luna_the_cat ([info]luna_the_cat) wrote in [info]id_theory,

Just curious - Questions I would like to see ID address

The proponents of Intelligent Design claim that it is actually a science. In order to be a science, a model must enable researchers to make substantive and testable hypotheses – and then, of course, those hypotheses must be tested. To this end, I have compiled a list of questions, some from traditional biology and some involving specific aspects of molecular biology, which I for one would particularly like to see ID tackle. I do not expect anyone to come up with definitive answers, but I would like to see, as I said, substantive and testable hypotheses. (By substantive and testable, I mean that "the mind of the Designer is unknowable"-type answers do not qualify.)

Given the basis of design by an intelligence, please explain:

1 Why, out of 61 available amino acids, does life use only 20 of them? Some are obviously disqualified from biological functions by being too reactive or not reactive enough, however there are many which fall well within a range of usability which are nevertheless not used.

2 What are probable reasons for the peculiar and utterly puzzling presence of ribonucleotide fragments in biochemical cofactors?

3 Why is the ribosome a ribozyme? These vital protein synthesis machineries involve only 3 RNA molecules and more than 50 proteins; but it is the RNA molecules which play the most fundamental roles despite the fact that those roles could well have been fulfilled by proteins.

4 With the premise that they have been designed, what are probable reasons for the forms of the Wnt proteins and the subsequent signalling pathways vital for embryogenesis? Bear in mind that “elegance” and “efficiency” are not descriptors which could possibly be applied to the Wnt signalling pathways by anyone sane. (See for a wildly oversimplified diagram of a human Wnt signalling pathway.)

5 Why is the human genome >=96% entirely nonfunctional? (This is a generous estimate of functionality; currently only 1.5-2.0% of the genome is thought to have any function at all. On the basis that there are likely to still be unidentified control elements, even though structural elements have all been mapped, for the purpose of this question I propose to double the estimate of functional region. Despite the fact that control elements are often several factors of ten smaller than protein-coding genes, there are likely to be more of them.)

6 During the embryogenesis of birds the protein BMP4 is produced at a certain stage, which specifically induces apoptosis in the tissues between the toes of the hind limb, leading to separated toes. Ducks, however, retain the webbing between their toes rather than have it die away. Given the premise of deliberate design, what are probable reasons is this webbing retained, not through a lack of BMP4, but through the production of both normal amounts of BMP4 and the additional production of the protein Gremlin, which simply blocks the action of BMP4?

7 Why are cactus spines built out of the same elements as “normal” leaves, despite their very different form and function?

8 Why are reptilian scales and bird feathers built from very nearly the same proteins?

9 What are probable reasons for the similar morphology but very dissimilar use of bones in pterosaur, bird, and bat wings, given that all these have the ultimate function of flight? (For a visual comparison, see .)

10 Why aren’t there any flying marsupials?

11 What are probable reasons that approximately 1 in every 100,000 whales are born with apparently vestigial and functionless leg buds at the position that hind limbs would likely be?

12 Why do baleen whales develop and calcify teeth in utero, which are then resorbed just before birth?

13 Why do so many creatures of phylum Mollusca have better eyes than we do? (I.E. the molluscan eye has a far more efficient optical design and has no “blind spot” such as the mammalian eye has, due to the fact that light does not have to pass through several layers of tissue before striking the light-sensitive surface, and the optic nerve fibres do not have to pass through the retina in order to enter the visual cortex of the brain. Also, molluscan eyes have a spherical lens which can be moved back or forth to focus, rather than a fixed lens which must be forced to change shape, which means that molluscan eyes are far more unlikely to develop hyperopia, myopia, or indeed any form of astigmatism.)

14 With the principle of design in mind, why do box jellyfish, creatures which lack even a central nervous system, have three different types of eyes ranging from a simple pigmented pit with a central photoreceptor, to a complex camera eye with a retina, a lens superior to ours, and an adapting iris? Why, despite the optical properties of the perfectly-corrected lens, is the lensal image focussed well behind the retina, leading to the conclusion that all they would be able to see are large, extremely blurry and diffuse images?

15 What are the probable reasons that despite their skeletal adaptations to a bamboo diet (i.e. dentition and the famous “thumb” used for stripping bamboo leaves), pandas have a carnivore’s lower digestive system, which unfortunately leaves most pandas in the wild in a perpetual state of near-starvation?

  • Post a new comment

    Error

  • 46 comments

[info]luna_the_cat

October 6 2005, 16:02:09 UTC 6 years ago

Corrections

Corrections, as some formatting appeared to be lost.

In 4.: ...(See http://courses.washington.edu/bonephys/wnt.swf for a wildly oversimplified diagram of a human Wnt signalling pathway.)

In 9.: ...(For a visual comparison, see http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/wings.htm .)

[info]essentialsaltes

October 6 2005, 16:11:47 UTC 6 years ago

10 Why aren’t there any flying marsupials?

The babies kept falling out.

[info]luna_the_cat

October 6 2005, 16:23:37 UTC 6 years ago

{snort} Ok, it is a testable hypothesis. One would next go about charting ways in which flying is any different from hopping or hanging upside down off branches in terms of mechanistic risk of babies falling out, I suppose.

What makes it somewhat unlikely is that most marsupials are able to use muscle to hold their pouches closed. So, where would one take that hypothesis next?

[info]essentialsaltes

October 6 2005, 16:42:35 UTC 6 years ago

Well, obviously I agree with your main point. ID has no predictive power and it's not even very good at postdiction. If biological thingy A is complicated and not currently understood, ID supporters nod their heads sagely and say, "See? See? It must have been designed!"
If biological thingy B is well-understood and 'poorly designed' (like the mammalian eye) ID supporters shrug their shoulders and change the subject to something more like thingy A again. All they've got is an argument from ignorance. The root explanation for everything is "That's how the designer designed it," which adds zero knowledge to our understanding.

[info]carl_sagan

October 6 2005, 16:40:26 UTC 6 years ago

see, here's the problem:
The ID crowd has no fucking clue as to what you are talking about. The ID crowd has little to no actual understanding of science therefore these questions are just part of the scientific obscurantism that hopes to oppress ID.

[info]theamaranth

October 6 2005, 17:04:46 UTC 6 years ago

you're everywhere. lol

[info]carl_sagan

October 6 2005, 18:29:54 UTC 6 years ago

I am the alpha and the omega.

Anonymous

March 21 2006, 17:46:59 UTC 6 years ago

ID put-down

My friend, you're a boofhead. You've obviously never read the literature put out by ID. Have the honesty to admit it you silly little boy.

[info]carl_sagan

March 21 2006, 20:34:13 UTC 6 years ago

Re: ID put-down

au contraire
I read Behe's Darwin's Black box. It is utter crap and you are but an anonymous fuckhead.
Behe himself has admited that ID is just as scientific as astrology.

[info]saint_gasoline

October 7 2005, 02:12:05 UTC 6 years ago

1-15: Because God wanted to do it that way.

This is the point where the theist mistakenly uses Ockham's razor, saying, "Isn't that simpler than evolution's answers? Therefore it's true!"

Please try to ignore the fact that because this explanation could account for anything, it doesn't allow for any predictions and isn't testable.

[info]luna_the_cat

October 7 2005, 07:52:35 UTC 6 years ago

Ah, that is why I specifically stipulated that I wanted substantive and testable hypotheses, and that "by substantive and testable, I mean that 'the mind of the Designer is unknowable'-type answers do not qualify." "God wanted to do it that way" obviously doesn't qualify.

And that, really, is the point. "Creation science" or "Intelligent Design" is trying to dress itself as science; but the point of science is what you can discover with it, and what you can do with it, and the field relies on investigations being able to provide answers both testable and detailed. I want to use specific questions, with the demand for specific and detailed answers, to highlight this.

If people want to believe "God did it", I'm not going to argue that; what I (as so many others) want to point out is that this is simply in a different arena than science.

[info]saint_gasoline

October 7 2005, 08:45:32 UTC 6 years ago

Yes. What I love is when Creationists argue that "evolution" doesn't really answer practical questions in the sciences. This causes me to spit milk, even if I don't even have milk handy. That's just how ridiculous it is.

I always ask them...do you really think Intelligent Design would answer these practical questions? Given the theory of Intelligent Design, please explain how one would deal with the bacteria and viruses that God is "creating" with resistances to normal treatment? Are we to, ur, pray? Ask God nicely to stop designing them? Yeah, okay.

[info]wyrd_sane

November 9 2005, 03:09:15 UTC 6 years ago

An argument that puports to explain everything (e.g. goddidit) typically explains nothing.

But not all theists do this. But I am not a theist. It's too restrictive being forced to believe a god exists all the time.

[info]root_fu

October 7 2005, 08:52:38 UTC 6 years ago

Perspective-wise. You're looking at the present in terms of the 60's. Attempting to evaluate facts in terms of unrealistic pre-conceptions.

1. You're operating under the misguided expectation that intelligent design attempts to disprove evolution. And, that therefore the evolutionary model, which may explain things such as why there are no flying marsupials, should be discarded. When, in reality intelligent design doesn't discard any facts in terms of evolution. It simply interprets some of those facts differently.

2. You're operating under the unrealistic expectation that ID is disguised Creationism. Perhaps without even realizing it, attempting to rationalize facts to fit with your own views of how a creationist god would operate. If ID happened to not be disguised creationism, you would ineffably be in error.

3. You mistakenly attempt to project your own views of how-a-creationist-god would operate. Onto your scientific definition of a designer. I'm sorry to say that your personal views of how a designer would do things are not necessarily the agreed upon norm here. There is no reason to expect that items such as 12 or 14 are necessarily mutually exclusive with a designer. Because your entire perspective is based upon the unrealistic expectation, that a designer would banish such things as redundancy and imperfection in all systems.

Thus, as long as you cling to those unrealistic, subjective pre-conceptions... You have no chance of being objective regarding things like intelligent design. :P

Next...

[info]luna_the_cat

October 7 2005, 10:42:16 UTC 6 years ago

Neither a true nor a useful response.

The central tenet of ID is that some supernatural and metaphysical intelligence designed basic biological functions and mechanisms, and the evidence presented is supposed "irreducible complexity". Please explain to me, clearly and in plain words, exactly how that does NOT boil down to "God did it".

"You are attempting to rationalise [x] to fit with your conceptions of how a god would operate, and you can't do that" from your arguments 2+3 boils down to the argument I disqualified above, i.e. that "the mind of the Designer is unknowable" -- and I disqualified this type of answer as any form of science, nor could it have any place in science or even connected to science, because while the mind of any supernatural/metaphysical intelligence may indeed be unknowable to us -- the statement offers nothing useful. It offers nothing testable. It does not function as part of a field which specifically addresses how the physical universe operates via naturalistic laws, and which relies on propositions being testable for whether or not they fit our observations of said universe. It does not lend itself to increasing the sum of our understanding and knowledge in any way.

The problem with ID is that it basically says "you can't know", and pinches off all subsequent lines of inquiry. Useless. Not science.

I strongly recommend to you a book called What Is This Thing Called Science?, by Alan Chalmers. It's about the history and philosophy on science; and it isn't a big book, although it does take some thinking. If you are going to make statements about what qualifies as science, then really you should have at least a basic background.

[info]root_fu

October 7 2005, 15:15:44 UTC 6 years ago

The central tenet of ID is that some supernatural and metaphysical intelligence designed basic biological functions and mechanisms, and the evidence presented is supposed "irreducible complexity". Please explain to me, clearly and in plain words, exactly how that does NOT boil down to "God did it".

You may hate me for this... But, if you want an honest answer *shrug*. What you said falls under:

2. You're operating under the unrealistic expectation that ID is disguised Creationism. Perhaps without even realizing it, attempting to rationalize facts to fit with your own views of how a creationist god would operate. If ID happened to not be disguised creationism, you would ineffably be in error

"God did it," is not scientific. To remain science, ID must not, must never address the supernatural, nor the religious. Therefore in being science its impossible for ID to support a religion like you & others suggest it might. It could never happen. The moment ID recognized religion, deities, etc. It would cease to be science.

In essence, all you have to fear, is that ID proponents may find scientifically acceptable facts to support the design theorem. Therefore, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that you're talking about the impossible when you claim ID is all about the supernatural, yadda, yadda.

"the mind of the Designer is unknowable" -- and I disqualified this type of answer as any form of science, nor could it have any place in science or even connected to science, because while the mind of any supernatural/metaphysical intelligence may indeed be unknowable to us -- the statement offers nothing useful. It offers nothing testable. It does not function as part of a field which specifically addresses how the physical universe operates via naturalistic laws, and which relies on propositions being testable for whether or not they fit our observations of said universe. It does not lend itself to increasing the sum of our understanding and knowledge in any way.

It makes for good science. It attempts to exhaust all possibilities. It opens up new perspectives and offers competiting theories. And no, you cannot shoot down the metaphysical then hoist up the naturalistic, they're one and the same.

Investigating down different avenues of thought always increases the sum of our knowledge and understanding.

The problem with ID is that it basically says "you can't know", and pinches off all subsequent lines of inquiry. Useless. Not science

I'll point out one instance of ID making a prediction that you yourself posted:

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings,"...

Doesn't look like a "you cant know" then pinching off all lines of inquiry to me. :P

I strongly recommend to you a book called What Is This Thing Called Science?, by Alan Chalmers. It's about the history and philosophy on science; and it isn't a big book, although it does take some thinking. If you are going to make statements about what qualifies as science, then really you should have at least a basic background.

Thank you.

[info]luna_the_cat

October 7 2005, 15:50:21 UTC 6 years ago

I just want to focus on two chunks of this, for now.

First, you say "To remain science, ID must not, must never address the supernatural, nor the religious. Therefore in being science its impossible for ID to support a religion like you & others suggest it might. It could never happen. The moment ID recognized religion, deities, etc. It would cease to be science.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying "ID is a science. Therefore, because it is science, it does not address God or the supernatural." Is that right?

My point is that the flip side of this is what is true: ID presupposes intervention by a supernatural power. (That is not an invention of mine, they say so.) And for that reason, they are not science. Precisely as you said in the last sentence of yours that I quoted, there.

In essence, you did not answer my question, you merely pretended that it didn't apply by assuming that ID is a science rather than addressing the question of how it could be.

ID says that biological systems and machineries were designed. Designed by whom, or what, then? They say only something outside the system of nature, an intelligence with the power to manipulate physical matter at the most widespread and subtlest levels, could have done so, and more to the point, must have done so. If they are not talking about God...then what? Super-powerful space aliens? So where did they come from, then? No, they mean God. That is obvious to anyone looking at the ID movement's own literature.

----

The second thing I wanted to point out -- you say: "And no, you cannot shoot down the metaphysical then hoist up the naturalistic, they're one and the same."

What????

Sorry, that's a tea-snort moment. Would you explain, since I am interested as to how you reached this conclusion, that "metaphysical" and "naturalistic" are one and the same?

And just incidentally, how you can say this without seeing how it contradicts what you said about "To remain science, ID must not, must never address the supernatural, nor the religious", above?

[info]root_fu

6 years ago

[info]root_fu

6 years ago

[info]root_fu

6 years ago

[info]luna_the_cat

October 8 2005, 15:13:03 UTC 6 years ago

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings,"...

Doesn't look like a "you cant know" then pinching off all lines of inquiry to me. :P


Since you are evidently quite keen on speaking in defense of ID, please do so -- let's get back to my original questions.

Using "it was designed that way (and possibly came into being all at once)" as the basic position, please pick even a few of the questions I originally posted, and demonstrate how your basic position contributes to a testable hypothesis and some workable research which might be done on the question.

All those questions are legitimate biological questions, and some are of a great deal of interest. If ID is to be an "alternative" to evolution, then it needs to be able to function as part of science to address physical questions.

Again, please, demonstrate how ID can drive the advancement of knowledge by proposing and testing possible answers -- real and detailed answers -- to biological problems.

[info]root_fu

6 years ago

[info]root_fu

6 years ago

[info]luna_the_cat

October 7 2005, 10:55:49 UTC 6 years ago

Incidentally, one of the phrases from the supposed ID text "Of Pandas and Peoples" p.22, which has been quoted in the trial in Pennsylvania:

“Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.”


Was in the first printing of that book. In the second version, it had been changed to:

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings,"...


I suggest, too, that you look at the summary background presented at the York Daily Record: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/88606/

[info]root_fu

October 7 2005, 14:55:00 UTC 6 years ago

Nice link. :] Very nice.

One interesting thing:

Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.”

I know when some people see "Creation." They'll immediately assume "Creationism."

I'm not certain if the above ^ quotation necessarily fits into the creationist ethos. If you happen to be a Creationist, and believe in Genesis you may likely not refer to your belief as a "theory".

Despite whether these peoples' actions may seem less by their motivations. I still think the possibility of whether design was involved should be investigated.

[info]valmorian

October 12 2005, 20:55:10 UTC 6 years ago

If Intelligent Design is not at all associated with Creationism, where are the scientists NOT associated with the Discovery Institute that are involved with ID?

[info]wave_cannon

December 20 2005, 20:37:46 UTC 6 years ago

With #13, the only flaw I can see (pardon the pun) with Molluscan eyes is that they dry out more easily than vertebrate eyes.

Anonymous

March 21 2006, 17:42:15 UTC 6 years ago

A Reply From an Amateur

You said “The proponents of Intelligent Design claim that it is actually a science. In order to be a science, a model must enable researchers to make substantive and testable hypotheses – and then, of course, those hypotheses must be tested.”
I am a scientifically uneducated person, but I believe that for some hypothesis to be proven and taken to the next step of becoming a proven thesis there must be testing such that the original conditions must be created for the tests to be conclusive. Of course it is not therefore possible for evolution to be substantiated, yet many evolutionists claim that the theory is proven. First, apply your argument to the theory of evolution before applying it to the intelligent design argument. The facts of cellular biology call for far too much information to have been injected for it to have happened by so-called evolution. I would suggest that you investigate the writings of authors such as Michael Denton and Michael Behe who call attention to these things. Too many people, while happy to demand proof from the I D movement, (even though not able to produce proof of their own claims), are ignoring the facts that these men are bringing to light. I would suggest that this is a little hypocritical.

As to the next few questions, I would remind you that vestigial organs were once used as proof of evolution. Now we are finding out that these have a purpose. Your presumption is that you are better able to understand how things should be made than the Creator. Could you have done a better job... really? How much knowledge do you have? You know very little relative to the sum of all knowledge, and it would be much more honest of you to acknowledge this.

Who are you to post a 'Please Explain'? Rather arrogant of you to try to put these men down who at least have the honesty to look at things with an open mind and come up with questions that people like you still haven't been able to, nor are willing to tackle. Could it be that you are simply posing?

[info]luna_the_cat

March 21 2006, 18:41:24 UTC 6 years ago

Re: A Reply From an Amateur

Who am I to post a "please explain"?

I'm a molecular biology student, that's who.

I'm someone who actually has a clue as to why science claims to know what it claims to know. I know the experiments which were performed to gain that knowledge. I know the algorithms which explain the outcome. And I know something that apparently you don't:

Every scientist in the world -- every real scientist, that is -- knows that the data do not give a rat's arse about what you want them to be.

And, the universe is under absolutely no obligation to be easy for us to understand, either.

We know that. Believe me, we know, because we get kicked in the teeth with it every single day. The amount of work that goes into making a single poster presentation, to try to get funding to do the real research, with the constant knowledge in the back of our head that even if we get past the first few steps there is a good chance that we will spend 5 years or 10 years and find out at the end of it that we have been tracking up a blind alley...believe me, believe me, believe me, we know.

Scientists get accused of having big egos a lot. To a certain degree it is true. We have to. It's the only way to survive just how indifferent the universe is to our desires.

And then to have schmucks who have not spent the time or the work, who have not ever sat down and tried to understand what it is that science actually does, what it actually says, and more to the point why...to have such people come in and say "you are blind and ignorant and blinkered, and here, WE have the real questions and the answers you are ignoring!"...that's just crazy-making.

You say "The facts of cellular biology call for far too much information to have been injected for it to have happened by so-called evolution." What I want to know is, what exactly do you know about "the facts of cellular biology"? You have signed yourself "an amateur" -- is your familiarity with the subject what you've read from Behe?

I can tell you you've found out an awful lot of junk and not much about the real stuff out there, if that's the case.

And if you think that science "ignores stuff that it isn't willing to tackle" all you do is convince me that you have absolutely no familiarity with how science works, and the kind of people who make it work. One other thing that is universally true of scientists -- we're not in it for money or fame. Dear god, this is the last field for THAT. We are in it for love, ultimately. For curiosity. For some kind of itch to go play with things. And for all of us, we are far more in love with the unknown than with the known. Big egos may help us survive the daily kicking the universe administers to our understanding, but it is this love which keeps us coming back.

Hack me no hackneyed claims about vestigial organs. Go crack a biology book -- I recommend "Life: The Science of Biology" by Purves, Sadava, Heller and Orians, it is just about the best introductory text out there -- and then come back and I would be delighted to talk.

Anonymous

March 31 2006, 17:20:56 UTC 6 years ago

Re: A Reply From an Amateur

What a swollen head you have. So you're an expert because you know all there is to know about biology? This is your real problem. You're threatened by the possibility that much of the "knowledge" you have may be untrue, or even perish the thought very limited, so you react with arrogance, and beat down any opposition. Why don't you answer the questions posed by the ID people instead of just putting them down and posing as such wonderfully intelligent experts? The fact is, you can't answer their questions, so you throw up a smoke-screen of abuse to cover up your lack.

Anonymous

6 years ago

Anonymous

6 years ago

Anonymous

5 years ago

Anonymous

5 years ago

Anonymous

5 years ago

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…