Evolution is not a scientific theory but ID is?

Continuing the discussion from New insights on defining "biblical kinds"!:

Once a super-intelligent designer who has the ability to order nature in a fashion outside its observable processes, laws, and boundaries is posited, I would think it impossible to predict in a scientific way what super-intelligent, outside-natural-boundaries ordering actions that designer would have taken.

In his book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe proposed that ID-driven biology would inter alia simply abandon any research that would attempt to explain through drift, mutation, and selection the advent of (allegedly) irreducibly complex structures and systems. To the average scientist, this proposal does not in the least look like science.

But obviously you are coming at the question differently than I. Would you like to explain how in your view upper case Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, Eric?

In addition, evolution makes all sorts of predictions that have led to productive scientific research. For example:

  • Fossil record: Early life would be single-celled, then small multicellular forms would appear, then larger and more diverse forms. Importantly, as more chronologically intermediate fossils are found, phenotypes intermediate between earlier and later species should have some statistical likelihood of appearing. Neil Shubin used this prediction to target late Devonian geological formations to search for intermediate forms between early Devonian lobe-finned fishes and Carboniferous amphibians. And he discovered Tiktaalik.

  • Nested hierarchy from common ancestry. This is a prediction of evolution and it does appear in genomics, in biological characters, and in the fossil record.*

  • De Novo Genes: One prediction of evolution is that de novo genes should have predecessors via a mutational pathway. This prediction drove the research that shows how the “anti-freeze” gene in Arctic codfishes evolved 13-18Mya from non-coding DNA. Source

  • Genomic distribution of mutation types. As @glipsnort demonstrates, evolution predicts that the frequency of mutation types can be extrapolated across hundreds of thousands of generations once populations diverge. This distribution of mutation frequencies is observed empirically.

  • Biological systems: The 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to research showing that ribosomes are ribozymes. This was a prediction rooted in evolutionary theory. Source

  • Pseudo-genes. If dietary sources of vitamin C are available in abundance, the negative selection against vitamin C gene breaking changes should disappear. The broken vitamin C pseudo-gene has in fact been observed in most primates.

  • Evo-devo. Evolution predicts that many phenotypic changes across time are the result of changes in regulatory gene networks. Thus we would expect much greater conformance in structures at zygote and early fetal stages than at later stages of development (after regulatory gene networks have done their work). This is indeed observed empirically.

  • Sub-optimal engineering designs. Moreover, biologists expect evolution-driven development process to sometimes result in structures which are sub-optimal from the engineering perspective as long as they result in a net advantage to a population. This is observed in the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, which extends meters beyond the shortest path (and incurs a cost in reduced vocalization ability). Source

I am sure that a biologist like @DennisVenema could provide other examples of evolution predictions, if need be. I’m just a data scientist who likes to discuss biology.

Peace,
Chris

* Why is there a relational structure at all between species like whales and hippos, or even between chickens and primates (I’m thinking of the vitellogenin pseudo-gene)? Inheritance and divergence are observed in biological systems today, so they provide the parsimonious explanation. On the other hand, a dependency graph model introduces scores of extra parameters, which in turn permits overfitting. Due to this ability to overfit, dependency graphs can “fit” non-sequential genomic data quite well, but they spectacularly fail the parsimony criterion for scientific research. In addition, dependency graphs are for the foreseeable future incapable of making predictions for many classes of biological data; hence they are for the foreseeable future incapable of serving as the basis for a theory of biology.

6 Likes

The problem with a lot of these is the tree may be just as much confirmation bias as creationism. I don’t see any attempt to investigate alternatives to a tree besides complete randomness. Which makes it just as non science as creationism.

I would say that the theory of evolution is pretty grounded in science. Same as for the age of the world. For ID to work it has to completely undo almost all science. Because we see it I. The fossil record, we see it in morphology of plants and eggs and mimicry, and so on.

So say God designed passionflowers to mimic certain species of butterflies by egg mimicry on the stems means that God designed those specific butterflies to use that plant as a host for its larva. That would mean either we just don’t have fossils of it before a certain time period or that God designed a butterfly and a plant to morph into mimicry at the same time from previous species designed to already serve a similar function. It’s too messy. Evolution explains all of this through natural selection with way less issues than ID or creationism ever could .

3 Likes

Well, the universe could be resting on the backs of turtles, but I don’t claim astrophysicists are unscientific for not exploring that hypothesis instead of fleshing out the details of Big Bang cosmology.

I’ve already shown how evolution has provided a broad framework for making successful predictions across a vast array of evidence classes. Just like Big Bang cosmology, the theory of evolution provides a framework for generating new scientifically testable hypotheses.Thus it is just as scientific as Big Bang cosmology.

Like any theory, of course, it is provisional. Publish a model that makes better, more parsimonious predictions, and you could change the prevailing theoretical framework in the scientific discipline of biology, Eric.

4 Likes

ID is orthogonal to evolution in general.

Why ask my questions if you want me to publish a peer reviewed scientific paper to respond? I don’t see the point, besides trying to browbeat me into submission.

I am pointing out that biology maintains an open and well-functioning pathway for considering alternative models.

Therefore, if there is not a viable alternative to evolution under consideration among biologists, it’s because – at this moment in time – no viable alternative actually exists.

Peace,
Chris

3 Likes

The tree could be due to variation on a basic genome formula that God created and used to make all species. So it may look like evolution but is only changes to the formula that bring about the various species.

Is it? The scientific evidence that we see in cancer, where many new functional proteins are made, is never considered. This is all scrapped as scramble and the proteins are hardly mentioned outside of calling them molecular targets for drug development.
Cancer is not abnormal cells dividing out of control but for the vast majority, i.e., the solid tumors, has the characteristics of an organ. That is to say the body has created a novel organ with unique stem cells, a defining or basement membrane, blood supply, lymphatic supply, even a nerve supply in most cases and connective tissue, which can be as much as 90% of the novel organ. There is also communication between all these cells and the immune system cells. If this is not evidence of ID then what is it?

Welcome!
I’m confused. What kind of ID would this be? A malevolent one?

1 Like

Never considered by whom? Cancer is very often considered by biologists as an example of evolution in action.

3 Likes

From the way that cancer is discussed in biomedical science one would think it a malevolent one, but I have seen otherwise.
I have found that cancer is stem cell mediated immunity, erroneously ignited in the body owing to false beliefs and other associated issues. It is too much to discuss here and off topic.
However the fact of the matter is that the body creates what are called cancer stem cells and these, surprisingly enough have many “markers”, i;e., surface proteins that are embryonic stem cells markers.
If we scrap the idea that we are just a body and that body a machine and we rather consider that we are embodied conscious beings, then our reactions, which are somatic changes in structure and function, give rise to new forms in the body.
If we as co-creators can do that then it is, IMO, evidence that creation was intelligently designed. I would say that God upholds the information needed for all material forms (living and non-living) to come into being and be maintained in existence. So the body forms, the many species are created out of information. And what is the genome if not coded information. It has plasticity as we can see and may change in order to create even new novel structures. And more so, it can be reversed, which we see in spontaneous remission of cancer.
Evidence for ID in my book!

The cancer clonal evolutionary theory has no evidence to support it, but more to the point has evidence in contradiction to it.
In all cancers, it is cancer stem cells that give rise to ALL the other cells, which means not only the heterogeneity of cancer cells but also the cells of the connective tissue as well. In mouse models the only cancer they have seen is when they have grafted cancer stem cells into nude mice (i;e., mice with no immune system) They have grafted breast cancer stem cells and got the very same tumor as was in the human, in the mouse.
All of the experiments with the so-called carcinogens only give rise to what are known as transformed cells NOT cancer cells.
If you subject cells, whether in vivo or in vitro, to a chemical or virus or radiation, you get cells in crisis. This causes some of the cells to become locked into the cell cycle process. However they have such cells in the laboratory for fifty or more years and none have turned into cancer cells. So cancer evolutionary theory is dead in the water.

Citations please.

It sounds very much on topic, at least in terms of where you believe cancer and ID intersect. We can have another thread, if desired. Please clarify. Thanks.
Many cancer cells do not survive because they don’t carry the necessary blood supply (and most importantly, the body identifies and kills them before they get there, of course).

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you? It sounds like you are trying to buck the majority of scientific knowledge? I hope I’m mistaken. Anthroposophism? Thanks!

2 Likes

Hi Ani,

Without introducing yourself, in the space of a few posts you have attempted to overturn biology, oncology, and indeed the standard causal model in medicine.

However, I for one would like to know more about your training and studies so I can better understand how you reached your conclusions.

Would you be so kind as to share your lab work, your medical studies, your academic background, etc.?

My background is available at https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisfalter/

Best,
Chris Falter

2 Likes

I am not a biomedical scientist. I am a retired industrial chemist, but I had done enough biology units to enable me to be able to read a medical journal and understand enough.

I first got cancer in 1993. The first doctors said uterine cancer and they were in a hurry to operate and remove my uterus. “Spare organ” they said, “you don’t need it”. I didn’t trust the doctor as I had been going to him with complaints for almost a year and it was his locum that picked up on the cancer. So, I decided to get a second opinion and left to go to Sydney (2,600Km south) and as events worked out it took a month and a half to get there. On the way I saw some symptoms lessen and a few disappear.

In Sydney I was diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer with metastases to the uterus, cervix, bowel and both lungs. AND type 2 diabetes as there were high blood sugars. “Nothing we can do for you” they said. I wasn’t about to give up on my life so I went to a Chinese herbalist and I believed back then that they helped because by early 1994 after more tests the doctors found no evidence of disease. I really believed that the Chinese herbs cured me but a decade later I realized that I must have had a spontaneous remission of the cancer the first time.

So here are my findings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owoFpAzBock&feature=emb_logo and I will try to explain the science, which backs my findings 100%.

About “the science”. In the first 50 to 60 years of chemotherapy treatment they were targeting rapidly dividing cells because they “believed” that this is what cancer was. You could call me cynical if I say that maybe they had drugs that killed rapidly dividing cells and why not make some money.

Cancer in One Easy Lesson

Albert K. Harris, Professor of Biology, UNC-Chapel Hill

Under point #2. he says…

Please notice that cancer cells do not grow or divide faster than normal cells, although many people believe that, and most forms of chemotherapy were designed on the assumption that they grow faster.

This means that the early chemotherapy was NOT evidence based and the best example of faith healing by doctors… placebo!

This is critical information because the reality here is that the people who saw cancers shrink (i.e., the 54% because the rest died of the treatment) had experienced a placebo effect. If there is no conscious being in the meat robot then how does that happen?

They are trying to say that placebo is the expectation of getting well but this would hardly be the case. The person has to believe that whatever treatment they are given addresses an underlying problem because the reality is that there is foul game play and related, inhumane people with an agenda behind cancer. Only if the person believed that the underlying problem perceived owing to the foul game play, be addressed by whatever they are give, chemo or anything else, would the body clear away the cancer.

Have they told the public about this debacle? No. They are still talking about abnormal cells dividing out of control, only now they are supposedly dividing slower than normal cells.

Let’s see the medical experts, Mr Cancer Biology himself, Dr Rob Weinberg PhD. He and Dr Hanahan wrote the Hallmarks of Cancer. If we look closely then they are the hallmarks of stem cells. Did they realize it?

Here from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer:

“" The Hallmarks of Cancer " is a seminal peer-reviewed article published in the journal Cell in January 2000 by the cancer researchers Douglas Hanahan and Robert Weinberg. The authors believe that the complexity of cancer can be reduced to a small number of underlying principles.”

And what do you know… they knew about cancer stem cells at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_stem_cell

“Cancer stem cells were first identified by John Dick in acute myeloid leukemia in the late 1990s . Since the early 2000s they have been an intense cancer research focus. The term itself was coined in a highly cited paper in 2001 by biologists Tannishtha Reya, Sean J. Morrison, Michael F. Clarke and Irving Weissman.”

And we are to believe that Hanahan and Weinberb “jbrain stormed at a conference” and whalla the hallmarks of cancer were “conceived”. Who’s making it up. These guy have got to be big pharma lap dogs, who bark as need when given a bickie to munch on.

Just to give a couple of papers. Some of it is behind pay walls but enough to see that cancer is not about abnormal cells dividing out of control.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrc.2017.118 EMT or epithelial to mesenchymal transition is a biological program seen in wound healing/ tissue regeneration and embryogenesis.

And where not convenient the science is “poorly understood”. See here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41417-020-0206-7

In the discussion: The current study offers convincing evidence that overexpression of GINS2 contributes to advanced clinical stage of PC patients in coordination with EMT signaling.

And all this can come about by genetic errors and DNA scramble. Give me a break.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67325-7?elqTrackId=84de0a579bc84069aa2feb9febdbdec8

“Cancer stem cell (CSC) has the ability to self-renew and initiate tumor formation. “

And what about here they admit cancer is an organ, albeit a rogue organ: https://jcs.biologists.org/content/125/23/5591

“Cancers are not just masses of malignant cells but complex ‘rogue’ organs, to which many other cells are recruited and can be corrupted by the transformed cells.” And as you can see they are trying to justify cancer cells as “transformed cells” that “recruit” other normal cells. Lol.

It was published in Journal of Cell Science 2012! Twelve or more years after they know about cancer stem cells and tumor initiation and progression.

The tumor microenvironment is seen purely from the point of view of therapy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6650939/

The public story is like saying that a car cuts corners or runs the red light because of the make of spark plugs or the type of cylinders and cylinder head gaskets used etc., etc. The notion that there is a driver in the car is not acceptable in biology, far less in oncology.

If we look at the science of cancer in particular, but not only, then we see clear evidence that there is a conscious being involved without a shadow of doubt. They want to give a cause and effect for everything so they have a problem with consciousness because it can’t be shown as some physical cause of anything.

Please see my answer to Chris_Falter
It is not that I am bucking the scientific knowledge but the medical stories given to the public.

I will find the citation needed but here is also a video that says precisely that cancer stem cells are needed to get cancer initiation and progression by Dr. Rob Weinberg PhD, the big authority on cancer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3508&v=Nou8VWpWba4&feature=emb_logo

Dr. Robert Weinberg - “Cancer Stem Cells: A New Target in the Fight Against Cancer”

ID is orthogonal to life. ID is the essence of machinery both in execution and result. Thus to attribute our existence to ID is not only to reduce ourselves to no more than machinery. but to look for God in ID is seeking to worship machinery – making us no more than watches made by the great watchmaker machine in the sky. For the ultimate in Intelligent Design is looking more like a machine these days than anything in Christianity.

So, not only is Evolution the scientific theory and ID nothing but anti-scientific rhetoric, but ID is also a very poor religion much more suitable to Deism than Christianity.

Cancer is evidence against ID except if you believe in a God which is inept or malign.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. But then I have heard other ill-conceived nonsense just as bad… like… the only reason viruses become resistant to drugs is because they copy their DNA so badly. It is downright idiotic and a disservice to science and the theory of evolution. But poor explanations of evolution by a few biologists does not evidence for ID make except in minds dedicated to the methodology of rhetoric.

Evidence for the self-organizing process of life in my book.

Biology is certainly a work in progress, but I think both medicine and oncology in particular could use a little overturning.

Very interesting.

Might be a reason to rethink oncology, but I see nothing here to support ID – quite the contrary.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.