ID can't explain the basic observations in Biology

[Thermos aquaticus]

I have heard many ID/creationists claim that they are starting with the same evidence but are arriving at different conclusions. They also try to claim that what they are doing is scientific. Neither is true, as will be shown with multiple examples in this thread.

One of the biggest and most basic observations in biology is the nested hierarchy. In more modern parlance this is known as a phylogenetic signal. This observation dates back centuries and was first formalized by Linnaeus. Today, Linnaean taxonomy has mostly been discarded in favor of cladistics, but the central observation still holds: Species form groups within groups. The process of evolution will necessarily produce this pattern of shared and derived features among species where vertical inheritance is the dominant form of inheritance. Evolution can only produce a nested hierarchy under these conditions. This pattern of shared features is found in all of the complex eukaryotic species we see today, and it continues in the fossil record. We never see a fossil or living species that has a mixture of derived features from birds and mammals. This pattern is also mirrored in DNA, but I hope to get to that in subsequent posts.

ID/creationism can't explain why we see this pattern. I have yet to see any explanation from an ID/creationist where a nested hierarchy would be a necessary outcome of the process of intelligent design or separate creations. There is absolutely no reason why we should see this pattern of shared features if ID/creationism is true. The only explanation we have for this pattern is evolution.

If you want to know why scientists accept evolution and reject ID/creationism, the nested hierarchy is why. Until ID/creationists can explain why their proposed mechanisms would necessarily produce this pattern they will not gain traction in the sciences. ID/creationism isn't rejected because of its theological or philosophical implications. It is rejected because it can't explain one of the most basic observations in biology.

 

[Axe Elf]

Oh, and I suppose you have "proof" that the Earth is round, too, huh?

 

[socharlie]

Is there a set guide lines of what ID is about?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

As mentioned above, in addition to the nested hierarchy based on physical characteristics there is also a nested hierarchy found in DNA that mirrors the one based on physical characteristics.

Here is a question that evolution can answer easily and thoroughly, but I have yet to see an ID/creationist come up with an answer that is well supported and testable:

Let's look at a gene called cytochrome c (CYCS). It is a vital gene involved in metabolism and it is found in all animals and fungi. Let's compare the gene between three species (human, mouse, and chicken) and see what the percent similarity there is between each one at the level of DNA sequence:

Human v. mouse : 90.5% similar
Human v. chicken: 81.6% similar

I left one comparison off, the comparison between mouse and chicken. Evolution makes a prediction about what that similarity should look like, but I would like to see an ID/creationist explain what the similarity between the mouse and chicken CYCS gene should be, and why. Can they make predictions and offer an actual scientific explanation?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Oh, and I suppose you have "proof" that the Earth is round, too, huh?

For those flat earthers who claim they are interpreting the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion, yes I do have that proof as well.

 

[socharlie]

For those flat earthers who claim they are interpreting the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion, yes I do have that proof as well.

Science has no answers, it can not come to any conclusions based on theories.

 

[David T]

I have heard many ID/creationists claim that they are starting with the same evidence but are arriving at different conclusions. They also try to claim that what they are doing is scientific. Neither is true, as will be shown with multiple examples in this thread.

One of the biggest and most basic observations in biology is the nested hierarchy. In more modern parlance this is known as a phylogenetic signal. This observation dates back centuries and was first formalized by Linnaeus. Today, Linnaean taxonomy has mostly been discarded in favor of cladistics, but the central observation still holds: Species form groups within groups. The process of evolution will necessarily produce this pattern of shared and derived features among species where vertical inheritance is the dominant form of inheritance. Evolution can only produce a nested hierarchy under these conditions. This pattern of shared features is found in all of the complex eukaryotic species we see today, and it continues in the fossil record. We never see a fossil or living species that has a mixture of derived features from birds and mammals. This pattern is also mirrored in DNA, but I hope to get to that in subsequent posts.

ID/creationism can't explain why we see this pattern. I have yet to see any explanation from an ID/creationist where a nested hierarchy would be a necessary outcome of the process of intelligent design or separate creations. There is absolutely no reason why we should see this pattern of shared features if ID/creationism is true. The only explanation we have for this pattern is evolution.

If you want to know why scientists accept evolution and reject ID/creationism, the nested hierarchy is why. Until ID/creationists can explain why their proposed mechanisms would necessarily produce this pattern they will not gain traction in the sciences. ID/creationism isn't rejected because of its theological or philosophical implications. It is rejected because it can't explain one of the most basic observations in biology.

I

I have heard many ID/creationists claim that they are starting with the same evidence but are arriving at different conclusions. They also try to claim that what they are doing is scientific. Neither is true, as will be shown with multiple examples in this thread.

One of the biggest and most basic observations in biology is the nested hierarchy. In more modern parlance this is known as a phylogenetic signal. This observation dates back centuries and was first formalized by Linnaeus. Today, Linnaean taxonomy has mostly been discarded in favor of cladistics, but the central observation still holds: Species form groups within groups. The process of evolution will necessarily produce this pattern of shared and derived features among species where vertical inheritance is the dominant form of inheritance. Evolution can only produce a nested hierarchy under these conditions. This pattern of shared features is found in all of the complex eukaryotic species we see today, and it continues in the fossil record. We never see a fossil or living species that has a mixture of derived features from birds and mammals. This pattern is also mirrored in DNA, but I hope to get to that in subsequent posts.

ID/creationism can't explain why we see this pattern. I have yet to see any explanation from an ID/creationist where a nested hierarchy would be a necessary outcome of the process of intelligent design or separate creations. There is absolutely no reason why we should see this pattern of shared features if ID/creationism is true. The only explanation we have for this pattern is evolution.

If you want to know why scientists accept evolution and reject ID/creationism, the nested hierarchy is why. Until ID/creationists can explain why their proposed mechanisms would necessarily produce this pattern they will not gain traction in the sciences. ID/creationism isn't rejected because of its theological or philosophical implications. It is rejected because it can't explain one of the most basic observations in biology.

That's a lot of words to be a Von Dankien doubter.

 

[Skwim]

Is there a set guide lines of what ID is about?

Well, the leading proponent of ID, the Discovery Institute, says

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
​

And to "prove" this they claim ID

​

" is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
source
​

However, as has been shown many times, they frequently stray from such scientific methods in order to make the evidence fit their conclusion.

.​

 

[socharlie]

Well, the leading proponent of ID, the Discovery Institute, says

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
​

And to "prove" this they claim ID

​

" is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
source​

However, as has been shown many times, they frequently stray from such scientific methods in order to make the evidence fit their conclusion.

.​

Do I have to accept that definition? No. In my book science is a part of ID. Science strives to explain physical universe within physical means. ID also offers metaphysics. Science requires physical or mathematical proof.

 

[Skwim]

Science has no answers, it can not come to any conclusions based on theories.

You haven't been around long enough to know whether you're serious or not, so I'm just going to assume you're either kidding or trolling.

.

 

[socharlie]

You haven't been around long enough to know whether you're serious or not, so I'm just going to assume you're either kidding or trolling.

.

E.g. List of unsolved problems in physics - Wikipedia

 

[Skwim]

Do I have to accept that definition? No. In my book science is a part of ID.

Too bad its proponents don't adhere to its principles.

Science strives to explain physical universe within physical means. ID also offers metaphysics.

And lies and other forms of deception.

Science requires physical or mathematical proof.

Just to keep you on track here, proof is for mathematics, logic, and alcoholic beverages. Outside of the use of mathematics and logic as a tool, science doesn't deal in proofs.

.

 

[Audie]

I have heard many ID/creationists claim that they are starting with the same evidence but are arriving at different conclusions. They also try to claim that what they are doing is scientific. Neither is true, as will be shown with multiple examples in this thread.

One of the biggest and most basic observations in biology is the nested hierarchy. In more modern parlance this is known as a phylogenetic signal. This observation dates back centuries and was first formalized by Linnaeus. Today, Linnaean taxonomy has mostly been discarded in favor of cladistics, but the central observation still holds: Species form groups within groups. The process of evolution will necessarily produce this pattern of shared and derived features among species where vertical inheritance is the dominant form of inheritance. Evolution can only produce a nested hierarchy under these conditions. This pattern of shared features is found in all of the complex eukaryotic species we see today, and it continues in the fossil record. We never see a fossil or living species that has a mixture of derived features from birds and mammals. This pattern is also mirrored in DNA, but I hope to get to that in subsequent posts.

ID/creationism can't explain why we see this pattern. I have yet to see any explanation from an ID/creationist where a nested hierarchy would be a necessary outcome of the process of intelligent design or separate creations. There is absolutely no reason why we should see this pattern of shared features if ID/creationism is true. The only explanation we have for this pattern is evolution.

If you want to know why scientists accept evolution and reject ID/creationism, the nested hierarchy is why. Until ID/creationists can explain why their proposed mechanisms would necessarily produce this pattern they will not gain traction in the sciences. ID/creationism isn't rejected because of its theological or philosophical implications. It is rejected because it can't explain one of the most basic observations in biology.

"Same evidence, different conclusion" (SEDI)

Thing is, it is not the same evidence.
Primarily because it is not the same level of qualifications.

The garden variety creationist has no background in science to work from. The few who do are committed to intellectual dishonesty.

A roofer could read a manual on how to drill teeth, and say SEDI!. But would anyone believe it?

I could read an auto repair manual. Want to trust me with the car? If I believe in magic would you trust me then? How do you open the lid on this thing, I think that is where the tranny is.

Another detail is, the ID / creationists come in with
a predetermined conclusion.

Nobody wants their auto mechanic to do that.
No matter why you are there, oil change, get some gas, he will diagnose transmission problems, and charge your 2000 dollars.

One more detail. A "conclusion" needs to be fully consistent with all of the data. Not just the few that
are half understood to sort of match what the creationist wants.

 

[Audie]

Do I have to accept that definition? No. In my book science is a part of ID. Science strives to explain physical universe within physical means. ID also offers metaphysics. Science requires physical or mathematical proof.

Psst! Science does not do proof.

 

[Skwim]

E.g. List of unsolved problems in physics - Wikipedia

So what? Just because your aunt Tilly can't bake a decent chocolate cake doesn't mean she cant bake a decent angel food cake.

.

 

[socharlie]

Psst! Science does snot do proof.

really?

 

[socharlie]

So what? Just because your aunt Tilly can't bake a decent chocolate cake doesn't mean she cant bake a decent angel food cake.

.

that's what I meant. keep baking.

 

[Audie]

really?

Been around much? let me guess.. not really.

some science for beginners-

Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science

MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there a set guide lines of what ID is about?

That would be up to the believers in ID. They would need to create a scientific hypothesis that explains how life got to its present state. They can't seem to do this. A scientific hypothesis needs to be falsifiable and for some reason they seem loathe to put their ideas to the test.

 

[socharlie]

Been around much? let me guess.. not really.

some science for beginners-

Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science

MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

when you present your work to peer review how would you explain your work?