Refuting fallacious ID arguments and explaining randomness in biology for students

Meyer and Dawkins are in agreement on this point. In TBW Dawkins also argues that it is random mutation that produces the functional sequences. All natural selection can do is act like a ratchet, locking successful mutations in place, per his famous weasel example. Thus, it is mutation alone that is responsible for discovering functional sequences.

Further, both Meyer and Dawkins agree these successful random mutations must be very small in order for evolution to succeed. Dawkins explicitly argues in TBW against the possibility of evolution taking large jumps since the probability of landing in a region of higher fitness is much smaller than the probability of landing in a region of higher fitness after a small jump.

What they disagree on is whether there is empirical support for these small steps. So, there is no fallacy in this EN article by Meyer. They both agree on the argument’s logical structure. What they disagree on is the evidence.

As for @T_aquaticus counter to Axe’s work, I think the two studies are apples and oranges. Axe was estimating how many possible arrangements of a set of amino acids can form functional proteins. @T_aquaticus paper is describing how quickly bacteria can evolve resistance to a new drug. It sounds like the drug itself aids the evolution:

Our results confirm the capability of the two β‐lactamase inhibitor targets to efficiently promote the formation of catalytic antibodies endowed with this activity.
If I am understanding correctly, then it doesn’t really sound like the articles are talking about the same problem. Axe’s study doesn’t provide anything to encourage evolution towards a target, whereas the bacteria study does. It is also not clear how far away the bacteria are from the target, nor the target’s size. If the bacteria start off close, or the target is big, then it is unsurprising fewer attempts are required to hit the target. Since the bacteria are evolving to avoid a drug, it seems like the target can be quite big, as it is easier to make a mismatch than a match.

And even if the 10^9 number is more accurate, and we assume this is the quantity to hit a single gene, then hitting the precise 20,000 genes in the human genome represent a probability of 10^180,000. Now maybe the space of possibilities is greater, so there is not only a single specific set of genes that have to be hit. But in order to make the 20,000 genes match the number of atoms in the solar system, 10^65, then we need a chance of x = 10^(-65/20,000) ~ 0.9925 of hitting a functional sequence by chance without the aid of natural selection to ratchet things into place. Which means we can pretty much just jam any DNA sequence together and get a functional protein out of the mix. And this is a lower bound on the probability.

Googling Intelligent Design Fallacies.

Of course it is, but not the fact that they are functional. That is a matter of natural selection.

Thanks, I already thought of that.

Thid whole section is wrong. Ignore it.

This seems to me self-evident and indisputable. Before natural selection can do anything with anything, certain mutations must arise by mere chance. otherwise natural selection has nothing to select between.

1 Like

Don’t worry Eric…

My apologies. Anything useful?

It was originated by Professor Sir Fred Hoyle FRS and is IDist and therefore creationist and therefore he was. Which is why he lost out on the Nobel.

Where? How? The appearance of design is not a fallacy of any kind. Just ignorance. Believing the appearance is more than mere is the fallacy of (argument from) ignorance.

This similarly seems entirely uncontroversial, self-evident, and undisputed by any party involved. This is a pretty tame and fair description of the basic modern evolutionary synthesis. As noted in what you quoted, this basic principle is defended even by some of evolution’s staunchest defenders.

Why would you be interested in refuting this?

1 Like

Interesting. Can you tell me what exactly his creationist views were? Was he a biblical literalist, believing in a 6 day creation?

I’m skeptical of his math. In the probability discussion.

@EricMH
I think you said elsewhere that ID is not anti-evolution, just against the idea that design is not empirically detectable.

It is this kind of anti-evolution ID propaganda that educators are constantly having to address with Christian students and why you probably get eye-rolls when you try to say that ID isn’t anti-evolution.

If any of the sciency people want to check out part 2 of this document, the three pages on “What is ID” and point out the most important things that should be addressed and countered, that would be super helpful.

Did you read the document?

I skimmed it.

ID, an argument from ignorance and incredulity, is creationism, just less consistent than YEC.

I recommend skimming the table of contents and page 13 and pointing out where it contradicts what I’ve been saying.

I believe you don’t actually know what his views are. Try out his wiki article.

I’ve read Fred for 45 years, you?

How does he believe life on earth started?