On the one side, UCD still causes a little "niggle" to go off in the back of my head that tells me something ain't quite right. I may not know how to describe it at this time, but eventually I may. The discussion of the confirmation of UCD from the previous post is one example.
On the other side is a recent post by Patrick at Uncommon Descent entitled "ID-Compatible Predictions: Foresighted Mechanism Identified?".
First the positive. A recent experiment showed that the genes in E.Coli "reacted" to changes in temperature:
"Indeed, upon transition to a higher temperature, many of the genes essential for aerobic respiration were practically turned off.
"To prove that this is not just genetic coincidence ..., the researchers then grew the bacteria in a biologically flipped environment where oxygen levels rose following an increase in temperature. Remarkably, within a few hundred generations the bugs partially adapted to this new regime, and no longer turned off the genes for aerobic respiration when the temperature rose"
-PhysOrg article
To sum up, inactive genes were activated and active genes were rendered inactive due to a change in environment.
Patrick claims this is an example of a prediction he made: foresighted mechanism/front loading. A foresighted mechanism, if identified conclusively, should be considered an objective sign/aspect of design, and thus confirmation of "ID-Compatible Prediction" (side note: dontcha just love the term ID-Compatible?).
Don't misinterpret what I'm saying here. This is NOT conclusive evidence of fore-sighted mechanism/front loading. However, just like the partial confirmation of "junk DNA" having function from the ENCODE project, it is a tantalising first step (Patrick does acknowledge this in the opening of his post regarding junk DNA and other "ID-Compatible predictions").
So what now? It is obvious that further research is required, or as Dr. Heddle so nicely puts it, "Show Me the Experiment[s]!" The prediction needs to be refined and focused.
Also, IMO, too much emphasis was placed on intelligence in Patrick's post when - according to Sal Cordova and others - we do not have a solid definition of intelligence. However, as Sal nicely puts it, design is more tractable and this is where the focus should be on. Objective aspects of design exist (passive design) and can be universally observed. Developing and defining passive design* (or something along those lines) should be the focus.
Bottom line, the experiment is a good start, but much more needs to be done.
The "asylum" is now open.**
*I know I keep dropping hints of this thing called "passive design". I can only say "stay tuned" and "please be patient"; it is coming. :)
**This is just my unique way of opening the floor for comments ;)
Don't misinterpret what I'm saying here. This is NOT conclusive evidence of fore-sighted mechanism/front loading.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it is not. It IS evidence for evolution, as you would understand if you read the entire paper.
In addition, as I and RBH have pointed out previously, it is NOT a prediction made from ID principles. It requires assumptions about the MOTIVES of the designer (Why is front-loading a preferred design strategy? When does this frontloading occur? How do front-loaded genes get incorporated into the genome? ). Yet ID theorists steadfastly refuse to talk about any aspects of the designer.
Frankly, without some elucidation of the WHO, WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY re the designer, there is no prediction that is even possible from the ID "theory". It is not a mechanistic theory; it can make no testable predictions based on ID principles alone.
So you have a result that evolution explains well, and which ID, as presently constituted, cannot explain. There is no way that this situation can be construed as a step forward for ID scientifically, even if the PR forces would have you believe otherwise.
dave said:
ReplyDelete"...it is NOT a prediction made from ID principles."
But it IS a prediction made from basic and objective design principles (i.e. objective markers of design).
"Frankly, without some elucidation of the WHO, WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY re the designer, there is no prediction that is even possible from the ID "theory"."
This is an argument I've seen you make several times, and each time I can sense your exasperation. Thus, the following may annoy you, so I ask for your patience in advance.
The "who" cannot be conclusively determined through the means of science. This goes for both sides. Both sides start out with an assumption that cannot be proven (designer vs. no designer).
Another basic aspect of science is it can never answer the "why"; that's when the line get crossed into philosophy and/or theology.
So we're left with the when, where and how, which can be answered by either side as long as predictions are made and experiments flow those predictions.
But that doesn't quite tie up everything. ID tends to be vague when it distances itself from the designer. IOW, ID doesn't start out with any assumption of designer characteristics. IMO, ID (or at least design) would be strengthened if offshoots that each focused on a different and specific aspect of a hypothesised designer, such as efficient, build for strength, tinkerer, etc.
"There is no way that this situation can be construed as a step forward for ID scientifically, even if the PR forces would have you believe otherwise."
I didn't say it was "a step forward for ID" (note that I placed Confirmed Prediction in quotes). I am not advocating ID. What I am doing is seeing where the design analogy leads me. Yours and others input are welcome, but call me stubborn, I need to learn for myself. ;)
This is an argument I've seen you make several times, and each time I can sense your exasperation. Thus, the following may annoy you, so I ask for your patience in advance.
ReplyDeleteThe "who" cannot be conclusively determined through the means of science. This goes for both sides. Both sides start out with an assumption that cannot be proven (designer vs. no designer).
Not exactly. The assumption that there is a "who" is not an assumption from scientific principles. If you are talking about the dieversity of life on the planet, scientific evidence is pretty convincing that a "who" is not needed. Physical and chemical laws, operating through known mechanisms, seem sufficient at this time. Evidence for the "who" is only needed by the design side. Predictions from physical and chemical laws can be tested. Predictions about a supernatural "who" cannot be tested at this time, and thus are unscientific.
Another basic aspect of science is it can never answer the "why"; that's when the line get crossed into philosophy and/or theology.
Again, not exactly. The "why" from the design proponents is not stated because it gets back to religious dogma, and religious dogma has been rightfully ruled to be out of line in science and science education. From the evolutionary side, the "why" can be answered quite succinctly. Survival and reproduction at a level that is better than the other organisms in the area. That hypothesis can also be tested. Religious dogma, the "why" from the design side, cannot. Thus it also is an unscientific aspect of design "theory".
So we're left with the when, where and how, which can be answered by either side as long as predictions are made and experiments flow those predictions.
Again, not exactly. Physical and chemical laws, acting on organisms with known properties, provide a mechanism for the evolutionary biologist. We have well-described mechanisms for mutation, for heredity, etc. Consilient evidence from biology, genomics, biogeography and geology (among others) can be used to pinpoint "when" a species emerged. Ditto for where. Ditto for how. All of these observations lead to testable predictions BECAUSE A MECHANISM IS POSTULATED. But design is silent on when, silent on where, and silent on how. This silence, and the absence of a mechanism, makes predictive hypotheses impossible, and thus experiments are impossible.
The "design analogy" thus leads to nowhere.
That's my problem. Nothing about design lends itself to making testable hypotheses or doing experiments. Everything about design blunts any scientific strategy which could lead to enhanced understanding. I do hope that you can provide a mechanistic basis for the "passive design" framework that is coming soon to this site :-)