Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[Autodidact]

I will not read from links.

OK, The Origin of Species is not a science book, then it must be pop-sci. Whatever the case, while there is no supporting evidence of that kind for ID, to my knowledge there is also no testing and experimentation that supports Darwinian evolution either. Please provide a summary of the testing and experimentation that supports your position since you are making the claim.

Kind of hard to do from someone who won't even click on a link, while discrediting everyone who hasn't read the same books, but here is a summary of the broad field of experimental evolution. One of the best known is Lenski's ongoing experiment with e coli. This experiment has been very fruitful and leads toward interesting developments in the rate of evolutionary change. New species have evolved during the experiment.

 

[sandor606]

LOL!!!!!! :biglaugh:

Have you ever actually read a scientific journal?
This weeks issue of Science:
Targeted Retrieval and Analysis of Five Neandertal mtDNA Genomes -- Briggs et al. 325 (5938): 318 -- Science
Tiger Moth Jams Bat Sonar -- Corcoran et al. 325 (5938): 325 -- Science
Genome-Wide RNAi Screen Identifies Genes Involved in Intestinal Pathogenic Bacterial Infection -- Cronin et al. 325 (5938): 340 -- Science

This weeks issue of Nature:
The : Schistosoma japonicum: genome reveals features of host-parasite interplay : Abstract : Nature
The genome of the blood fluke : Schistosoma mansoni : Abstract : Nature
The active form of DNA polymerase V is UmuD[prime]: 2: C-RecA-ATP : Abstract : Nature
Access : Global patterns of speciation and diversity : Nature
Access : Evolution of a malaria resistance gene in wild primates : Nature

From this weeks PLoS one (they had 83 articles just this week so here are just a few highlights from the past two days):
PLoS ONE: The Special Neuraminidase Stalk-Motif Responsible for Increased Virulence and Pathogenesis of H5N1 Influenza A Virus
PLoS ONE: Social and Emotional Values of Sounds Influence Human (Homo sapiens) and Non-Human Primate (Cercopithecus campbelli) Auditory Laterality
PLoS ONE: Guanine Nucleotides in the Meiotic Maturation of Starfish Oocytes: Regulation of the Actin Cytoskeleton and of Ca2+ Signaling
PLoS ONE: Impact of Alien Plant Invaders on Pollination Networks in Two Archipelagos

I could naturally cite more from the dozens of other scientific journals dealing specifically with biology, ecology, evolutionary development and on and on and on... :yes:

If you want more you can also check out this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html
That one may be easier... as I only post to news stories about primary research rather than the primary research itself. It's almost like pop-sci, but it actually leads to the research done.

wa:do

Stop assuming.

I read the titles and, imho, not a single one is a longitudinal test or experiment that proves Darwin's theory. However, I will gladly read a quote from any of the articles in which such conclusion is reached and I will read it with an open mind.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course it is speculative but so is Darwinism

Incorrect. ToE is one of the most well established and supported theories in the history of science. It is falsifiable and verifiable, and has been verified thousands of times with millions of data points and many, many, fulfilled predictions. It bears no resemblance ot the speculative philosophical explorations of either ID or the Anthropic principles.

and the hypothesis of self-organization. Until testing and experimentation have been carried out, AP and the other theories will remain speculative. The point is, however, that ID based on SAP is the most likely to be correct given the nature of the new discoveries.

The problem is that there is no possible testing, experiment or prediction that can be carried out. That's how we know it's not science. And science has nothing to do with guessing what you think is most likely to be correct. It's all about looking at the data and finding out what was correct.

You do realize that ToE is not in opposition to the Anthropic Principle, and the thinkers that you cite do not disagree with ToE, right?

 

[Autodidact]

I could overwhelm you with evidence from links on ID but that is no way to proceed in a discussion.

NO, you couldn't, because there isn't any. ID does not relay on evidence. It's not science.

In a discussion, I learned in graduate school, (a professor and 10-12 sudents around a table) each participant comes with a description of her/his position, supporting evidence from credible sources, and pertinent quotes, if applicable. In this discussion, I did just that from the beginning and throughout; I presented my position, provided credible evidence (presently the bone of contention) as well as quotes. I don't think is too much to ask for the same.

And we're waiting for that evidence, sandor. So far all we get is, "this smart guy thinks it's true." You have presented certain facts, but when other posters point out that your conclusions do not follow, you do not respond with logic, only an argument from weak authority. "This smart guy sure thinks so" is not an argument.

 

[painted wolf]

I read the titles and, imho, not a single one is a longitudinal test or experiment that proves Darwin's theory. However, I will gladly read a quote from any of the articles in which such conclusion is reached and I will read it with an open mind.

So what? There have been plenty of longitudinal studies of evolution and many of them are ongoing.

From the 30 years work of the Grant's in studying finches of the Galapagos to the "Long Term Evolution Experiment" with E.coli started in the 1980's by Richard Lenski.
The study of the Isle Royal ecosystem.

Where is the primary research on ID?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Stop assuming.

I read the titles and, imho, not a single one is a longitudinal test or experiment that proves Darwin's theory. However, I will gladly read a quote from any of the articles in which such conclusion is reached and I will read it with an open mind.

sandor has to call in help to move those goalposts:

First, experimental evidence is not the only kind of evidence. Any fulfilled prediction is important confirming evidence, and millions, literally millions of pieces of evidence fit this criteria.

Second, you didn't ask for longitudinal studies (although I happened to cite an important one that you ignored) you asked for experimental evidence, which turns out to be an entire field of study: experimental evolution.

Third, not only does ToE have tons, literal tons, of evidence in its support, your "theory" has none and can have none, because there is no evidence that could either support or disprove it because...wait for it...it's not a scientific theory. It's a philosophical speculation. It's inherently speculative and unfalsifiable.

 

[sandor606]

NO, you couldn't, because there isn't any. ID does not relay on evidence. It's not science. And we're waiting for that evidence, sandor. So far all we get is, "this smart guy thinks it's true." You have presented certain facts, but when other posters point out that your conclusions do not follow, you do not respond with logic, only an argument from weak authority. "This smart guy sure thinks so" is not an argument.

You think so little of me that you write my name in small case. No matter. Funny joke, too! You are really funny.

ToE is not science either because there is NO way to test - by whatever means- the 600-million long process "in a laboratory," no matter how long the experiment takes place. One would have to replicate the different environments, the different climates, and the changes in both, big and small over time. So, with basically the same evidence, Darwin and the neo-Darwinists have concluded one thing, Prigogine and Kauffman another, and ID theorists another yet. Lacking experimental evidence, I favor the last choice.
P.S.

 

[painted wolf]

You think so little of me that you write my name in small case. No matter.

your name is written in small case on your avatar.... :sarcastic

ToE is not science either because there is NO way to test the 600-million long process "in a laboratory," no matter how long the experiment takes place. So, with basically the same evidence, the neo-Dawinists have concluded one thing, Prigogine and Kauffman another, and ID theorists another yet. Lacking experimental evidence, I favor the last choice.

You call yourself a scientist? :help:
I'm calling POE!

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

You think so little of me that you write my name in small case. No matter. Funny joke, too! You are really funny.

Sorry, just typing fast.

ToE is not science either because there is NO way to test - by whatever means- the 600-million long process "in a laboratory," no matter how long the experiment takes place. One would have to replicate the different environments, the different climates, and the changes in both, big and small over time. So, with basically the same evidence, Darwin and the neo-Darwinists have concluded one thing, Prigogine and Kauffman another, and ID theorists another yet. Lacking experimental evidence, I favor the last choice.
P.S.[/quote]

You have now demonstrated either your total ignorance of science, evolution, or both, or that you are dishonest. You don't seem to be aware that entire branches of science do not rely on laboratory experiments, and that laboratory experiments are not part of the definition of science. Furthermore, you have ignored the cited laboratory experiments that are so important to modern evolutionary theory.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" Theodosius Dobzhansky

 

[Autodidact]

your name is written in small case on your avatar.... :sarcastic

I retract my apology.

 

[sandor606]

your name is written in small case on your avatar.... :sarcastic

You call yourself a scientist? :help:
I'm calling POE!

wa:do

I am an epistemologist, not scientist.

 

[camanintx]

They say that it was out of necessity; that in order for a Universe that could support life and for evolution to develop human beings the constants had to be exactly what they are; they explain that any other value, even to the smallest degree, would have prevented the Universe from forming. They claim that in order to be exactly what they are to the nth decimal they had to have been designed because a Darwinian process of trial and error could not have accomplished that. That is the conclusion reached by the proponents; there are those who disagree, of course, and who still see the hand of chance and natural selection as the producers of these constants. However, this discovery, the proponents claim, is pointing in the direction of design, not chance.

Did any of these books explain how the universe's physical properties, such as the weak nuclear force, came about?

Just because the results were condusive to life as we know it doesn't prove that we were the intended goal.

 

[sandor606]

Kind of hard to do from someone who won't even click on a link, while discrediting everyone who hasn't read the same books, but here is a summary of the broad field of experimental evolution. One of the best known is Lenski's ongoing experiment with e coli. This experiment has been very fruitful and leads toward interesting developments in the rate of evolutionary change. New species have evolved during the experiment.

From your link:
"The long-term evolution experiment was intended to provide experimental evidence for several of the central problems of evolutionary biology: how rates of evolution vary over time; the extent to which evolutionary changes are repeatable in separate populations with identical environments; and the relationship between evolution at the phenotypic and genomic levels.[2]"

The experiment did not provide evidence supporting the fundamental tenet of Darwinian evolution: natural selection. It provided evidence for other problems in evolutionary biology but not that natural selection guides/drives evolution in general, or that it specifically drove the evolution of those bacteria. There is not a single sentence in the article that sheds light on that.

 

[sandor606]

Sorry, just typing fast.

ToE is not science either because there is NO way to test - by whatever means- the 600-million long process "in a laboratory," no matter how long the experiment takes place. One would have to replicate the different environments, the different climates, and the changes in both, big and small over time. So, with basically the same evidence, Darwin and the neo-Darwinists have concluded one thing, Prigogine and Kauffman another, and ID theorists another yet. Lacking experimental evidence, I favor the last choice.
P.S.

You have now demonstrated either your total ignorance of science, evolution, or both, or that you are dishonest. You don't seem to be aware that entire branches of science do not rely on laboratory experiments, and that laboratory experiments are not part of the definition of science. Furthermore, you have ignored the cited laboratory experiments that are so important to modern evolutionary theory.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" Theodosius Dobzhansky

I am neither ignorant nor dishonest but you sure have an opinionated and offensive mouth.

Early on in this discussion I was asked to provide info on tests/experiments that support ID. If that is the standard then it should be applied to all interpretation of evolution. The E.coli experiment you provided to support your contention was carried out in a laboratory and my comment referred to that. In addition, as I pointed out in my previous post, the experiment did not address the question of natural selection. I also agree with Dobzhanski; where I disagree is concerning the nature of evolution which is NOT driven by natural selection but is prescribed.

 

[painted wolf]

I am an epistemologist, not scientist.

So were you intentionally misleading when you said you were a biologist?

There is nothing wrong with being upfront about being a philosopher.... if you want to discuss this as philosophy you would have had a very different discussion with me.
I am a theist after all.
However I have a strong dislike of people trying to use science to justify faith (it cheapens both)... and next to zero tolerance for people trying to pass off conjecture as genuine science.

That is what disappoints me with ID... I'm a trained scientist, I expect a certain level of evidence to stand as science. They have constantly failed to provide scientific evidence while trying to get philosophical evidence shoe-horned in it's place.
It's a shame... when the ID movement first started, I had some hope for it....

I will adjust my discussion on this issue.... I will discuss this as philosophy except where you talk about specific experiments or scientific method.

The E.coli experiment used to support your contention was carried out in a laboratory and my comment referred to that. In addition, as I pointed out in another post, the experiment did not address the question of natural selection.

The whole experiment was based on evolution due to natural selection.... The selective feature was the food medium on which the E.coli was raised.

I also agree with Dobzhanski; where I disagree is concerning the nature of evolution which is NOT driven by natural selection but is prescribed.

So from your point of view, every mutation and every adaptation is the result of tinkering from an unseen force? Is this force active or is pre-ordained in your view?

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

So were you intentionally misleading when you said you were a biologist?

There is nothing wrong with being upfront about being a philosopher.... if you want to discuss this as philosophy you would have had a very different discussion with me.
I am a theist after all.
However I have a strong dislike of people trying to use science to justify faith (it cheapens both)... and next to zero tolerance for people trying to pass off conjecture as genuine science.

That is what disappoints me with ID... I'm a trained scientist, I expect a certain level of evidence to stand as science. They have constantly failed to provide scientific evidence while trying to get philosophical evidence shoe-horned in it's place.
It's a shame... when the ID movement first started, I had some hope for it....

I will adjust my discussion on this issue.... I will discuss this as philosophy except where you talk about specific experiments or scientific method.

The whole experiment was based on evolution due to natural selection.... The selective feature was the food medium on which the E.coli was raised.

So from your point of view, every mutation and every adaptation is the result of tinkering from an unseen force? Is this force active or is pre-ordained in your view?

wa:do

Get your facts straight: I never said I was a biologist; I said I had an undergraduate degree in biology and a graduate degree in philosophy of science. I consider myself an epistemologist. BIG difference, right?

Today, biologists agree that natural selection drives microevolution which selects the "small" changes in a species. But certain scientists assert that natural selection does not provide for macroevolution, the evolution of completely new species, much less phyla. I share that view. If you are a trained scientist and involved in this discussion you should already know that.

In the Galapagos Darwin observed small variations in beak shape within a species and inferred that the driving force of natural selection would also, by an accumulation of small variations, evolve organisms into new species. There is no evidence of that and it has never been observed. A species can split into subspecies, but never become a totally new species. Therefore, in order for macroevolution to take place, the process has to be prescribed, while adaptation and certain types of mutations provide for microevolution. Darwin's evolutionary biology can account for the different shapes in the beaks of finches (and the countless other variations within any species), but it cannot account of how birds evolved.

Given the title of the thread, I too was hoping we could discuss ID without antagonism and name-calling, but instead we are discussing Darwinism. That suits me fine. ID may not be the answer, but natural selection is is NOT either.

 

[painted wolf]

Get your facts straight: I never said I was a biologist; I said I had an undergraduate degree in biology and a graduate degree in philosophy of science. I consider myself an epistemologist. BIG difference, right?

I missed any reference to your saying you had a degree in philosophy or that you did not identify as a biologist.
You did say clearly that you had a degree in biology. (I'm sorry I assumed more to it than you offered.)
And yes, it is a big difference.

Today, biologists agree that natural selection drives microevolution which selects the "small" changes in a species. But certain scientists assert that natural selection does not provide for macroevolution, the evolution of completely new species, much less phyla. I share that view. If you are a trained scientist and involved in this discussion you should already know that.

There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. As a trained biologist I know that there is a false dichotomy between "micro" and "macro".
'Macro' evolution is simply the build up of successive 'micro' steps. (Even a great many of the ID scientists acknowledge this, such as Dembski.)

A species can split into subspecies, but never become a totally new species.

This is incorrect... new species have been observed to evolve. (again, a fact that ID scientists will willingly agree to.)

Given the title of the thread, I too was hoping we could discuss ID without antagonism and name-calling, but instead we are discussing Darwinism. That suits me fine. ID may not be the answer, but natural selection is is NOT either.

Given the title of the thread I was hoping for some scientific evidence in support of Intelligent Design.

In light of the desire to have a discussion on ID... I will re-ask my final question in hopes to learn more about your position.

So from your point of view, every mutation and every adaptation is the result of tinkering from an unseen force? Is this force active or is pre-ordained in your view?

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. As a trained biologist I know that there is a false dichotomy between "micro" and "macro".
'Macro' evolution is simply the build up of successive 'micro' steps. (Even a great many of the ID scientists acknowledge this, such as Dembski.)

If this is the case, what brought about the Cambrian explosion? And whence did birds evolve? Specifically, what organs became the feather and the avian lung respectively thorugh small, successive steps?

IThis is incorrect... new species have been observed to evolve. (again, a fact that ID scientists will willingly agree to.)

Please provide suppporting evidence for your claim.

IGiven the title of the thread I was hoping for some scientific evidence in support of Intelligent Design.

In light of the desire to have a discussion on ID... I will re-ask my final question in hopes to learn more about your position.
wa:do

You missed the evidence I provided on more than one occasion the same way you missed what I wrote about my college education. Re-read my posts. If the sources of my evidence are not acceptable, then I don't see a reason to continue this discussion.

P.S. The reference section of most chapters in the Anthropic Cosmological Principle pop-sci book lists peer-reviewed scientific journals, including Science, Nature, Phys. Rev., Intl. J. Theor. Phys., Am.J.Phys., Trans. NY Acad. Sci., Physics., Naturwiss., Rev. Mod. Phys., and and Proc. Roy. Soc.

 

[Autodidact]

Today, biologists agree that natural selection drives microevolution which selects the "small" changes in a species. But certain scientists assert that natural selection does not provide for macroevolution, the evolution of completely new species, much less phyla. I share that view. If you are a trained scientist and involved in this discussion you should already know that.

How many biologists assert that ToE explains something you're calling "micro-evolution" but not speciation? Can you name ten?

In the Galapagos Darwin observed small variations in beak shape within a species and inferred that the driving force of natural selection would also, by an accumulation of small variations, evolve organisms into new species.

No, Darwin observed various species of finches.

Perhaps the most famous example of allopatric speciation is Darwin's Galápagos Finches.

[wiki]

There is no evidence of that and it has never been observed. A species can split into subspecies, but never become a totally new species. Therefore, in order for macroevolution to take place, the process has to be prescribed, while adaptation and certain types of mutations provide for microevolution. Darwin's evolutionary biology can account for the different shapes in the beaks of finches (and the countless other variations within any species), but it cannot account of how birds evolved.

Here is the wiki on speciation. Here is an article that lists many observed instances of speciation, in the laboratory (your favorite) and the field (equally important.)

Given the title of the thread, I too was hoping we could discuss ID without antagonism and name-calling, but instead we are discussing Darwinism

You borought it up.

That suits me fine. ID may not be the answer, but natural selection is is NOT either.

Natural selection is only part of ToE. You forgot the important descent with modification part.

 

[painted wolf]

If this is the case, what brought about the Cambrian explosion?

You mean the Cambrian slow fuse? Fossil discoveries since the 1980's have shown that the Cambrian 'explosion' was just a result of not having found enough fossils... we now have a much larger and more comprehensive record of the early Cambrian...
Also a lot of work with genetics has helped to clear up what was going on in this time... such as duplications and repurposing of HoX genes.

And whence did birds evolve?

Paleontology since the 1980's has pretty definitively shown that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Specifically, what organs became the feather and the avian lung respectively thorugh small, successive steps?

That would be the dinosaur lung (already equiped with air-sacs thanks the shared common ancestor with Pterosaurs) and feathers likely from the same common ancestor as both Pterosaurs and Dinosaurs have filamentous proto-feather plumage.

Please provide suppporting evidence for your claim.

I and others already have... but here are two quickies:
London Underground mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok... so I'll ask my question a third time... I am genuinely interested in your answer.
So from your point of view, every mutation and every adaptation is the result of tinkering from an unseen force? Is this force active or is pre-ordained in your view?

wa:do