Intelligent Design Research: "Corinthian Leather"

[exchemist]

I have been looking for a while for this, which amused me greatly when I first came across it, over a decade ago. So I thought I should record it here with a link: The DI’s Genuine Imitation Leather Research Lab

To summarise, there are two pieces of actual research reported here, done by ID proponents. Yes I know actual ID research papers are as rare as hen's teeth but these are the real thing. Both in fact shed light on how evolution can work - which was not at all what the researchers intended to show.

The first is the 2004 Behe and Snoke paper on a computer simulation of evolution that came up in the Kitzmiller trial. I quote from the article:
" Behe was forced to admit under oath that their computer simulation had in fact concluded that an irreducibly complex protein binding site could evolve in only 20,000 years even when the parameters of the experiment were purposely rigged to make it as unlikely as possible."

The second is an actual piece of biochemistry, in which someone called Axe studied the effect of artificially introduced mutations on an enzyme's ability to function. This showed that, contrary to what ID wanted to claim, enzyme function was surprisingly robust to these potentially damaging changes. The work failed to test for other functionality being created by the same changes, though as it happens another group showed that that did in fact occur. This undermined a key contention of ID at the time, that mutations only cause damage and thus cannot be a source of beneficial change for an organism.

(You will also see, towards the end of the article, it is pointed out that the ID people claimed the Axe work showed what they had hoped, when in fact it showed the opposite.)

I don't know what research the ID people have done since in this area. Perhaps they have dropped this line of enquiry......

 

[Audie]

I have been looking for a while for this, which amused me greatly when I first came across it, over a decade ago. So I thought I should record it here with a link: The DI’s Genuine Imitation Leather Research Lab

To summarise, there are two pieces of actual research reported here, done by ID proponents. Yes I know actual ID research papers are as rare as hen's teeth but these are the real thing. Both in fact shed light on how evolution can work - which was not at all what the researchers intended to show.

The first is the 2004 Behe and Snoke paper on a computer simulation of evolution that came up in the Kitzmiller trial. I quote from the article:
" Behe was forced to admit under oath that their computer simulation had in fact concluded that an irreducibly complex protein binding site could evolve in only 20,000 years even when the parameters of the experiment were purposely rigged to make it as unlikely as possible."

The second is an actual piece of biochemistry, in which someone called Axe studied the effect of artificially introduced mutations on an enzyme's ability to function. This showed that, contrary to what ID wanted to claim, enzyme function was surprisingly robust to these potentially damaging changes. The work failed to test for other functionality being created by the same changes, though as it happens another group showed that that did in fact occur. This undermined a key contention of ID at the time, that mutations only cause damage and thus cannot be a source of beneficial change for an organism.

(You will also see, towards the end of the article, it is pointed out that the ID people claimed the Axe work showed what they had hoped, when in fact it showed the opposite.)

I don't know what research the ID people have done since in this area. Perhaps they have dropped this line of enquiry......

I don't know what research the ID people have done since in this area. Perhaps they have dropped this line of enquiry.

Like a hot 'tater, I'd guess.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The second is an actual piece of biochemistry, in which someone called Axe studied the effect of artificially introduced mutations on an enzyme's ability to function. This showed that, contrary to what ID wanted to claim, enzyme function was surprisingly robust to these potentially damaging changes. The work failed to test for other functionality being created by the same changes, though as it happens another group showed that that did in fact occur. This undermined a key contention of ID at the time, that mutations only cause damage and thus cannot be a source of beneficial change for an organism.

The first flaw in the whole study is that it wasn't ID research. It was simply a (misguided) attack on evolution. It abused the same logical fallacy that all of their other work uses: If not evolution, then ID.

The second flaw is that they failed to properly model evolution. It is the old creationist canard of "I don't see cats evolving into dogs". They had two modern species which we will call Species X and Species Y who share a common ancestor in Species A which lived in the distant past. Species X and Y share a homologous protein, so they argued that if evolution is true then you should be able to make stepwise mutations to Species X and arrive at a functional protein that is found in Species Y. THAT IS WRONG. That is not how evolution occurred. Y did not evolve from X. Y evolved from A, as did X. Both X and Y accumulated different mutations over time which means the genetic background in X was not the same as in A. Mutations within a protein interact with each other, so you have to start with the ancestral protein sequence, not a modern protein that has already evolved and changed. What they should have done is built an ancestral DNA sequence through the use of consensus sequences, but they didn't. Therefore, they can't say that A didn't evolved into both X and Y because that isn't what their model tested.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know what research the ID people have done since in this area. Perhaps they have dropped this line of enquiry......

I doubt it.

 

[Audie]

I doubt it.

Hm, on reconsideration, you are right

Probably there is not a canard, nor yet
a tater so moldy that it wont be again
served up as fresh.

 

[exchemist]

The first flaw in the whole study is that it wasn't ID research. It was simply a (misguided) attack on evolution. It abused the same logical fallacy that all of their other work uses: If not evolution, then ID.

The second flaw is that they failed to properly model evolution. It is the old creationist canard of "I don't see cats evolving into dogs". They had two modern species which we will call Species X and Species Y who share a common ancestor in Species A which lived in the distant past. Species X and Y share a homologous protein, so they argued that if evolution is true then you should be able to make stepwise mutations to Species X and arrive at a functional protein that is found in Species Y. THAT IS WRONG. That is not how evolution occurred. Y did not evolve from X. Y evolved from A, as did X. Both X and Y accumulated different mutations over time which means the genetic background in X was not the same as in A. Mutations within a protein interact with each other, so you have to start with the ancestral protein sequence, not a modern protein that has already evolved and changed. What they should have done is built an ancestral DNA sequence through the use of consensus sequences, but they didn't. Therefore, they can't say that A didn't evolved into both X and Y because that isn't what their model tested.

Thanks for this. I presume you refer to the 2nd piece of work. I suppose that is right in that homo sapiens didn't evolve from a modern ape, but from a common ancestor.

Nonetheless at the level of the biochemistry, it does seem to show that one can modify an enzyme via mutations without immediately destroying function and if one does this secondary functionality can easily start to appear! Both findings are contrary to what ID maintains - or maintained at that time. So what comes out of this seems to be support for the evolutionary process in principle, even if it does not mimic a real evolutionary process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still waiting for the OP to deal with this topic:

 

[exchemist]

Still waiting for the OP to deal with this topic:

Oh sorry it's in the link. I quote:
"
Back in the 70s, when I was growing up, Ricardo Montalban was not only the infamous Mr. Rourke on Fantasy Island, he also starred in a commercial for Chrysler where he tantalized potential buyers by telling them that the seats in the car were covered “with the finest Corinthian leather.” No one really knew what Corinthian leather was; indeed, it didn’t actually exist. Corinth, of course, exists, but they do not produce leather there. In reality, that “fine Corinthian leather” was produced in a factory in New Jersey. But the commercial illustrates just how easily people are fooled by a slogan that sounds vaguely exclusive and out of reach.

The same phenomenon is at work here. The ID crowd knows that 99% of their followers and supporters are not going to go and look up a paper in Protein Science; they also know that 99% of them wouldn’t be able to understand if even if they did. What matters is that you have a good slogan – this is a “nail in the coffin” of evolution – and some really fancy sounding terms – “made of the finest perturbation rates.” After all, perturbation sounds pretty darn scientific, doesn’t it? And when your’e dealing with a public that doesn’t know a point mutation from a point guard, covering that old creationist couch with the finest Corinthian leather makes it seem all shiny and new."

The point being made is that the Discovery Institute lab may do bits of unremarkable research in order to claim that ID is science, when in fact the research does not support the claims of ID in any way at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh sorry it's in the link. I quote:
"
Back in the 70s, when I was growing up, Ricardo Montalban was not only the infamous Mr. Rourke on Fantasy Island, he also starred in a commercial for Chrysler where he tantalized potential buyers by telling them that the seats in the car were covered “with the finest Corinthian leather.” No one really knew what Corinthian leather was; indeed, it didn’t actually exist. Corinth, of course, exists, but they do not produce leather there. In reality, that “fine Corinthian leather” was produced in a factory in New Jersey. But the commercial illustrates just how easily people are fooled by a slogan that sounds vaguely exclusive and out of reach.

The same phenomenon is at work here. The ID crowd knows that 99% of their followers and supporters are not going to go and look up a paper in Protein Science; they also know that 99% of them wouldn’t be able to understand if even if they did. What matters is that you have a good slogan – this is a “nail in the coffin” of evolution – and some really fancy sounding terms – “made of the finest perturbation rates.” After all, perturbation sounds pretty darn scientific, doesn’t it? And when your’e dealing with a public that doesn’t know a point mutation from a point guard, covering that old creationist couch with the finest Corinthian leather makes it seem all shiny and new."

The point being made is that the Discovery Institute lab may do bits of unremarkable research in order to claim that ID is science, when in fact the research does not support the claims of ID in any way at all.

Yes, just having a good bit of fun. And I independently looked up "Corinthian leather" myself and found it to be just what the article claims. I am well aware of the tactics of the DI, such a shame that it is within forty miles of me.

And one helpful note, your second link to Behe's testimony is not working. But I loved the first article.

 

[Skwim]

Just as an FYI.

Corinthian leather is a term coined by the advertising agency Bozell to describe the upholstery used in certain Chrysler luxury vehicles. The term first appeared in advertising in 1974.
Source: Wikipedia​

.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, just having a good bit of fun. And I independently looked up "Corinthian leather" myself and found it to be just what the article claims. I am well aware of the tactics of the DI, such a shame that it is within forty miles of me.

And one helpful note, your second link to Behe's testimony is not working. But I loved the first article.

Really? Do you happen to know if the Disco 'Tute has done any research in the last decade? And if so, on what?

I took a close interest in all this at the time of the Kitzmiller trial, and for a while I used to follow the political shenanigans of ID on Panda's Thumb, as I was worried it might gain a foothold in the UK. But it seemed to run out of steam rather - and it failed miserably over here after the government issued a rule that it was not to be taught as science - so I heaved a sigh of relief and stopped following it. But now I see there are a few adherents of ID on this forum so it has not died out, evidently.

P.S. the Behe link was contained in the article I linked to and I think it has died due to the passage of time. I have a download of the Kitzmiller judgement, though, if anyone is really interested, but it will take a bit of work to read through it and find the passage.

 

[Jose Fly]

Really? Do you happen to know if the Disco 'Tute has done any research in the last decade? And if so, on what?

I took a close interest in all this at the time of the Kitzmiller trial, and for a while I used to follow the political shenanigans of ID on Panda's Thumb, as I was worried it might gain a foothold in the UK. But it seemed to run out of steam rather - and it failed miserably over here after the government issued a rule that it was not to be taught as science - so I heaved a sigh of relief and stopped following it. But now I see there are a few adherents of ID on this forum so it has not died out, evidently.

P.S. the Behe link was contained in the article I linked to and I think it has died due to the passage of time. I have a download of the Kitzmiller judgement, though, if anyone is really interested, but it will take a bit of work to read through it and find the passage.

ID creationism is dead. Remember, it was crafted as a means to get creationist talking points into science classrooms after the federal courts had ruled that teaching creationism was unconstitutional. But the Kitzmiller ruling brought that to an abrupt end.

Now, ID creationism is "alive" in the same sense as young-earth creationism.....something people argue about over the internet to no real consequence. But in terms of its original intent, it's dead and long since decomposed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Do you happen to know if the Disco 'Tute has done any research in the last decade? And if so, on what?

I took a close interest in all this at the time of the Kitzmiller trial, and for a while I used to follow the political shenanigans of ID on Panda's Thumb, as I was worried it might gain a foothold in the UK. But it seemed to run out of steam rather - and it failed miserably over here after the government issued a rule that it was not to be taught as science - so I heaved a sigh of relief and stopped following it. But now I see there are a few adherents of ID on this forum so it has not died out, evidently.

P.S. the Behe link was contained in the article I linked to and I think it has died due to the passage of time. I have a download of the Kitzmiller judgement, though, if anyone is really interested, but it will take a bit of work to read through it and find the passage.

The Disco' Tute? Research? Those two words should not be in the same sentence. All that I have ever see them do is to misrepresent the findings of scientists and sometimes openly lie, or if not lying display utter ignorance. As the article that you linked so delightfully demonstrated.

Too bad about the link. PBS did an excellent series on the trial. It is now available in one video. I will see if I can dig that up. And I just checked, the Tute is about 30 miles away from me. Even worse news. Some day I may have to take a tour of it if they allow any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you have a couple of hours this is an interesting video on the trial. It is a mixture of interviews and some reenactments of the actual trial (no video of the trial is available of course):

 

[exchemist]

If you have a couple of hours this is an interesting video on the trial. It is a mixture of interviews and some reenactments of the actual trial (no video of the trial is available of course):

I read the entire judgement at the time (139 pages and most of it surprisingly interesting).

I'd had a quick scan through the judgement and all I can find is this footnote, referring I think to documents produced in evidence to the court:

"
17 The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756)."

 

[exchemist]

ID creationism is dead. Remember, it was crafted as a means to get creationist talking points into science classrooms after the federal courts had ruled that teaching creationism was unconstitutional. But the Kitzmiller ruling brought that to an abrupt end.

Now, ID creationism is "alive" in the same sense as young-earth creationism.....something people argue about over the internet to no real consequence. But in terms of its original intent, it's dead and long since decomposed.

Ah, so no more attempts to get state laws changed to permit it, in say, Kansas or somewhere? If true then that's good.

 

[Audie]

ID creationism is dead. Remember, it was crafted as a means to get creationist talking points into science classrooms after the federal courts had ruled that teaching creationism was unconstitutional. But the Kitzmiller ruling brought that to an abrupt end.

Now, ID creationism is "alive" in the same sense as young-earth creationism.....something people argue about over the internet to no real consequence. But in terms of its original intent, it's dead and long since decomposed.

Alive, as HST would put it, as a "shameful electrified corpse"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, so no more attempts to get state laws changed to permit it, in say, Kansas or somewhere? If true then that's good.

I am sure that they are still trying to "arm the troops" so to speak. But I don't think that they have tried any direct involvement. Some of the Bible belt states have laws that allow creationism to be sneaked into schools unfortunately. Louisiana for example allows discretion on the part of the teacher. Now that is a solid educational plan.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In 2008 Louisiana passed the:

Louisiana Science Education Act - Wikipedia

It allows teachers to introduce supplementary material to question evolution and that other evil science global warming. It is an offshoot of the "teach the controversy" slogan when there is no such controversy in the sciences.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Really? Do you happen to know if the Disco 'Tute has done any research in the last decade? And if so, on what?

I am not aware of any ID hypotheses that they have tested in the field of biology. At best, they try to argue against evolution, but that isn't ID research. That is evolution research.