It is. In the human genome about 5% directly codes for proteins, a further 5% is functional but does not code proteins (such as on/off switches for individual genes) the rest has no known function. Will we find a function for a bit more of it? Probably. Will we find a function for all of it? Probably not. Some really is junk, such as the stretches of Poly-A (AAAAA … AAA) that result from some transcription errors.and then he found out junk DNA is not junk…
I haven’t implied that the fossil record has any impact on the truth of ID. The point is that evolution draws evidence from the fossil record (as well as many other places), and makes fossil-based predictions. Consequently, there is a fossil-based falsification criterion (actually many of them).That’s a nice concrete criterion, but why do you think it’s relevant here? How do you suppose that observations of the fossil record can be used to settle the specific question that is raised in the ID debate? (IC-ID is neutral towards the fossil record.) You seem to be assuming that if specific parts of evolutionary theory are falsifiable, then you are justified in gerrymandering that falsifiability onto any other theoretical claim which also happens to fall under the rubric ‘evolution.’ Can you see that that doesn’t work?
who said he was a spokesman for catholic teaching?Kenneth Miller is not a credible spokesman for Catholic teaching.
Here, it is about an ideology 99% of the time.
“absolutely” To my fellow Catholics, whenever you see big adjectives in front of a word, doubt the message.
God bless,
Ed
Is a bacterial flagellum not concrete enough for you? Behe proposed the flagellum as a concrete example of exactly what Darwin described, something that could not evolve by successive small steps. Behe turned out to be wrong, but he was able to understand Darwin’s description and made a reasonable attempt at meeting it.Yes, I can see you’re missing the point I’m trying to make. It doesn’t matter that Darwin provided an abstract criterion of falsifiability. If there is no way of actually making that criterion concrete (and replacing it with another abstract criterion doesn’t do this), then it’s not really a falsifiable theory, in any measurable, ‘scientific’ sense.
One of the interesting discussions I have observed inside ID is the argument about ‘front loading’. Did the designers build all their design into the Big Bang and let it run from there without any further intervention? Or do the designers intervene from time to time, nudging things in the desired direction? With front loading designers, or with designers who have not intervened since the origin of life, then ID and evolution are identical since all the required information was put into the system before evolution got going. Both sides agree that evolution is capable of copying information from environments into genomes.When you talk about ID in this paragraph, you are creating a straw man. ID, insofar as it is a potentially scientific project, is obviously not interested in claiming that a description of evolutionary processes is evidence of design. But that is what is implied when you talk about the designer “mimicking” evolution. Can you see that?
That said, my questions stand:
"That * was exactly my point, so still, isn’t the obvious equivalent [to Darwin’s criterion]: “If it could be demonstrated that it is not true for any of the complex organs which exist that they could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, ID theory would absolutely break down”?*
This is not a good falsifiability test since it requires complete knowledge. Darwin’s test does not require complete knowledge, just a single example. ID needs a falsifiability test that can be met with a single, or a few, examples. ID cannot just set itself up as the default, which is what a complete knowledge falsifiability criterion does. The default in science is “we don’t know”. Had Behe’s IC proved to be the barrier to evolution that he had hoped then the scientific consensus would be “we don’t know how the bacterial flagellum originated”. In order to move from there to “the bacterial flagellum was designed” the ID side would need to get specific on where, when, how, by whom it was designed.
rossum
Archaeopteryx is an example of a transitional. A complete absence of transitionals would be a big problem for evolution. Archaeopteryx is merely one among many such examples. To say, “If no transitionals then evolution is falsified,” would be correct.Okay, take archaeopteryx: That’s something concrete. But Darwin’s theory could function well enough without the discovery of archaeopteryx, couldn’t it? There is no concrete test for Darwin’s theory, of the form: If no archeopteryx, then evolution falsified, is there?
That is not how I read Miller. Behe was not attempting to say anything about ID, he was trying to show that the flagellum could not have evolved. His attempt failed, yet that does not say anything about whether or not ID is correct. Many ID people have set up a false dichotomy, ID or evolution. That is incorrect, it omits the “we don’t know” default option.But Miller and others seem to want to treat Behe’s theory in this way: If flagellum not IC, then ID falsified.
Did I mention that the river was infested with piranha? There is an advantage to not putting your feet in the water, hence the stepping stones and the utility of the bridge.Yes, but a mousetrap or an outboard motor are both clearly functional, are they not? A log resting on two rocks is not.
It is a mouse trap, but it is not IC since it is too simple, only one part. My stepping stones are not IC but the final bridge is. The example shows incremental steps from a non-IC system to an IC system while retaining function all the time.Your view seems to imply that if a branch could fall from a tree and could potentially kill a mouse, then that is an IC mouse trap.
Thanks. I was just wondering about your off-the-cuff view on where there’s a disagreement.Let me get back to you about this later this week; I have to write to Ken anyway.
really? why is it then that gravity still remains only as a hypothesis.Observation of living cells does not require falsification. It only requires confirmation. The confirmation has already been published.
Just like science experiments. Once published, they are reproduced by other labs to confirm the findings. That’s how science works. I can “prove” gravity every time I drop something.
God bless,
Ed
IDvolution, yes. You are onto it rossum.One of the interesting discussions I have observed inside ID is the argument about ‘front loading’. Did the designers build all their design into the Big Bang and let it run from there without any further intervention? Or do the designers intervene from time to time, nudging things in the desired direction? With front loading designers, or with designers who have not intervened since the origin of life, then ID and evolution are identical since all the required information was put into the system before evolution got going. Both sides agree that evolution is capable of copying information from environments into genomes.
The rocks and the bridge both are used for a purpose, to get to the other side. Who wants to go there and why?Archaeopteryx is an example of a transitional. A complete absence of transitionals would be a big problem for evolution. Archaeopteryx is merely one among many such examples. To say, “If no transitionals then evolution is falsified,” would be correct.
That is not how I read Miller. Behe was not attempting to say anything about ID, he was trying to show that the flagellum could not have evolved. His attempt failed, yet that does not say anything about whether or not ID is correct. Many ID people have set up a false dichotomy, ID or evolution. That is incorrect, it omits the “we don’t know” default option.
Did I mention that the river was infested with piranha? There is an advantage to not putting your feet in the water, hence the stepping stones and the utility of the bridge.
It is a mouse trap, but it is not IC since it is too simple, only one part. My stepping stones are not IC but the final bridge is. The example shows incremental steps from a non-IC system to an IC system while retaining function all the time.
rossum
you forget the biggest differance between a bridge, fridge, or rock, and lifeThe rocks and the bridge both are used for a purpose, to get to the other side. Who wants to go there and why?
That is what most are missing about the flagellum. Its purpose. We can go back to our little foray into measuring CSI.
The refrigerator is what I proposed we next examine. True a motor can be used for other things as can the compressor and the gas. Take one of those away and the refrigerator fails its intended purpose.
No Ed, you don’t prove it . The only thing you prove is that things fall. Gravity is still the best explanation, superior to Aristotle’s theory of heaving things falling to their “natural place.” Evolution is the best explanation for both species diversity and relatedness.I can “prove” gravity every time I drop something.
God bless,Ed
Thanks for proving my point. In one short sentence you have shown how the Theory of Gravity has predictive power; described an experiment and its expected results; and implictly specified its falsification criteria (if the object “fell” upwards or sideways, that would refute gravity, all else being equal).Observation of living cells does not require falsification. It only requires confirmation. The confirmation has already been published.
Just like science experiments. Once published, they are reproduced by other labs to confirm the findings. That’s how science works. I can “prove” gravity every time I drop something.
You are dead right. Inanimate objects cannot even become alive by themselves!you forget the biggest differance between a bridge, fridge, or rock, and life
life can evolve…inanimate objects can not
This is a fact which nobody disputes.Inanimate objects cannot even become alive by themselves!
I use the examples as a basis of understanding. We can certainly apply the same concepts to life. This is what the debate is all about.you forget the biggest differance between a bridge, fridge, or rock, and life
life can evolve…inanimate objects can not
This is simply more obfuscation. In that case, science should be rejected if it doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s how court cases are decided. This approach, if applied to science, is worthwhile. If it is not applied then the current version of science is stupid and useless.No Ed, you don’t prove it . The only thing you prove is that things fall. Gravity is still the best explanation, superior to Aristotle’s theory of heaving things falling to their “natural place.” Evolution is the best explanation for both species diversity and relatedness.
Loads of “transitionals” have been found. Since all of life has been evolving for three and a half billion years, everything is a transitional. See “Transitional fossils are not rare” at Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare | National Center for Science Education>As Cardinal Schoenborn wrote about transitionals in his book Chance or Purpose, no transitionals have been found. I’ve seen photos of ancient insects trapped in amber: wings, legs, eyes, and no partially functional or on its way to being something else parts.God bless,Ed
also here is a list of where species have been observed to change into new species under laboratory conditions in controlled experimentsLoads of “transitionals” have been found. Since all of life has been evolving for three and a half billion years, everything is a transitional. See “Transitional fossils are not rare” at Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare | National Center for Science Education>
But if you want specifics, you could scarcely do better than Tiktaalik:
ncse.com/image/tiktaalik-roseae-0
For the whole: google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://afarensis.blogsome.com/images/tiktaalik_phylo.jpg&imgrefurl=http://afarensis.blogsome.com/2006/04/19/tiktaalik-roseae-and-the-origins-of-tetrapods/&h=355&w=400&sz=17&tbnid=1DFIIjydsj0TsM:&tbnh=110&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtiktaalik%2Broseae&zoom=1&q=tiktaalik+roseae&hl=en&usg=__7Z1T9nPR4SrpQXfJz2YwO3r59R8=&sa=X&ei=QGDATI78CoK4sQP-6IzSCw&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ9QEwBQ
and specifically for the feet:
ncse.com/image/tetrapodtransition
StAnastasia
Right. I wonder why the Discovery Institute and the Answers in Genesis Museum and other creationists organizations can’t bring forward scientifically credible arguments to support their claim that evolution is not a coherent explanation for species diversity and relatedness.also here is a list of where species have been observed to change into new species under laboratory conditions in controlled experiments
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html