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?
What are they doing?
They haven’t found any answers to anything. So what gives? Are your scientists as retarded as you are?
What do you think the ratio of ID to evolution lab work is, Joe?
Ok, so instead of “chop up into component pieces” let’s have “put all the component pieces of a cell in the same place”
What difference does that make? If I have two piles of components, one extracted from a working cell and one created molecule by molecule, what’s the difference Joe? They look, behave and seem exactly the same.
So here we are with a bug pile of brand new 747 parts, taken from the spares store. They don’t self assemble, if they did we could save some money on engineers. So that *proves*, according to you, that 747s are more then just matter and energy.
What is this Élan vital that 747s and cells both posses Joe, to behave in this way?
Nice equivocation- where is the blind watchmaker lab work?
What has it unveiled?
I can read a book about a man who predicted that a particular fossil would be found in a particular place and it would have a very specific look to it. Got anything that’ll match that? As in a “actually doing something” kind of way?
Look I understand that you don’t have any data nor evidence. Perhaps you should focus on that and leave ID alone.
What questions do you believe need answering Joe?
Nice the “prediction” that wasn’t- Shubin said he was looking in the wrong place
If the “GA” is not in the DNA, then how does it propagate from generation to generation? Especially in sexually reproducing populations?
Where is the “goal” of the GA stored Joe?
Is each extant species the result of its own specific pre-canned GA “goal’?
When was the GA first implemented by the Designer?
That’s the problem when you make stuff up as you go Joe. Every fantasy claim generates more unanswerable questions.
All of them- proks to euks, would be a start- something with actual evidence as opposed to speculation based on circumstantial evidence.
Erm, Lenski, E-coli. Next!
You claim is that cells contain more then “matter and energy” because when you have their component pieces all together they don’t self assemble.
I pointed out the same is true of many other things, but nobody is claiming some mysterious force is responsible.
My data and evidence is the fact that 747s don’t self assemble when all the component parts are in place. Or we’d have warehouses full of parts turning out planes all on their own. Therefore that disconfirms your claim, that when things don’t self assemble when all the component parts are present it’s because of some other force that is not present.
Exactly- that amounts to about nothing. As I said that fits in with baraminology.
E. coli “evolving” into E coli pfft
What would qualify (for you) as ‘actual evidence’?
I saw no question mark. What specific questions would you like answers to Joe? proks and euks are not questions. Perhaps you mean the origin of such? What would such an answer look like? What form would that answer take?
Why are you so fixed on creationist ‘kinds’? No, it didn’t evolve into a pigeon over a few years. Is that what you were looking for?
How about YOU?
SAME STANDARDS Rich
It isn’t taht I am fixed on it, it is taht is what the evidence supports.
Not my fault
If you were an E.coli would being able to process an entirely new source of energy not be a big deal?
And anyway, ID IS NOT ANTI-EVOLUTION remember? 😛
And lots of things fit in with baraminology. That’s because it’s nonsense.
What “kind” is Tiktaalik a member of Joe?
Get to. It already ahd the stuff to process it.
Then why can’t you supply any evidence or details at all about these mysterious GAs you claim exist in organisms?
Who cares- it was a failed prediction. Found in the wrong place to be what he was looking for.
So you don’t even know WHAT was done by this hypothetical designer?
In the Who’s Who of ID science, Joe, who is doing what, exactly, to determine this? My guess is that no-one even knows how to start.
The evos can at least put forward hypotheses with plausible mechanisms and pathways, however sketchy and incomplete. For instance, it’s thought that at least some parts of the flagellum were co-opted from other functions. Maybe, maybe not, but there is at least some evidence
ID can’t even do that in any way that distinguishes it from good ol’ evolution.
No, you’ve never said that all in one go, because then you would have actually have said something specific. But if you add up all your claims that’s exactly what you have said and anybody can read it for themselves on this thread.
If anybody *at all* thinks I’ve got this wrong, please do feel free to say so and why. But it’s all Joe’s words, all on this thread.
747s do not fly if you dump the contents of one into a test tube. Nor do the engines run. Your point?
Science dude- obvioulsy you don’t know how that operates.
and “good ole evolution” doesn’t appear capable of doing much of anything.
Oh and let’s see these alleged testable hypotheses. Methinks you are fibbing.
It either fits it with baraminology, or it does not.
If it does, great.
If it does not, you’ve just disconfirmed baraminology! That’s why it matters! It’s how science proceeds Joe!
So the answer is, you care Joe as you support baraminology.
Why can’t you provide any evidence or details for anything your position claims?
Evolution not capable of much? But the title of this thread is that ID is not anti evolution! So are you arguing against the OP now then Joe?
?
Then let me make a bald assertion which you cannot prove wrong.
Not only did you not compare Henry Morris’s “scholarship” with Rudolf Clausius’s coining of the term entropy, you will never be able to demonstrate that you understand it even if you had read it. You simply don’t have any idea what any of it means.
Get a better shtick, Joe. You have been grinding on this one for years now and it is totally worn out.
I agree with Elizabeth, we have a pretty good idea of where you are coming from.
I would also add that her giving you this thread has served its purpose magnificently.
They are both designed because they don’t both self assemble when you put their component pieces together in a test tube?
Joe, why would the fact that something is designed mean that when you put it’s component pieces in a test tube nothing would happen?
You can put component pieces of something that was not designed in a test tube and nothing will happen.
You can put component pieces of something that was designed in a test tube and nothing will happen.
You can put component pieces of something that was not designed in a test tube and something will happen.
You can put component pieces of something that was designed in a test tube and something will happen.
Which of those proves that life was designed again, remind me?
Citation please.
Oh, Joe! All you have to do is goto the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
and there you are – testable hypotheses and all.
I would have thought you’d have researched these things by now!
I didn’t make any claims on this thread Joe. YOU did, about these supposed GAs that somehow exist and propagate in living organisms, but not in their DNA.
If you don’t have any evidence and can’t back up your claims just be a man for once and admit it. Don’t cowardly avoid the questions about YOUR claims by trying to create a diversion.
I asked: Ok, wait: the opposite of “material” in ID vocabulary is “artificial”?
Joe answered: “You are correct- immaterial could be a reference to mental- as in mind”
Woah – this is getting weird! So now “immaterial”, “mental” and “artificial” are synonymous in your vocabulary???
Would that be the same evidence for these supposed GAs in living organisms you claim exists?
How do the supposed GAs fit in with baraminology Joe? Did Noah program the animals getting off the ark?
Joe, transcription and translation DO occur when we dump the contents of the cell (or purified components) into a tube. In vitro transcription and in vitro translation are incredibly common experiments. The latter is almost always performed with cell lysates.
gregory,
below
me
more
on.
thank you.
I doubt it –
How
About actually answering a question?
Yes. A must-read insight into ID. With swearing!
Some more posts moved to Guano.
As you were….
There isn’t any testable hypothesis on that page pertaining to blind and undirected processes
Look at the evidence. There isn’t any that refutes baraminology.
Go figure…
Yes, I do, Joe. You seem to have missed my point. If I write an algorithm, obviously I have a goal, which may (or may not) simply be to demonstrate that goal-less evolutionary processes work! That’s perfectly possible, just as it is possible to decide, deliberately, not to decide something, but to act on the toss of a coin. The fact that I deliberately decide to act on a coin toss, does not make the coin-toss come down the way I planned it.
Similarly with GAs. We design them for various reasons, but that does not mean that the population of virtual critters within the GA have a goal, or evolve even towards one, other than the “goal” of thriving in the environment that we give them, which is no different from the “goal” of biological populations. They simply do what they have to do to solve the problems we throw at them, again, just as natural populatons do. It is important to remember that (apart from that WEASEL thing), in GAs the solution is not the same as the problem. What is programmed is the problem. Thesolution evolves. Just as the natural environment throws up (much richer) problems for the evolving population to “solve” in order to thrive, but does not provide the solutions. Those are what evolve.
Well, no. A ribosome is a molecule, as is tRNA, as are amino acids and RNA polymerases. They do what they do because of physics and chemistry.
Now, those molecules are very complex, and they are themselves the result of complex physical/chemical processes that depend on specific DNA sequences, and those DNA sequences, in our view, evolved. I assume that Behe, and I did assume that you, thought that this is unlikely, and that an Intelligent Designer must have assembled the relevant DNA sequences by hand, as it were.
But once assembled, and placed in the context of a cell, the rest is physics and chemistry, including the ribosome.
That’s why I’d have thought that you envisaged the programmer working at DNA level rather than at natural selection level. I’m fairly sure that is what Behe envisages.
Admin note:
Keeping this thread clean is proving time consuming. There are other places on the web where you can be accuse each other of as much stupidity and venality as you like, but it would be good if this thread was kept parliamentary. I’m not that bothered by rude words per se, I just don’t want to see them applied to people, here. Arguments, on the other hand, are fair game.
Feel free to use the penguin colony if you want to slug things out in a little more freedom.
Thanks all.
Evidence for “built-in responses to environmental cues” was foubnd with the discovery of epigenetics.
Elizabeth, you missed the point. The designer of ID would have written a more specific GA than you use. You cannot put the designer into a hole of your creation.
A ribosome is several molecules and blind and undirected processes cannot explain its existence.
Ya see DNA requires proteins. DNA replication requires more proteins. those had to have come from transcription and translation BEFORE those processes existed.
Yes same standars- for example please tell us how many mutations and to what genes produced an upright biped from a knuckle-walker?
How many mutations and to what genes caused an engulfed prokaryote to “evolve” into mitochondria?
Yes with the help of genetic engineers- not quite what i was talking about