Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:

quote:

---

Nothing could or would. It might be interesting for other reasons, but it would not establish the principle for which you propose it.

---

Laura, you can't have the argument both ways. Eiher ID theory can generate testable and refutable predictions, or it can't. I have given you one such example and shown that it can do so.

No one is claiming that if the specific prediction concerning tool-kit genes proves to be correct, it thereby establishes ID theoretical ideas in toto. Science simply does not work that way.

By the same token, if the specific prediction proves to be false, that would not comprehensively falsify all ID ideas.

Neil

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Yes, yes, but I don't see how - even if one was to prove it - one couldn't use the explanation within conventional accepted evolutionary theory.

In which case it becomes rather redundant.

C

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

What specific testable and refutable predictions have orthodox Darwinians made regarding tool-kit genes?

Neil

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Yes, yes, but I don't see how - even if one was to prove it - one couldn't use the explanation within conventional accepted evolutionary theory.

In which case it becomes rather redundant.

C

---

The key question is from what theoretical basis the successful prediction was made. If theory A enables researchers to make predictions that on testing are found to be correct, and if theory B is making predictions found not to be correct, then we have a clear clue as to which theory may ultimately prove to be true.

What specific testable and refutable predictions have orthodox Darwinians made regarding tool-kit genes?

Neil

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Exactly. One would expect precursors - albeit with a different function - in unicellular prokaryotes. No-one is suggesting that a mutation occured in a Paramecium one day and the next it became a sponge. New functions arise constantly in evolutionary history from pre-existing structures with a different function.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It should be stated that the hypotheses of Behe and Dembski and my applications of them to the further biological phenomena as decribed above have been formulated in an intellectual climate of enormous tensions between different world views, often so much so that it seems to be necessary to point out that an author supporting ID is speaking not in the name of an institution, but gives his personal opinion. However, I am fully convinced that there is a range of cogent scientific arguments (of which some have been discussed above) encouraging open-minded researchers to carefully consider and investigate the topic within their different biological disciplines.

---

He is certainly right about the "enormous tensions".

Neil

[typo]

[ 06. January 2006, 16:10: Message edited by: Faithful Sheepdog ]

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:

By the same token, if the specific prediction proves to be false, that would not comprehensively falsify all ID ideas.

Neil

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Whether a target sequence is explicitly specified [in a genetic algorithm] or is implicitly given in some another form, it is nevertheless always there in these algorithms.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by samara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Whether a target sequence is explicitly specified [in a genetic algorithm] or is implicitly given in some another form, it is nevertheless always there in these algorithms.

---

This statement is makes very wrong implications about the nature of programming, and this dead horse within a dead horse must be dealt with. There's programming something in and then there's programming in an error measure. The two are not equivalent.

Genetic algorithms are used in machine learning* to FIND solutions to problems. In most cases in my field where genetic algorithms are applied, we don't KNOW the target. If we did, we could program that in - presto, working application.

What you do know is how far from the target you are - an error measure. In genetic algorithm (GA) terms, you have a fitness function. Sure, you have to pre-code a fitness function, or an error measure. Is my error measure going to be number of pixels incorrectly labelled in this picture? Or an even less informative measure like how much positive reinforcement the robot received over its "lifetime"?

I grant you, that's a decision the designer makes. The point is this is NOT AT ALL the same as programming in the final (or initial) design.

So, yes, in any genetic algorithm, the program is written by a human designer, and the fitness function chosen by a human designer. But the outcome of the program is not under control of the designer once it starts. And, interestingly, I have never heard a machine learning research claim: "I found these parameters for problem X." The claim is : "My algorithm found these parameters for problem X."

My credentials? I am a machine learning/artificial intelligence researcher. I have not programmed a GA specifically, but could in an evening or two (and might for an upcoming project).

*Machine learning is a branch of artificial intelligence research that looks for adaptive programs rather than fixed (or hard-coded) programs.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
You can believe in Intelligent Design without claiming it is science. I'd guess lots of people would say they believe in ID who also believe that's a theological statement, not a scientific one, and who would oppose any drift of ID into any science class.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
I'd also guess lots of people who believe in evolution also believe that God gave the process a push at the outset -- and that will be what they mean by ID.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The statements were:

the 'evolution theory' says that human kind has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process;

the 'creationism theory' says that God created human kind pretty much in his/her present form at one time within the last 10,000 years;

and the 'intelligent design' theory says that certain features of living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, eg God.

Of those surveyed, 48 per cent said evolution theory most closely describes their view; 22% chose creationism; and 17% chose intelligent design.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That barely 70% thought evolution should be taught in science lessons seems truly bizarre. That at least 40% thought that either "creationism" or "intelligent design" should be taught is worrying, depending on whether they simply think that they should be mentioned as alternatives or taught as equally valid positions.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not saying that we should base the science curriculum on the results of a popular poll, even if that had been conducted properly with a large sample of respondents and sensible questions.

---

You are assuming quite a lot about the quality of most polls

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'd really like to know what the 30% who think evolution has no place being taught in science classes would teach instead when biology starts to point out things like "oh, aren't there a lot of different species of animal out there"?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

What does diversity of species have to do with evolution? Commonality among species is what ties evolution together. If all species where really diverse then Darwin would have never made the connection he did.

---

quote:

---

So to answer your question, they would say "God did it".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

What does diversity of species have to do with evolution? Commonality among species is what ties evolution together. If all species where really diverse then Darwin would have never made the connection he did.

---

Actually, Darwin made the connection because of the similarity of diverse species. When faced with evidence of a large number of different species of finch (ie: diversity in finch species) then a biology teacher must surely explain that in terms of evolution - exactly as Darwin did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

So to answer your question, they would say "God did it".

---

Now I'm sure there are some people in the UK who would happily have biology teachers telling kids "God did it, just as it's recorded here in Genesis". But 30% of the population? No way! Which is what I don't understand about the poll, the numbers clearly indicate that the respondents were allowed to be inclusive (eg: "we should teach ID and Evolution"), and yet 30% didn't want evolution taught at all. Clearly there was something deeply flawed about the poll - and not just in the inaccurate descriptions of the options.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_raptor:
There are all kinds of sneaky tricks that pollsters pull to get news worthy results (my guess would be polling lots of fundamentalist churches).

---

quote:

---

You also have to remember that in the general publics mind evolution (and science) is the antithesis of religion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
No-one really thinks like that that do they?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My A Level Biology was a lot of rote learning.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My A Level Biology was a lot of rote learning. ...

---

quote:

---

“Bitzer,” said Thomas Gradgrind. “Your definition of a horse.”

“Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs, too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in mouth.” Thus (and much more) Bitzer.

“Now girl number twenty,” said Mr. Gradgrind. “You know what a horse is.”

---