4 ms·

Edit Disclaimer: I am no expert on either ID or evolution theory. Most of my info comes from reading Meyer and Dembski, who are both pioneers of ID, so I'm cle

by Cyph0n 10y ago

Edit Disclaimer: I am no expert on either ID or evolution theory. Most of my info comes from reading Meyer and Dembski, who are both pioneers of ID, so I'm clearly biased. Please take anything I say with a grain of salt. Original comment: Oh, and when did evolution theory come up with a "testable hypothesis" (not a simulation) for stuff like protein evolution, the Cambrian explosion, and DGRNs? Because until evolutionists can fully explain and demonstrate how and why the above don't contradict with the current model, evolution theory also reduces to metaphysics. You can't claim that your theory is "proven" when there are aspects of biology that don't fit with your theory. It's like saying gravitation is true when there is 1 m^2 of area on Earth where gravity breaks down.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
smazero 10y ago
I'm a little cautious about asking but DGRN? A brief search gave me nothing.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Developmental gene regulatory network: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Gene_regulatory_network https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Gene_regulatory_network
techdragon 10y ago
Evolution is routinely proven in laboratories around the world as scientists perform experiments on microbial resistance, insect behaviour, and numerous other experiments involving species with very short lives. These short lived living things, routinely "evolve" in predictable and unpredictable ways, in front of the researchers proverbial eyes. Evolution has been proven to be much more than a "hypothesis".
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  There are certain aspects that are proven beyond a doubt, such as microevolution. But to say that all of life is proven to have undergone both biological and chemical evolution because some microbes were seen evolving in a lab is a bit optimistic in my view. Take the example of DGRNs (mentioned in my previous comment). It is proven that even a slight change in the structure of a GRN completely breaks embryonic development. In other words, if a random mutation is introduced during gene development, the embryo will simply die. So how do entirely new species form if embryonic development is basically impossible? The same applies to protein evolution. I would be more accepting of chemical evolution if the time scale we were considering was much longer. Many people have computed the approximate probabilities required to get a functioning protein from random mutations, and it turns out that it simply isn't feasible given the age of the universe, and this planet.
  - pdonis 10y ago
    > to say that all of life is proven to have undergone both biological and chemical evolution because some microbes were seen evolving in a lab is a bit optimistic in my view. You're ignoring a huge body of evidence: the fact that all living organisms on Earth use the same genetic material and the same genetic code. This is strong evidence for common descent, and common descent is an obvious prediction of the theory of evolution and requires highly implausible ad hoc hypotheses on any other assumption. > how do entirely new species form if embryonic development is basically impossible? It isn't impossible; it's just unlikely, because beneficial mutations are rare. But this is part of evolutionary theory. > Many people have computed the approximate probabilities required to get a functioning protein from random mutations These computations ignore the fact that natural selection is not random. That means the sequence of events from one functioning protein to another is not a random walk through the space of all possible proteins, as the computations assume. (Computations based on permutations and combinations of atoms also ignore the fact that chemical reactions are not random; only a vanishingly small fraction of all possible mathematical combinations of atoms actually occur, the rest are chemically impossible.)
  - simonh 10y ago
    Science advances two ways. On the one hand you come up with a hypothesis and test it to see if it matches the evidence you have and usefully predicts behaviour you've not yet seen. I.e. That it has predictive power. Evolution through natural selection has passed this test with flying colours. It successfully predicts outcomes in a vast field of experiments and observations in the wild. This process builds up a cumulative pile of evidence supporting the theory. On the other hand you construct a test of the theory that can disprove it. So far no such test has been found to disprove evolution. It's true that we don't yet understand every single biological mechanism and every single facet of developmental biology and how they relate to natural selection. However that's not sufficient to 'disprove' evolutionary theory. To do that you'd need to actually prove that evolutionary theory could not explain them - not that it's unlikely it could explain them, but that it's impossible. As it happens the number of thing evolution has not explained is getting smaller as we find the connections and demonstrate them. So on the one hand we have vast troves of experimental and observational results successfully explained by evolution and this trove is increasing rapidly. On the other hand, we have some mechanisms or results where it's not yet completely clear if or how evolution explains them, but this number is decreasing. Finally we have no tests that have disproven evolution. At this point this makes Evolution through natural selection one of the most practically successful and predictive theories science has ever produced, right up there with quantum mechanics. Has it predicted and explained everything in its domain? No. but few theories have yet done that. Even quantum mechanics still has some odd edge cases that are tricky to figure out. So the thing about 'proving' scientific theories is that it's morevlike 'proving' a piece of forged metal. You test it to see if it breaks. Science is really about usefulness. It's test show whether a theory is useful in solving some call of problems. Evolution through natural selection has so far passed every test it's been given in which a colclusuon has been reached. That's encouraging evidence that it will pass the others as well. Meanwhile ID has nothing to show whatsoever. It's an intellectual dead end. Personally, I'm very glad my Christian faith doesn't hinge on it.
judahmeek 10y ago
Technically, scientific theories are never proven. They are only supported or contradicted by testable, reproducible hypotheses. As far as I'm aware, there's many more hypotheses supporting evolution theory than there are supporting intelligent design theory.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  I agree, evolution is more fleshed out than ID. The issue however is how neo-Darwinists have been selling evolution as a complete package. It is not a complete theory, not by a long shot. There is a lot of work to be done before we can say that evolution is undeniably the reason behind the formation of all lifeforms. On top that, there has been a harsh dismissal of ID theorists by the evolution community, even though ID has been correctly pointing out significant flaws with evolution. For example, there was an incident a while back of a journal editor being severely reprimanded for accepting to publish a paper that slightly mentioned ID. Of course, ID itself hasn't been providing alternative hypotheses to evolution that are, well, testable. It's important to note that ID theory in and of itself is not pushing for "God", but rather an intelligent entity in general. So for instance, ID would agree with the idea of the whole "universe simulation theory".
  - bardworx 10y ago
    The Vagus Nerve[0] that controls every mammals voice box originates at the brain stem and travels through the abdomen, then back up to the larynx. It is also responsible for a multitude of functions from heart to the digestive track. Some people believe this is a clear case against ID, but to be fair, there are others who retort that statement[1]. It seems silly for a higher being/entity to create a central point of failure and "poor design" principals. As you've stated, evolution is more fleshed out then intelligent design and the fact that it's a Scientific Theory means that it was well tested via the Scientific Method that is established to cast doubt[2]. Just that statement is so powerful because a group of folks actually attempted to disprove and/or prove via a method that is reproducible. ID is merely a suggestion that has almost no way to be proven/disproven. Centering an argument on a possibility is always entertaining when taken with a grain of salt, however, when a hypothesis becomes a counter argument to a Scientific Theory, credibility is difficult to achieve. The crux of my issue with your comment is that you use the word "theory" interchangeably. While evolution is a Scientific Theory, ID is a theory[3] (lower case t), defined by "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true". Comparing the two is disingenuous. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve [1]http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Laats-Bergman-Throat.pdf http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2011... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory [3]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
fsloth 10y ago
ID is a political movement. It's marketing, not science. Their goal is to increase the credibility of religious demagogues and not actually to understand the world. They are not interested in the world. They are interested of persuading you that "something" created the world. They don't care of science, they care about crafting a message that will drive more peoples into churches. Do note that Dembski does not feel this line of inquiry is interesting anymore[0], and Meyer's credentials of a doctorate are not in natural science but philosophy and history. [0] https://billdembski.com/official-retirement-from-intelligent-design/ https://billdembski.com/official-retirement-from-intelligent...

by Cyph0n 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

smazero 10y ago

I'm a little cautious about asking but DGRN? A brief search gave me nothing.

Cyph0n 10y ago
Developmental gene regulatory network: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Gene_regulatory_network https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Gene_regulatory_network

techdragon 10y ago

Evolution is routinely proven in laboratories around the world as scientists perform experiments on microbial resistance, insect behaviour, and numerous other experiments involving species with very short lives. These short lived living things, routinely "evolve" in predictable and unpredictable ways, in front of the researchers proverbial eyes. Evolution has been proven to be much more than a "hypothesis".

Cyph0n 10y ago
There are certain aspects that are proven beyond a doubt, such as microevolution. But to say that all of life is proven to have undergone both biological and chemical evolution because some microbes were seen evolving in a lab is a bit optimistic in my view. Take the example of DGRNs (mentioned in my previous comment). It is proven that even a slight change in the structure of a GRN completely breaks embryonic development. In other words, if a random mutation is introduced during gene development, the embryo will simply die. So how do entirely new species form if embryonic development is basically impossible? The same applies to protein evolution. I would be more accepting of chemical evolution if the time scale we were considering was much longer. Many people have computed the approximate probabilities required to get a functioning protein from random mutations, and it turns out that it simply isn't feasible given the age of the universe, and this planet.
- pdonis 10y ago
  > to say that all of life is proven to have undergone both biological and chemical evolution because some microbes were seen evolving in a lab is a bit optimistic in my view. You're ignoring a huge body of evidence: the fact that all living organisms on Earth use the same genetic material and the same genetic code. This is strong evidence for common descent, and common descent is an obvious prediction of the theory of evolution and requires highly implausible ad hoc hypotheses on any other assumption. > how do entirely new species form if embryonic development is basically impossible? It isn't impossible; it's just unlikely, because beneficial mutations are rare. But this is part of evolutionary theory. > Many people have computed the approximate probabilities required to get a functioning protein from random mutations These computations ignore the fact that natural selection is not random. That means the sequence of events from one functioning protein to another is not a random walk through the space of all possible proteins, as the computations assume. (Computations based on permutations and combinations of atoms also ignore the fact that chemical reactions are not random; only a vanishingly small fraction of all possible mathematical combinations of atoms actually occur, the rest are chemically impossible.)
- simonh 10y ago
  Science advances two ways. On the one hand you come up with a hypothesis and test it to see if it matches the evidence you have and usefully predicts behaviour you've not yet seen. I.e. That it has predictive power. Evolution through natural selection has passed this test with flying colours. It successfully predicts outcomes in a vast field of experiments and observations in the wild. This process builds up a cumulative pile of evidence supporting the theory. On the other hand you construct a test of the theory that can disprove it. So far no such test has been found to disprove evolution. It's true that we don't yet understand every single biological mechanism and every single facet of developmental biology and how they relate to natural selection. However that's not sufficient to 'disprove' evolutionary theory. To do that you'd need to actually prove that evolutionary theory could not explain them - not that it's unlikely it could explain them, but that it's impossible. As it happens the number of thing evolution has not explained is getting smaller as we find the connections and demonstrate them. So on the one hand we have vast troves of experimental and observational results successfully explained by evolution and this trove is increasing rapidly. On the other hand, we have some mechanisms or results where it's not yet completely clear if or how evolution explains them, but this number is decreasing. Finally we have no tests that have disproven evolution. At this point this makes Evolution through natural selection one of the most practically successful and predictive theories science has ever produced, right up there with quantum mechanics. Has it predicted and explained everything in its domain? No. but few theories have yet done that. Even quantum mechanics still has some odd edge cases that are tricky to figure out. So the thing about 'proving' scientific theories is that it's morevlike 'proving' a piece of forged metal. You test it to see if it breaks. Science is really about usefulness. It's test show whether a theory is useful in solving some call of problems. Evolution through natural selection has so far passed every test it's been given in which a colclusuon has been reached. That's encouraging evidence that it will pass the others as well. Meanwhile ID has nothing to show whatsoever. It's an intellectual dead end. Personally, I'm very glad my Christian faith doesn't hinge on it.

judahmeek 10y ago

Technically, scientific theories are never proven. They are only supported or contradicted by testable, reproducible hypotheses. As far as I'm aware, there's many more hypotheses supporting evolution theory than there are supporting intelligent design theory.

Cyph0n 10y ago
I agree, evolution is more fleshed out than ID. The issue however is how neo-Darwinists have been selling evolution as a complete package. It is not a complete theory, not by a long shot. There is a lot of work to be done before we can say that evolution is undeniably the reason behind the formation of all lifeforms. On top that, there has been a harsh dismissal of ID theorists by the evolution community, even though ID has been correctly pointing out significant flaws with evolution. For example, there was an incident a while back of a journal editor being severely reprimanded for accepting to publish a paper that slightly mentioned ID. Of course, ID itself hasn't been providing alternative hypotheses to evolution that are, well, testable. It's important to note that ID theory in and of itself is not pushing for "God", but rather an intelligent entity in general. So for instance, ID would agree with the idea of the whole "universe simulation theory".
- bardworx 10y ago
  The Vagus Nerve[0] that controls every mammals voice box originates at the brain stem and travels through the abdomen, then back up to the larynx. It is also responsible for a multitude of functions from heart to the digestive track. Some people believe this is a clear case against ID, but to be fair, there are others who retort that statement[1]. It seems silly for a higher being/entity to create a central point of failure and "poor design" principals. As you've stated, evolution is more fleshed out then intelligent design and the fact that it's a Scientific Theory means that it was well tested via the Scientific Method that is established to cast doubt[2]. Just that statement is so powerful because a group of folks actually attempted to disprove and/or prove via a method that is reproducible. ID is merely a suggestion that has almost no way to be proven/disproven. Centering an argument on a possibility is always entertaining when taken with a grain of salt, however, when a hypothesis becomes a counter argument to a Scientific Theory, credibility is difficult to achieve. The crux of my issue with your comment is that you use the word "theory" interchangeably. While evolution is a Scientific Theory, ID is a theory[3] (lower case t), defined by "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true". Comparing the two is disingenuous. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve [1]http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Laats-Bergman-Throat.pdf http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2011... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory [3]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

fsloth 10y ago

ID is a political movement. It's marketing, not science. Their goal is to increase the credibility of religious demagogues and not actually to understand the world. They are not interested in the world. They are interested of persuading you that "something" created the world. They don't care of science, they care about crafting a message that will drive more peoples into churches. Do note that Dembski does not feel this line of inquiry is interesting anymore[0], and Meyer's credentials of a doctorate are not in natural science but philosophy and history. [0] https://billdembski.com/official-retirement-from-intelligent-design/ https://billdembski.com/official-retirement-from-intelligent...