Refuting fallacious ID arguments and explaining randomness in biology for students

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

was his inference to design based on empirical data? was it valid? if so, what is the problem?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@EricMH

minimal viable science is something that make predictions about the physical world that can be falsified and/or confirmed, and also leads to granular empirical explanations

Did he do any of that? No, it was intuitive, and not science.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

That is why I am a lowercase ‘id’ ‘evolutionary providentialist’.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

And obviously, intuition can indeed be correct.

[T_aquaticus]

@EricMH

That could be the case, but it seems a big jump to extrapolate from bacterial mutations to change in species across the eons of evolution.

We see neutral, deleterious, and beneficial mutations occurring in all populations. As another example, we see a lower number of non-synonymous mutations in funcctional coding regions than we would expect, using non-synonymous mutations as a control. The explanation for this observation is selection against deleterious non-synonymous mutations.

@EricMH

Schaffner’s argument is that the biochemical distribution means certain letters will mutate into each other more frequently to other letters. Thus, we expect these frequent pairs to be aligned more often than not. Hence, if we do observe the more frequent alignment of these pairs, then this provides evidence for the mutations occuring due to the biochemical distribution. This is not a deductive conclusion, since that would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is an abductive argument, like the inference to design.

No, that’s not it. We are looking at the differences between genomes, not the similarities.

The pattern of mutations separating the genomes of different species matches the natural processes we see in living populations. That is evidence for those natural processes producing the differences between species. It is really straightforward.

[T_aquaticus]

@EricMH

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:

Your reference is describing the selection of already existing B-cell variants, and those variants were created through random V(D)J recombination which occurs during infancy. The variants precede challenge, and the B-cells expressing antibodies that bind an antigen are told to divide and pump out more antibody.

@EricMH

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.

Sharpshooter fallacy. Also, bacteria are wondering how they can function with only a fraction of those 20,000 genes.

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

he made an inference that can be empirically falsified, verified

he can use his knowledge of design to reverse engineer the engine

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@EricMH

Sure there is. e.g. ewerts module theory vs phylogenetic tree, gmos detection, network intrusion detection, forensic sience, SETI, etc. all are empirically testable. i don’t ynderstand the issue. can you provide more concrete detail about what you think cannot be empirically tested?

Sorry? Sure there is what? What’s the empiricism of science got to do with its absence in pseudoscience?

[T_aquaticus]

@EricMH

he made an inference that can be empirically falsified, verified

If fairies exist, I predict we should see rainbows. We observe rainbows. Therefore, fairies exist.

Is that an empirically verified conclusion? Do you think that is a compelling argument and/or evidence?

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

can you explain how that relates?

[T_aquaticus]

@EricMH

can you explain how that relates?

I made made an inference that can be empirically falsified/verified.

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

No that’s the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@EricMH

he made an inference that can be empirically falsified, verified

he can use his knowledge of design to reverse engineer the engine

Our aborigine scientist. Sure, later this afternoon.

He had an intuitive grasp of reality, a correct one, but not one that would be scientifically verifiable by him any time soon. Not unlike complex subcellular molecular machinery. We intuit design (lowercase ‘id’) but it’s not going to be provable, especially when natural mechanisms can account for it. And as Christians, we can know our intuition is correct (not that others cannot intuit design, as well).

[Daniel_Fisher]

@Dale

Our aborigine scientist. Sure, later this afternoon.

He had an intuitive grasp of reality, a correct one, but not one that would be scientifically verifiable by him any time soon. Not unlike complex subcellular molecular machinery. We intuit design (lowercase ‘id’) but it’s not going to be provable, especially when natural mechanisms can account for it. And as Christians, we can know our intuition is correct (not that others cannot intuit design, as well).

I think this is exactly what baffles me about the philosophy at work. If part of an alien spaceship fell out of the sky… something that was clearly not of natural origin, clearly the result of some kind of alien intelligence or the like… similarly, we might not be able to understand the first thing about it.

But would you seriously be objecting to all the scientists that would be publishing their reasons for recognizing this object as non-natural in scientific journals? If Scientific American magazine published articles describing the design involved and how different it is from something naturally occurring… you would seriously object, and tell them they they really have no scientific basis for claiming that said object was not naturally occurring? You’d seriously maintain that, looking at part of some alien technology so far beyond us but clearly not naturally occurring, that we could only have an “intuition” about its being designed?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

The problem is, what we are talking about is indeed naturally occurring.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@Dale

The problem is, what we are talking about is indeed naturally occurring.

?

Not sure what we’re speaking about… what is naturally occurring?

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

@Dale

He had an intuitive grasp of reality, a correct one, but not one that would be scientifically verifiable by him any time soon.

id is the scientific verification

people fell down cliffs before newton defined the laws of gravity, that doesn’t make their falling down cliffs unscientific

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

@Dale

We intuit design (lowercase ‘id’) but it’s not going to be provable, especially when natural mechanisms can account for it.

please prove this claim

[T_aquaticus]

@Daniel_Fisher

But would you seriously be objecting to all the scientists that would be publishing their reasons for recognizing this object as non-natural in scientific journals?

If we see two biological organisms have offspring right in front of us, would we think an intelligent designer swooped and and produced the offspring?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Since I am not a computational or mathematical biologist nor a biostatistician, I’ll pass. Someone else might like to take you up on your generous offer. Dan @EastwoodDC, Steve @glipsnort and/or @T_aquaticus might point us in the right direction, among others.

(One disadvantage to an iPad for composing… the virtual keyboard takes up the lower 55% of the screen and the text entry box the rest, so the thread and most recent posts are obscured. Calling T_aquaticus… and there he was already. )