations much as the programming guides the 1s and 0s through a computer- “built-in responses to environmental cues”
But that is not to say the blind watchmaker is not present, unfortunately he is ever-present, breaking things…
Yes, stasis is observed. So is gradual change over many years to diverse forms, as detailed in the fossil record at great length.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/255/5052/1690.short
For example?
Give an example of a blind and undirected process then!
I am on topic, Joe. I have been on topic all along. I have also been trying to determine what you are claiming and what you understand.
You can’t read and vet “experts” if you can’t read and understand even basic high school science.
Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, your ignorance of basic science shows like a huge, flashing neon sign.
Copy/pasting the thoughts of others you believe to be “experts” is not a sign of understanding on your part. It is instead a glaring revelation of your total ignorance of concepts and your inability to articulate them.
It shows, Joe. If you spent as much time learning basic science as you do trolling the internet insulting people, you might even have a PhD by now.
As it is, you have little more than a hodge-podge of angry assertions and copy/paste material that you are not able to assess.
And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
Many genomes have been fully sequenced now. Where are these GAs you claim exist?
When a mutation happens does the CSI:
A) Go down
B) Go up
C) Something else.
Support your answer.
Question-begging
That’s not a “process” is it now?
For example, transcription is a process. According to you, that’s blind and undirected, right?
OM,
This thread is about Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution
Do you accept that? Yes or no
Evos call them processes- perhaps you should take it up with your leaders
Support your answer! And remember, ID is not anti-evolution!
What do they call processes? What?
Yes, that’s right. And everything you’ve said so far shows that it is.
Such as?
GA’s are easy to parse. Where do you believe that the code for these “GA”s live, Joe? Certainly some of it (the recursion and selection) is outside of the organism. What is the fitness function, ie that which is to be maximized, by these GAs? Where woudl we see this in the code?
How do you know this?
This is the Fundamental Misconception (or assertion) in all of ID/creationism. This is the fundamental assertion that reveals why all the ID/creationist writers draw from the same set of misconceptions.
This misconception is so fundamental to ID/creationist beliefs that it is the reason for all those writings of Dembski, Abel, Sewell, Sanford, et. al.
This misconception goes right back to Henry Morris.
Morris’s caricature of evolution and physics is dead wrong.
IIRC Lenski found that the citrate mutation did not happen when he went back some generations, so a series of mutations had to happen.
Yet if these responses were “programmed in” you’d expect every generation to respond in the same way to the same pressures. But they don’t. It’s random! If it was not Lenski would have been able to reproduce the citrate mutation each and every time, but he could not.
So, Joe, I guess, I’ll have to go read “Not by chance” to find out more as it seems you are not going to spill the beans! I’m sure “programmed to respond but only sometimes” is covered…
Tell us more about these GAs Joe. How are they implemented? Where are they implemented? In computer simulations with GAs the algorithm is part of the environment, not embedded in the objects doing the evolving. Where in the genome are these GAs located?
When did the Designer implement these GAs? a million years ago? 600 million years ago? 3 Billion years ago?
Where are the goals for these GAs kept? Is there a separate stored goal for every extant species? Is it your position that a GA caused land mammal species to evolve into cetacean species?
Where is your evidence these GAs even exist?
Lots of questions for you Joe. Do you have any answers besides your normal evasion of “that’s what science is here to investigate”?
Does ID predict GAs? If we can’t find them, is this evidence against ID?
You’re making a lot of assertions here, Joe. When are you going to start providing a coherent theory?
How are you defining “evolution” that would make ID anti-evolution?
That question scared sev away, what are you going to do?
LoL! The “theory” of evolution isn’t a coherent theory.