|
Author
|
Topic: Is ID theory falsifiable?
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 07. January 2006 08:04
quote:
One of the things that is not yet clear is what becomes of the blueprints once expressed. The irreversibility of evolution would indicate that they have been scrapped which may be what that extra DNA is all about.
There never were any blueprints. DNA only codes for protein sequences, and it is the selective production of proteins, controlled by HOX genes acting as switches that plays out into the developed functioning organism. There is no mechanism for "erasing" the information encoded in DNA other than by removal of the sequence from the genome or being "switched off". Whatever the eventual rôle is found to be for so-called junk DNA, I suspect the suggestion that it is "scrapped blueprints" will turn out to be far-fetched.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. January 2006 11:42
No seriousl scientist has ever questioned that the hox genes are involved in evolution. The issue now and always has been the MECHANISM by which such expressions have been controlled. One thing has become transparent. Chance has played no role in that MECHANISM either for ontogeny or phylogeny. If not chance then what? I answer that the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is the only remaining candidate and I will remain convinced of the PEH until someone presents evidence to the contrary, a prospect which I do not anticipate. If it hasn't been presented in the twenty one years since I first offered it, I can hardly expect anything now when it is receiving direct experimental verification. I am not disappointed.
The simple truth is that except for the ephemeral internet, I and my brilliant sources have not been allowed to exist in the significant peer reviewed literature. The Darwinians have even shoveled under the rug some of the their own, notably Theodosius Dobzhansky, Alfred Russel Wallace and Julian Huxley. It has been a scandal which has metamorphosed into the biggest hoax in the history of science.
I am delighted to be able to be part of the demise of the biggest joke in the history of mankind, namely that man was an accident. It has become a veritable thigh-slapper for me. Excuse m while I go into convulsive laughter about the whole ridiculous business.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 07. January 2006 11:45
Hi Melvin, I would like to comment on your problem as expressed here:
quote:
Suppose we are materialists. Our argument would be:
Premise – If false positives exist, then CSC is worthless.
Premise – If CSC is worthless, then ID is false.
Premise – False positives exist.
Conclusion – ID is false.
We would set up our null and alternative hypotheses as:
H0: No false positives exist.
H1: False positives exist.
Now, the only thing required to bring ID to its knees is one false positive. Keep in mind that CSC infers design for better than 50-50 odds. If no false positive is found, we fail to reject H0 but we have not proven the null hypothesis to be true.
(1) Your problem starts in the word "worthless". I think we must be a little careful as to the interpretation of what Bill Dembski really meant in using this word. Would it really be "worthless" for example if the CSC worked fine for 99 out of every entities one tested for design - but failed 1% of the time? Personally I wouldn't classify that as "worthless". True that 1% of false positives would give me some cause for concern and would get my interest up, but it would not cause me to throw away the CSC. Say for example I had a test (a criterion) based on observations of a car's external structure which told me if the car would have a fuel consumption of at least 15 miles per gallon. If from past experience the test worked 99% of the times I would probably trust it in making a car purchase. Agree? With regard to the CSC the 1% failure (if it were so high) would be utterly annoying - but it would still not indicate totally "worthless".
(2) I am not sure your 2nd premise holds firm. Well it clearly is a good premise if "worthless" really means "worthless" as in totally unreliable. But say for sake of argument the CSC were only 99% reliable as discussed above (and I am quite sure it is many more orders of magnitude reliable than this!) that means that 99% of the time when the CSC says "design" - it is correct in its verdict. That means that if say 100 biological systems (or subsystems) were studied that all registered "design" - then at least 99 of them would be designed. ID would be true if only one were designed and we have well exceeded this. The probability of getting 100 false positives in a row (with a false positive probability of 1%) is miniscule. [Am I correct in believing it would be 1E-200 ?]
(3) With regard to the null hypothesis I can see you very much want to rule out false positives absolutely. I dont think it is going to be possible. There are two ways one could get the null hypothesis as I am sure you will agree. (i) False positives are absolutely forbidden by some reason (H0) or (2) they exist (H1) but are just so improbable that with the probabilistic resources at hand the saturated probability of seeing a false positive is so low that one does not expect to see one. Since both (1) and (2) both lead to "no observed false positives" - as you rightly conclude H0 cannot be asserted. From my understanding of physical processes H0 is hardly likely to be true anyway since physical processes are basically stochastic in nature. Moreover H1 is a basic hypothesis behind the formulation of the CSC so I think it is wrong to even consider H0 an option.
(4) When you say "Keep in mind that the CSC infers design for better than 50-50 odds" remember that 50-50 odds is only the case if you have accessible in the naturalistic environment that produced the entity you are testing the total probabilistic resources of the Universe. Well this is most often very far from the case. For example if we are dealing with the first living cell coming together by chance + law - the probabilistic resources available are very much less than 10^150 - probably more like 10^50. This makes the odds of the CSC working fine very very much better than 50:50.
Looking forward to your comments. Chris
[ 07. January 2006, 11:56: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 07. January 2006 12:46
Professor Davison wrote:
quote:
The issue now and always has been the MECHANISM by which such expressions have been controlled. One thing has become transparent. Chance has played no role in that MECHANISM either for ontogeny or phylogeny. If not chance then what? I answer that the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is the only remaining candidate and I will remain convinced of the PEH until someone presents evidence to the contrary, a prospect which I do not anticipate.
William Dembski's various publications have been the subject of much criticism from for instance, Professor David Wolpert, Professor Mark Perakh. Professor Jeffrey Shallitt and others. Michael Behe's ideas have similarly received much critical comment from his peers. Their work is taken seriously enough to warrant such attention. Yet I have never seen any criticism by anyone in the mainstream scientific world of Professor Davison's hypothesis.
quote:
If it hasn't been presented in the twenty one years since I first offered it, I can hardly expect anything now when it is receiving direct experimental verification.
Can we have any indication of the form and progress of such "experimental verification".
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. January 2006 14:24
Of course there is no verification yet. The Darwinians stopped testing their own naive hypothesis when Dobzhansky last failed to produce species through the most intensive selection with Drosophila. Furthermore, much to his credit he admitted his failure. Does anyone really expect those who cannot support their own fixed hypothesis to attempt an experiment that could in an afternoon destroy it once and for all? My God they refused to even test Darwin's precious finches, among the most easily domesticated of all birds. Fortunately the Grants have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that all of Darwin's finches represent a single species capable of priducing viable genetically fit offspring. Darwinians stopped testing natural and artificial selection thirty years ago. They got tired of failure. Animal and plant breeders have known for centuries that which the Darwinians still refuse to recognize. The vast majority and possible all contemporary species are immutable, fixed and. with very few if any exceptions. doomed to extinction without further evolution even at the species level. Certainly a new Genus has not appeared in 2 million years and never will again. To assume otherwise is without foundation.
I have explained many times elsewhere that I was unable to test the SMH because I did not have the suitable amphibian material, namely, female frogs carrying one or more known chromosomal inversions, translocations or other structural modifications in heterozygous form. Of course if AF were to the slightest degree aware of my papers he would know all this. As usual he presents only cynical ill informed innuendo rather than rational comments. Like every other denizen of Panda's Thumb, he offers only obstructionist commentary on any view not that of the "one true faith." In all his posts here and elsewhere I have never seen a single example of constructive commentary from this man. Instead he demonstrates his ignorance by asking questions that have been answered many times elsewhere as well as right here at brainstorms. He wears thin with this scientist which is why I refer to him in the third person. Forgive my intolerance but I know Panda's Thumb, its purposes and its methods all too well from personal experience. It is the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism soon to collapse in glorious embarrassment. I am happy to contribute to that noble cause.
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for neo-Darwinism."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. January 2006 17:37
Let me introduce an element of objectivity into this matter. Go to Panda's Thumb, find the search window and type into that window the name Alan Fox. You will be greeted with a very large number of instances which will describe his motives and methods far better than I ever could. Words have meaning and so does one's paper trail.
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 07. January 2006 18:51
Professor Davison suggests
quote:
type into that window the name Alan Fox.
If anyone wishes to see all posts by Alan Fox at Panda's Thumb they may find this link more straightforward.
[ 07. January 2006, 18:53: Message edited by: Alan Fox ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. January 2006 19:06
I find them equally revealing.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. January 2006 19:21
As for both the direct and indirect verification of the Presribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, I refer all interested parties, especially Alan Fox, to my 2005 Rivista di Biologia paper and the two headings titled THE INDIRECT EVIDENCE and THE DIRECT EVIDENCE respectively. They represent only the tip of the iceberg, an iceberg that will most certainly sink the floundering H.M.S. Darwin once and for all. Actually it was sunk in 1871 twelve years after it inception when Mivart asked the cogent question - How can natural selection affect a structure which has not yet appeared,? a question yet to be answered and which never will be in my carefully considered and by no means exclusive opinion. Perhaps Mr Fox would like to answer it. No one else has.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. January 2006 19:57
Incidentally that paper is right here, a touch of the mouse away.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. January 2006 06:48
Here are some intesting facts to be considered by anyone interested in the gret mystery of organic evolution
On November 5, 2005 I opened my blog
prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
Early on I decided to sponsor a "Tournament of Evolutionary Hypotheses." I invited all interested parties to present in 500 words or less their version of the MECHANISM by which evolution has proceeded. In addition to the general invitation, I personally invited via email Richard Dawkins, Michael Denton, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Michael Ruse and Phillip Johnson. Only Behe and Wells responded, each to indicate they were too busy writing. I followed up with a reminder to all that the deadline of January 1 was rapidly approaching.
The experiment has now concluded and has been very revealing. Absolutely NO ONE has been willing to present his convictions concerning the MECHANISM by which evolution occurred except myself. Not one Darwinian is any longer willing to support the Darwinian paradigm and present it with his name attached. Not one anti-Darwinian was willing to present his version either, apparently because he doesn't have one.
My blog has now reached 369 messages, a great many of which are my reminders that my offer remains ignored as well as the significance I attach to that reality.
I hope all realize the full significance of this very simple experiment. It demonstrates beyond any question the lack of conviction that characterizes both elements of the endless debate that still rages over man's position in the universe. Neither the Christian Fundamentalists nor the neo-Darwinians nor the neo-Lamarckians have the courage to present their core beliefs before the open light of rational discussion and evaluation. Instead, in the words of the paleontologist David Raup:
"Both sides will continue to lie, cheat and steal to make their points.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 08. January 2006 16:37
Hi Chris
I agree with everything you said. In fact, you state things so clearly that I wish I would have said it. The UPB is a valid statistical indicator as used in the CSC filter. The problem is many do not agree. The language Dembski uses in his book “Intelligent Design” on page 141 and 142 is too strong. It is almost like he is selling a car and telling me that nothing will ever go wrong with it. Things go wrong, even with the best of cars. As far as the 10^-150 goes, I think we can do better. As you point out in 4, the demarcation line for UPB varies with the given information. Unfortunately, it will not be until this summer that I personally can give the UPB my full attention.
To really give this a go, I need to know more about DNA, entropy, and information theory. If we can further develop the filter and show say 99% confidence, this would turn heads. I agree that it is reasonable to say we already have at least 99% confidence in CSC but at this point the reasonableness of this claim is too subjective. Alan, for example, might not agree CSC is accurate with 99% confidence as it is presently constructed.
There is one point from your post for which I would appreciate clarification.
Chris wrote:
quote:
From my understanding of physical processes H0 is hardly likely to be true anyway since physical processes are basically stochastic in nature.
From my perspective, physical processes can be studied and predicted using stochastic models. For some processes like electrons in the double slit experiment it is the best method of study at present. I cringe to say they are stochastic in nature. The true nature of all physical processes must have been determined, prescribed, and or guided by intelligent agency. I don’t wish to offend by posting philosophical statements but I get a twinge in my back when chance is afforded any power.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. January 2006 19:54
There is nothing statistical in any aspect of the living process. If there were it could never function, never have arisen and never have evolved. There is now and never was a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny just as Leo Berg claimed in 1922.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 08. January 2006 20:52
Hi Mel,
Perhaps I cannot give the full answer to your query about the Stochastic nature of physical processes - but I can suggest that a stochastic element does not mean that the process is not guided (i.e. it is still prescribed - something which I hope will please John - even though stochastics are being partially invoked). Let me point out that the primary equations of physics and biology have both stochastic and deterministic elements (and are also amazingly similar in form - perhaps something pointing to a common Designer!).
In the sub-discipline of physics we have the (non-relativistic) Schrodinger eqn -
that governs the motion (time variation) of particles in space.
In the sub-discipline of evolutionary biology we have the Kimura-Hoyle eqn -
that governs the motion (time variation) of genes in a population of a species.
[*Please note here that this is the equation of micro-evolution (population genetics) only - and gives no more means of producing new genes as the Schrodinger equation has of producing new particles!]
[*In this equation "s" is the selective advantage conferrd by the gene and "h" quantifies the recessivity the gene]
[*Please also note that what I call the Kimura-Hoyle equation after both Kimura, who seems to have first derived it from the Forward Kolmogorov equation and also after cosmologist Fred Hoyle who worked it out from first principles in his elegant book Mathematics of Evolution]
The basic point is that the function psi(x,t) is essentially a probability density function - and thus outcomes for particular particles (genes) in "one-off" experiments are uncertain - although the probability is known. BUT over many successive trials predictability (and to a large extent certainty) follows.
Example 1 (physical): In the two slit experiment - placing a particle detector at certain angle on the output side will produce a detection after say 1 million particles have been sent through - even if the probability of detection at that angle (given by psi*(x)psi(x))is only 1%.
Example 2 (biological): Fur growth is controlled by a single gene - which in humans has gone inactive. This has most likely happened by damage to a single important site on the gene since "it is unlikely that sufficient number of generations has elapsed since the gene went dud for more than a single critical base-pair error to have accumulated" (quoting from Hoyles book p101). Thus the chance of a single human child being born in a fully furred condition must be about ~10^-9 (due to accidental reverse mutation). Quoting from Hoyle again
quote:
The usually quoted example is Adrian Jeftichjew, the so called Russian dogman. If environmental condition, given sufficient positive selection and a millenium or two in which to operate, fur is probably recoverable, when no doubt our present unfurred condition would be seen as a temporary unfortunate episode that was not spoken of in polite society
Hoyle was certainly humerous. But the point is clear - that an almost certain outcome is prescribed even though the fundamental governing equation has a stochastic element as well as a law (deterministic) element. And I would add the most important point that the outcome (furred condition) is predicated on the prior pre-existence of the "fur gene" which is also well in line with John's PEH.
With regard to the stochastic nature of primary events in physics described by the function psi(x) I share something of your view, concern and interest. I believe our uncertainty in the knowledge of particle motion is largely due to our lack of knowledge (as human observers) we have on boundary conditions on the initial particle state - although I cannot prove this. That the information is there but is inaccessible to us. The presence of such information opens interesting questions of the Designer's ability to delete and upload new information. It also has optimistic consequences for our freedom as individuals to be real "free choosers".
Hope this adds some stimulation to our thinking.
-Chris
[ 09. January 2006, 04:25: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 12. January 2006 09:30
Hi Chris,
Great information [quantity and quality] contained in your last post. I must say it took me some time to unpack both equations [Schrodinger and Hoyle]; a bit rusty in these areas. I did not mean to imply that the equations we use to study physical processes were not stochastic to some extent. I still maintain that the equations themselves do not rule. They only represent the level of our understanding at present. You have caused me to consider if it is possible for the designer to invoke a stochastic element into a design in order to achieve a specific outcome.
It is clear to me now that an intelligent agent can purposefully inject a stochastic element into what ever system is being designed. We do it when we design a game. We intentionally give up some control in causation to make the game interesting. Take the game of solitaire for example. Here we have a game with strict boundary conditions and a rigid set of determined rules; plus the shuffle [random element]. We have the ability to perform the shuffle in a prescribed way [stack the deck] in order to achieve the desired outcome [specified order from apparent disorder]. However, we choose not to exercise this power and in fact exercise our intellect toward the opposite effect [produce disorder]. It is somewhat ironic that our ability to create disorder intentionally is not refined and prone to failure as pointed out by Dembski [“Randomness By Design” a paper posted on origins.org].
In any case the shuffle is made and the game begins. The unordered stack is revealed, one card at a time, and the attempt to achieve the specified order under the unforgiving established rules of play is undertaken. The normal outcome is one of partial order. A less than complete structure is formed {A, 2, … , n} in four piles one for each suit, n representing one of the 13 cards in the suit hierarchy. The leftovers of an intermediate structure are also present {k,q,...n} not necessarily in suit. Finally, a portion of the original disordered string remains, much to the chagrin of the designer.
It is interesting to note that at any time in the game the designer has the power to operate above the rules and slide out the 2 of spades from under the pile of disorder and place it directly where it “should” go; a miracle no less.
Is it pure supposition that for a large enough deck, a true random shuffling would preclude the desired outcome? That is to say, if the deck were sufficiently large would it be impossible to shuffle the deck randomly and achieve a permutation from which success could be derived? This would be an interesting study in probability. I am Interested in your thoughts as well as the thoughts of others.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic