Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[rossum]

Hello, Rossum:

I have two problems with the above:

1.) “…a succession of random mutations, rigorously sorted and filtered by natural selection is an adequate explanation” until we qualify the process further by expanding the “succession of random mutations” to infinity, which science has done in order to make sure that all possible mutations are accounted for.

Evolution does not have to explore an infinite number of mutations. Firstly there is a physical limitation on the size of a genome. Beyond a certain size it becomes too large for the cell to hold; DNA takes up space. Secondly natural selection ensures that there are huge volumes of genomic space that do not need to be explored. For example we all have a protein called Cytochrome C, which is an essential part of the Krebs Cycle. If our Cytochrome C is non-functional then we die immediately, without having any offspring. Hence any genome with a major fault in its Cytochrome C is immediately rejected and all of the other possibilities in the rest of that genome never need to be looked at.

Only possible genomes that can function well enough to reproduce are ever considered by evolution. This means that the genomes looked at are not a random selection but a highly non-random selection. Only genomes that already function reasonably well get to sit the test. Hence we only need to look at a small fraction of possible genomes.

If we postulate that luckily, the right mutations occurred someplace along the finite a priori succession of mutations, well before said finite succession was able to reach infinity, we throw a monkey wrench into the adequacy of the explanation.

Your model fails to take into account the effects of natural selection. Its effect is to amplify the beneficial mutations at the expence of hte deleterious mutations. Not all mutations are equal so using a flat probability calcualtion will not correctly model the combined effect of random mutations and natural selection.

2.) “…rigorously sorted and filtered by natural selection…” Who, or what, is supplying the rigor? Natural selection . . . alone?

Yes. In very simple terms natural selection counts how many fertile children you have and the winners are the ones who have the most. The process is a bit like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population.

This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population. There is nothing “supplying the rigor”, just natural selection.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Why is it that the Big Bang produced not only mathematical laws that govern the universe, but also (apparently by random mutation, according to atheists) a being able to grasp those laws bit by bit with Herculean effort?

All of the atheists I have talked to do not agree. According to them the human brain is a result of both random mutation and natural selection. By leaving out natural selection you are misrepresenting what those atheists are saying.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

Call it what you want I guess… but at the end of the day we can’t research everything and know everything, so we have to take some things without compete proof. However, we have the ability to judge whether something told to us would likely be true or not… you would likely not believe a homeless man on the street, but you probably would someone you respected right? Also, lets not forget that science uses reproducible experiments and peer-review to cut down the probability of false science being accepted as we saw with the infamous cold-fusion stuff. Sure, nothing is perfect, but I was simply trying to express that it is reasonable to assume that many things are true without specifically doing the experiments yourself.

Pele:

All that being said, wouldn’t it be interesting to know on which side of the science vs ID agenda/side those scientists are, or, were? I have seen some of the most stupid errors occur under supposedly strict laboratory conditions, particularly when it comes to the nurture and care of living things. We seem to be better at it when we are building hard drives, or tiny, intricate circuits and semiconductors, don’t we?

No disparagement towards you in any way intended, but, it appears that “rigor” is - or, at least, should be - more attainable (and, demonstrable) in the hands of scientific investigators or demonstrators, compared to philosophical or metaphysical, investigators or demonstrators. The primary method of verifying the rigor of scientific demonstration is, of course, “reproducibility”. Obviously, that method of verifying cannot be done by philosophy, metaphysics, or religion. So, in my humble opinion, it should not be thrown in the faces of philosophers and the religious as a must do in order to prove their theories. I use the word “theories” here in the same sense as the term is used in science - as almost identical to a Law.

Providing the terms and first and second propositions of induction are well understood, or, not effectively misunderstood (or misused), then conclusions from inductions have the same potential veracity and validity as do reproducible scientific demonstrations.

An example that results in a seeming contradiction might be:

1. Anything that is not eternal has a finite, or limited, existence.
2. Matter/energy is not eternal.
3. Therefore, matter/energy has a finite, or limited, existence.

The conclusion would appear to be a violation of the Law of Conservation (past the first Planck era). But, the Laws of Conservation, rightly understood, do not rule out limited existence for matter/energy, except possibly in closed systems, providing the enclosure does not, in time or, from some force, dissolve away. This is a scientific proof, if you will, that something cannot come from nothing and nothing cannot come from something.

The once-held belief that the universe is a closed system appears to be loosing some steam with some scientists. The postulation of and apparent existences of “black holes” seems to support the existence of some sort of space (emptyness, area, event horizon, etc.) outside of the “skin” of the universe. If matter and energy are going down those holes to the “somewhere else”, as some believe, then, the quantity of matter and energy within the universe might be shrinking, despite that the equilibriums will forcefully be maintained.

Sorry for the digression. I simply wanted to demonstrate how an inductive syllogism can and does arrive at truth and knowledge.

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

*All of the atheists I have talked to do not agree. According to them the human brain is a result of both random mutation and natural selection. **By leaving out natural selection *you are misrepresenting what those atheists are saying.

I’m not leaving out natural selection. But notice that you can’t get away from the word “selection.” Selection implies a selector. A selector implies an intelligent process, even if the process is not conscious of itself as intelligent. An ape, for example, is intelligent and selects its mate and its edibles with that intelligence. But is it conscious of its own intelligent designs?

It seem that nature at large, from the time of the Big Bang, follows much the same path. Wherever something amazing happens, like the creation of a universe with laws and elements friendly to life, or like the leap from inanimate to animate matter, there is no consciousness yet of design, yet there is an irreversible plunge headlong toward higher and higher degrees of consciousness untill at last consciousness identifies itself and begins to fulfill the program of intelligent design in a distinctly conscious manner, designing magnificent telescopes and even rockets for space travel so lonely and thirsting is it for signs of intelligence elsewhere in the universe … anywhere and everywhere but in the Force that drives the universe itself.

Only a universe that could not produce “mind” would be a purposeless universe.

 

[JDaniel]

Evolution does not have to explore an infinite number of mutations. Firstly there is a physical limitation on the size of a genome. Beyond a certain size it becomes too large for the cell to hold; DNA takes up space. Secondly natural selection ensures that there are huge volumes of genomic space that do not need to be explored. For example we all have a protein called Cytochrome C, which is an essential part of the Krebs Cycle. If our Cytochrome C is non-functional then we die immediately, without having any offspring. Hence any genome with a major fault in its Cytochrome C is immediately rejected and all of the other possibilities in the rest of that genome never need to be looked at.

Only possible genomes that can function well enough to reproduce are ever considered by evolution. This means that the genomes looked at are not a random selection but a highly non-random selection. Only genomes that already function reasonably well get to sit the test. Hence we only need to look at a small fraction of possible genomes.

Your model fails to take into account the effects of natural selection. Its effect is to amplify the beneficial mutations at the expence of hte deleterious mutations. Not all mutations are equal so using a flat probability calcualtion will not correctly model the combined effect of random mutations and natural selection.

Yes. In very simple terms natural selection counts how many fertile children you have and the winners are the ones who have the most. The process is a bit like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant spreads through the population.

This is a very simple model, but it is enough to show the advantage a beneficial mutation has and how it can spread through a population. There is nothing “supplying the rigor”, just natural selection.

rossum

All you have said is correct. Sorry, but, I failed to phrase the argument correctly, I was considering the entire event, so to speak, both prior to the genomic event as well as after it. After the genomic event, the limited variations and mutations could possibly arrive at a successful selection, however improbable. You say, “…we only need to look at a small fraction of possible genomes…”, but, that is, for all intents and purposes, a gross understatement, especially when one also takes into consideration the fact that not all mutations equally affect the selected genomic event. A “small fraction” compared to what?

But, starting with the so-called “clumping” of matter, even if limited to symbiotic materials, prior to the event of the genome, we do have to traverse a virtual infinity of possible variations of clumpings to arrive at a DNA strand, particularly when mutational exigencies would have affected these clumpings as well. Then, evolution or chance, has to surround (clump) the strand with a beneficial cytoplasm, then, inoculate the “cell” with all of the life-making exigencies that allow the first ever to actually live.

There are those scientists who believe that there simply has not been enough time for all of that to take place. I don’t know; nobody does. Mathematically, one can develop a model that certainly appears to work. But, it’s possible, too, that the variations are infinite, and, thus, that model is merely flat, too.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

You said you are a biologist… but you don’t seem to understand that infinite mutations are not necessary or statistics involved here… I think these videos might be of assistance:

youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c

Pele:

You seem to miss the reality that real mutations are real affectationally, as well as numerically, not to mention the coincidental manifestation of multiple mutations, or variations, occurring simultaneously. Disregarding what occurred prior to the first life form, there is the problem of sufficient time. There are many biologists who hold the belief that there simply has not been enough time, since the point in time when conditions were right, and organic matter clumpings began to decay, for abiogenesis and continued evolution to the point where we are presently, to have occurred.

Remember, I said that I am not trying to refute it - I believe that some sort of abiogenesis did occur and that subsequent evolution is involved in our current situation - somehow. I think the mathematical models are insufficient as proof, though.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Why is it that the Big Bang produced not only mathematical laws that govern the universe, but also (apparently by random mutation, according to atheists) a being able to grasp those laws bit by bit with Herculean effort? Why is the human brain so constructed by evolution to conform to and understand not only the laws of human nature, but of the universe itself? What useful purpose does evolving a creature capable of intelligent design serve from the point of view of natural selection? If survival alone were the end of life, evolution could have stopped with bacteria. But evolution did not stop there, and was driven by some inexorable force toward greater and greater degrees of complexity, until it produced not only a creature who could think abstractly, but a creature who decides to wrestle with the mystery of being itself … and can imagine (without imagining himself to be absurd) an intelligent design that pervades the universe just because he recognizes laws, rather than chaos, everywhere in the universe.

All that I have just said is possible. It is more possible and far more believable than the notion that the universe and everything in it is meaningless and therefore absurd, as the atheists would like us to believe.

These are the unanswered questions that most discussions of evolution and abiogenesis always fail to adequately regard, or, even if they are regarded, they are lightly considered then trashed. The questions themselves are virtually proofs that something greater than man, or even the universe, is at work in the genesis of the universe up through and including man. I don’t think that the mindless manifest destiny of evolutionary life is sufficient, which is one of the main reasons why I reverted to Catholicism after years as an atheist.

If the survival dynamic is the primary dynamic of evolutionary biology, then you are right: evolution would, or should, have stopped at bacteria. Why the evolution of the large lizards only to witness their extinction? Why the extinction of other life forms, in our time, on earth? If we wait long enough, will we be the only non-extinct life form on the planet? Is this the evolutionary dynamic- to witness us eating ourselves? I realize that it would be more complicated than that, but, not much more.

Everything we make or create has an end or a purpose. Everything. Beyond that, we apprehend that most of that which we did not create, or make, also has an end or a purpose - not merely a dynamic, evolutionary tendency in that or those direction(s). And, if we don’t perceive an end or purpose for a thing, we continue looking until we uncover it.

Is it really possible that inert matter would have - out of the blue (actually, the black) so to speak - clumped to produce all of this? I cannot believe that the un-propensity of mindless chaos - chaos beyond randomness - could have evolved into all that we see, especially man and his mind. I find the postulation of a supra-natural, or, extra-physical, force more conceivable and more palatable.

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JDaniel

I don’t think that the mindless manifest destiny of evolutionary life is sufficient, which is one of the main reasons why I reverted to Catholicism after years as an atheist.

We have traveled in the same direction, and returned by the same route. The trek away from Rome and back is a well traveled road … 25 years for me. Finally, after confessing to a priest … the weight off my back!

 

[Michaelo]

If an explanation relies on the improbability of an event it is obviously inferior to an explanation which does not. The higher the degree of improbability the weaker the explanation becomes. Therefore Design is an explanation far superior to non-Design.

]
I think tonyrey answered your post in # 345?

I’m repeating here a number of calculations posted earlier in this thread.

Can either of you offer scientifically positive examples of ID’s probability? Again, how does the alleged improbability of evolution automatically imply ID? Both of your posts seem to present false dichotomies.

 

[Michaelo]

To those who defend ID:

Can you demonstrate falsifiability?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

*To those who defend ID:

Can you demonstrate falsifiability?*

To those who defend the accident of abiogenesis, can you demonstrate falsifiability?

 

[Michaelo]

To those who defend the accident of abiogenesis, can you demonstrate falsifiability?

My question is not predicated on whether some defend the “accident” of abiogenesis, so I’d like a direct response.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

… so I’d like a direct response.

We see intelligent design in the universe. It exists in us when we intelligently design something. We know that splashing paint haphazardly on a canvas will not produce the Last Supper. From the effects of certain actions which display a high level of complexity we can justifiably infer intelligent design. From the effects of certain actions which are entirely unguided we cannot expect higher and higher levels of complexity.

When Democritus imagined the atom, he was taken to task by the scientists of the ancient world because they could not imagine a thing so small that it could not be seen with the naked eye. That is to say, the existence of the atom was not falsifiable. Yet we know today, from the effects of certain actions, that atoms do exist. Had the world forever given up on atoms, we would not know about them today. But the world persisted in searching for evidence of that which cannot be seen but only imagined. Did scientists stop talking forever about atoms, or did they keep coming back to the subject in theory until they could prove it?

We are in a comparable situation with respect to intelligent design. The idea is possible (except perhaps to the atheist who is deeply troubled by it), as was Democritus’s idea of the atom, but it was not provable in the scientific sense. We can show the effects of intelligent design in our own lives, but *we cannot see the process itself *(just as we cannot see the process in ourselves though we don’t know what else to call it).

Abiogenesis by accident is not demonstrable under any circumstances. No laboratory experiment could prove it because the experiment would be intelligently designed. Therefore abiogenesis by accident is speculative but not scientific. It is a less believable notion than abiogenesis by intelligent design because the human mind by its very nature finds it more plausible to accept the probability of highly complex entities being intelligently designed than being the result of sheer accident. :coffeeread:

 

[Michaelo]

Charlemagne II

Have you conceded that ID is not falsifiable? That seems to be the gist of your post. Otherwise, can you provide a specific experiment to be conducted or observation to be made that could falsify ID?

I guess what I don’t understand is why you and others continue to defend the scientific legitimacy of ID when evolutionists on this forum have repeatedly offered substantiated explanations for that which allegedly demonstrates ID, such as complex organs.

 

[tonyrey]

Design has probability of 0% if the Designer does not exist. What is the probability that the Designer exists? Unless you calculate that probability and include it in your overall probability calculation then you are not comparing like with like and your argument fails. GIGO.rossum

There are many scientific theories that are not based on a precise calculation of probability. The metaphysical and epistemological assumptions on which they are based are beyond the realm of mathematical probability.

Let x equal inanimate objects.
Let y equal personality, consciousness, intelligence, freedom and purpose.

There is an incalculably high probability that x+y existed prior to x.

You can opt for garbage. We opt for God.

 

[tonyrey]

Charlemagne II
I guess what I don’t understand is why you and others continue to defend the scientific legitimacy of ID when evolutionists on this forum have repeatedly offered substantiated explanations for that which allegedly demonstrates ID, such as complex organs.

Have evolutionists offered substantiated explanations of life and evolution - not to mention personality, consciousness, intelligence, freedom and purpose? If not, there is no reason to believe science gives a superior explanation of reality to ID.

The success of science implies that intelligence is more powerful than the fortuitous events which are the primary mechanism of evolution, i.e. random combinations of molecules and random mutations of genes. Yet when taken to its logical conclusion neoDarwinism is the theory that random events have succeeded in producing understanding of random events. :clapping:

 

[Michaelo]

Have evolutionists offered substantiated explanations of life and evolution - not to mention personality, consciousness, intelligence, freedom and purpose? If not, there is no reason to believe science gives a superior explanation of reality to ID.

Once again, I ask for scientifically positive arguments supporting ID. Stop assuming that by revealing the alleged inadequacy of evolution you are simultaneously bolstering the legitimacy of ID.

 

[JDaniel]

Once again, I ask for scientifically positive arguments supporting ID. Stop assuming that by revealing the alleged inadequacy of evolution you are simultaneously bolstering the legitimacy of ID.

Do you know of any?

jd

 

[tonyrey]

Once again, I ask for scientifically positive arguments supporting ID. Stop assuming that by revealing the alleged inadequacy of evolution you are simultaneously bolstering the legitimacy of ID.

You are not rationally entitled to use the term “alleged” unless you can show that evolution **is **an adequate explanation of persons with all their attributes.
I have already pointed out that the probability of Design increases in direct proportion to the improbability of non-Design.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

*I guess what I don’t understand is why you and others continue to defend the scientific legitimacy of ID when evolutionists on this forum have repeatedly offered substantiated explanations for that which allegedly demonstrates ID, such as complex organs. *

What you seem unwilling to admit is that** there is no scientific argument that favors the probability of abiogenesis by accident**. That life first appeared by luck is superstitious nonsense, given the odds against it. I repeat, there is absolutely no evidence that abiogenesis happened by accident. It is something atheists fervently hope for, but can never prove. If such proof does exist, and you know of it, let’s hear it. If you don’t know of it, and agree that no such proof exists, you must begin to look for an alternative explanation.

ID is such an alternative. Again, we know about intelligent design because we experience it. When we come upon something highly complex, such as a watch, we recognize the existence of design. We don’t need to know anything about the designer. We don’t have to stand over his shoulder and watch him design the watch to know that it was made by intelligent design. Is that what you want to know, is that we show you the designer at work in order to prove that a thing was designed? Well, that’s not going to happen, just as we are not going to see the atom at work even though we can trace its invisible effects in the world when it combines with other atoms and molecules.

If the argument from accidental abiogenesis is so highly improbable (so far no one in this forum has proven otherwise, nor do I think anyone in this forum has the credential to prove otherwise), then the next most probable argument is the one that science should look at. The next most probable (in fact the only other possible) argument is ID.

In short, no one has ever seen an accidental event produce anything highly complex. Have you? If you have, please document that for me. Have you ever seen intelligent design produce something highly complex? I think you certainly have.

So is accidental abiogenesis or intelligent design the more plausible explanation for the origin of life? Now I have spent a lot of time answering your questions. Would you mind returning the favor? Please answer these two questions:

**1. Why should anyone regard accidental abiogenesis as a scientific concept?

1. Would you expect to see, and would you defend, accidental abiogenesis written up as a possible explanation for the the origin of life in a science textbook for high schools? What scientific authority would you recommend be cited in the book for that position?**

Thank you!

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Charles Darwin

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein