Why didn't animals evolve wheels?

[JimC]

Perhaps in some corner of the universe there are indeed planets having their biota adjusted by advanced intelligences. That is certainly a reasonable possibility.

However, that is not how you framed your question. You were specifically asking whether it was possible that the evolutionary pathways on Earth in the past were the result of such manipulation. You have consistently been told that every iota of scientific evidence points unequivocally at evolution on Earth happening via perfectly natural processes, whose actions leave clear signatures of imperfection. For manipulation to have occurred, but to leave the same signature as natural processes would require both massive extra effort, and a level of duplicity one would not expect to find in genetic engineers of such breathtaking ability.

In the case of the Earth's evolutionary past, such a remote possibility is simply not worth considering, unless and until clear-cut evidence of such tampering was to be found.

[Brian Peacock]

The 'whole concept' [of Intelligent design] as Seth puts it is far older than science, and was born of ascribing agency to natural phenomena. Intelligent design is creationism, in fancy trousers and a funny hat, and there's absolutely no 'perfectly rational scientific idea' either about it or lurking within it.

[Seth]

Perhaps in some corner of the universe there are indeed planets having their biota adjusted by advanced intelligences. That is certainly a reasonable possibility.

Yes, it is. In fact earth is one of those planets.

However, that is not how you framed your question. You were specifically asking whether it was possible that the evolutionary pathways on Earth in the past were the result of such manipulation.

No, I asked if it was possible to manipulate evolutionary pathways on earth. And it is.

You have consistently been told that every iota of scientific evidence points unequivocally at evolution on Earth happening via perfectly natural processes, whose actions leave clear signatures of imperfection.

Hm. I think that's stretching the truth somewhat.

For manipulation to have occurred, but to leave the same signature as natural processes would require both massive extra effort, and a level of duplicity one would not expect to find in genetic engineers of such breathtaking ability.

First, you're making assumptions about these putative genetic engineers not supported by facts. Second, the existence of "trash" DNA which you claim as evidence of messy natural evolution does not say anything about intelligent manipulation of other parts of the DNA structure. For example, RoundupReady corn has been genetically engineered to resist the application of glyophosate, but in the process of so manipulating the DNA of corn the engineers at Monsanto did not "clean up" any of the "mess" left by natural selection, did they? So, fifty thousand years from now corn may still be resistant to glyophosate because of intelligent genetic manipulation but without prior knowledge of the manipulation,scientists of that day would be unable to tell if the genetic code that makes corn resistant to glyophosate was part of natural selection due to the presence of glyophosate in the ecosystem or if it was intelligently introduced, would they? Then they, as you, might make the mistake of assuming that the specific bits of DNA in corn that were put there by Monsanto are "trash" DNA that have no present use because glyophosate is no longer in the ecosystem. Yet that DNA would still be intelligent design of the organism, even if those scientists do not understand why it exists, how it got there, or what it's evolutionary utility is.

In the case of the Earth's evolutionary past, such a remote possibility is simply not worth considering, unless and until clear-cut evidence of such tampering was to be found.

"Simply not worth considering" is merely an expression of poverty of imagination. You'll never find "clear-cut evidence" if you're unwilling to even consider it, much less look for it.

[Seth]

The 'whole concept' [of Intelligent design] as Seth puts it is far older than science, and was born of ascribing agency to natural phenomena. Intelligent design is creationism, in fancy trousers and a funny hat, and there's absolutely no 'perfectly rational scientific idea' either about it or lurking within it.

Er, we are "agency" are we not? To assume, as you do, that no other "agency" exists, or could exist, or used to exist is about as religiously anti-scientific as it gets.

Intelligent design is not a "concept" at all, it is a hard scientific fact, as RoundupReady corn and other crops, among many other examples of intelligent design of genetic structures by humans proves beyond any doubt whatsoever to a scientific and philosophical certainty.

You simply cannot deny this.

The obvious logical corollary is that if intelligent design of genetic structures is a known fact of today, there is no reason to believe that it could not also be a fact of the past. Remember, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case the absence of intelligence capable of manipulating DNA sometime in the past history of the universe, somewhere in the universe.

And that being the case, there is also no reason to believe that such intelligent design could not have occurred on earth at some time in it's 4 billion year history.

Please note that I am not claiming that such intelligent design DID occur before mankind managed it, merely that it is irrational to claim that it either did not or could not have happened in the past.

My point here is that because "intelligent design" is a scientific fact, and not a religious belief, it is therefore within the ambit of science to determine if and when such intelligent design might have occurred on earth, or anywhere else for that matter, and that keeping the scientific fact of intelligent design firmly in mind when approaching questions of evolution on Earth is rational, appropriate and necessary if science is to be held to its own standards.

If you deliberately never even consider looking for evidence of DNA modifications in the past when examining the DNA of existing organisms, you'll never find it and you will have abandoned science in favor of ideology and religion. Is that how you want to represent science?

[Brian Peacock]

The 'whole concept' [of Intelligent design] as Seth puts it is far older than science, and was born of ascribing agency to natural phenomena. Intelligent design is creationism, in fancy trousers and a funny hat, and there's absolutely no 'perfectly rational scientific idea' either about it or lurking within it.

Er, we are "agency" are we not?

That not what was talking about or what I meant, as well you know. Yes, humans are agents in the natural world, but as I'm sure you understood, despite your equivocation here, ascribing agency to natural phenomena is not the same as acknowledging we do stuff.

To assume, as you do, that no other "agency" exists, or could exist, or used to exist is about as religiously anti-scientific as it gets.

Yeah yadda-yadda-yadda. I don't assume anything, I just have no good reason to think otherwise. If you'd like to convince me with something other than an imaginable possibility please feel free.

Intelligent design is not a "concept" at all, it is a hard scientific fact, as RoundupReady corn and other crops, among many other examples of intelligent design of genetic structures by humans proves beyond any doubt whatsoever to a scientific and philosophical certainty.

Nonsense. You and I both know the term "Intelligent Design" is not intellectually neutral nor without controversy. Do you refuse to acknowledge or accept this? It represents the view that the natural world, and specifically humans' place within it, can best be explained as being initiated and directed by an intelligent cause and not by a blind or undirected natural process such as evolution by natural selection. Besides that, you said it was a concept, and now you're saying its not. Make your mind up.

You simply cannot deny this.

Just did. Suck it up.

The obvious logical corollary is that if intelligent design of genetic structures is a known fact of today, there is no reason to believe that it could not also be a fact of the past. Remember, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case the absence of intelligence capable of manipulating DNA sometime in the past history of the universe, somewhere in the universe.

Your eagerness to appeal to equivocation is demonstrated by your continued use of 'intelligent design.' There's no need to add 'intelligent design' to a description of science's ability to manipulate genetic matter unless you specifically want to wedge the possibility of made humans in a bespoke universe into the scientific arena - which you do. Your ontological argument, that if it can be imagined then it must be accepted as a reasonable possibility, is nonsense, and when relied upon to justify the implicit claim that a creator created the universe and/or humans is just as valid a explanation as any supported scientific theory, like Evolution, it is also fallacious and wholly pseudosceintific. If you want to demonstrate that our current understanding of cosmological, geological and biological processes are wrong you'll need more than then incredulity, doubt, and fantastical imaginable possibilities that ID proponents and Creationist bring to the table.

And that being the case, there is also no reason to believe that such intelligent design could not have occurred on earth at some time in it's 4 billion year history.

You're not making logical sense here, not least because you must presuppose the existence of some universe creating or planet-seeding intelligent designer and then presuming that how things are now was the intended consequence of their actions, when everything Evolution tells us is that there's no particular reason why our biosphere should be the way it is today - that's just the result of the circumstances of our planets history. For the biosphere to be deliberately guided towards this exact point with the exact compliment of elements it has now every cosmological, geological, meteorological, biological, and every other significant event in the Earth's history would have to be 'designed' and actioned - every meteor strike, every solar flare, every gamma-ray burst from nearby systems, every environmental shift, every resource, every species interaction, everything.

Please note that I am not claiming that such intelligent design DID occur before mankind managed it, merely that it is irrational to claim that it either did not or could not have happened in the past.

Well, saying this just demonstrates the kind of bait-and-switch we've become accustomed to whenever you get stuck into telling reasonable and rational people they have no 'rational and logical' basis for disagreeing with you or setting any store by the scientific process.

My point here is that because "intelligent design" is a scientific fact...

A pseudoscientific claim (you did pop in quotes there)...

... and not a religious belief...

It is a religious belief, of which you are fully aware, and you're only using the term with that in mind, otherwise you'd just refer to 'gene manipulation' or 'current technology' or similar. The only reason to use 'intelligent design' is to reference the fundamentalist Christian doctrine of creation.

it is therefore within the ambit of science to determine if and when such intelligent design might have occurred on earth, or anywhere else for that matter, and that keeping the scientific fact of intelligent design firmly in mind when approaching questions of evolution on Earth is rational, appropriate and necessary if science is to be held to its own standards.

Science deals in observations, evidences, and rational thinking. The current cosmological, geological, and evolutionary theories are not guess work or imagined possibilities, they are the most parsimonious rational explanations that are consistent with observation, evidence, and the known facts. Positing that there maybe some other unobserved, unevidenced facts is not a problem for science - scientists keep striving to uncover more evidences, to make better, more reliable observations, and to get a better understanding of the facts everyday, and they have no problem amending the theories accordingly when new information comes to light. There is absolutely no need to place mythologies on the same footing as science or to keep the possibility of intelligent design 'firmly in mind' when scientists go about their everyday business of falsifying hypotheses, making observations, running experiments, and thinking critically.

If you deliberately never even consider looking for evidence of DNA modifications in the past when examining the DNA of existing organisms, you'll never find it and you will have abandoned science in favor of ideology and religion. Is that how you want to represent science?

Science does not proceed from a conclusion in that way, and it's fallacious to do so. Scientific conclusions are formed from observations, evidences, and robust, rational and logical, thinking. That is the fundamental rational flaw in ID/Creationism, its an answer in search of a question and throws away anything and everything which doesn't lead to the answer it began with.

[Seth]

The 'whole concept' [of Intelligent design] as Seth puts it is far older than science, and was born of ascribing agency to natural phenomena. Intelligent design is creationism, in fancy trousers and a funny hat, and there's absolutely no 'perfectly rational scientific idea' either about it or lurking within it.

Er, we are "agency" are we not?

That not what was talking about or what I meant, as well you know. Yes, humans are agents in the natural world, but as I'm sure you understood, despite your equivocation here, ascribing agency to natural phenomena is not the same as acknowledging we do stuff.

Er, the point is that you are ascribing natural phenomena to what may in fact be, or include, agency. There is nothing in "nature" that precludes "agency" and the fact is that you cannot identify which genetic components are "natural phenomena" and which are "agency." This is of course assuming that the operative definition of "agency" we are using means "intelligent manipulation of DNA."

To assume, as you do, that no other "agency" exists, or could exist, or used to exist is about as religiously anti-scientific as it gets.

Yeah yadda-yadda-yadda. I don't assume anything, I just have no good reason to think otherwise. If you'd like to convince me with something other than an imaginable possibility please feel free.

Sound a lot like what theists say about evolution to me: "You can't PROVE evolution, you can only infer it, and since God is omnipotent God can certainly make it look like evolution occurred, and you have given me no reason to think otherwise." Religious belief is a powerful thing in the way it closes minds to possibility.

Intelligent design is not a "concept" at all, it is a hard scientific fact, as RoundupReady corn and other crops, among many other examples of intelligent design of genetic structures by humans proves beyond any doubt whatsoever to a scientific and philosophical certainty.

Nonsense. You and I both know the term "Intelligent Design" is not intellectually neutral nor without controversy. Do you refuse to acknowledge or accept this? It represents the view that the natural world, and specifically humans' place within it, can best be explained as being initiated and directed by an intelligent cause and not by a blind or undirected natural process such as evolution by natural selection. Besides that, you said it was a concept, and now you're saying its not. Make your mind up.

What you're engaged in is called the "poisoning the well" fallacy. You are using the fact that the term "intelligent design" has been co-opted by a particularly mendacious group of radical creationists to suggest that the actual scientific concept of the possibility of intelligent design of living organisms is fallacious. It's not. This is the same ideologically-biased reasoning used by the judge in his Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling that attempts to create an impenetrable barrier between "intelligent design" and science education based only on one particular young-earth creationist argument.

I find that utterly appalling because, as I have pointed out here, the concept of intelligent design is far more inclusive than just the creationist's particular ideological argument in Kitzmiller, and therefore it is inappropriate to poison the well by declaring, as both you and the Kitzmiller judge do, that "intelligent design" is not science and is therefore forever barred from public educational venues. I see that as an intolerable anti=science bias that cannot be allowed to stand.

Whereas the argument for intelligent design foolishly proposed by the defendants in Kitzmiller was clearly proven to be a false-flag, stalking horse argument for shoehorning creationism into the schools, as shown by the documentary evidence showing that the defendants discussed this exact and explicit plan, which is why it was rejected, the actual concept of intelligent design is not limited to creationist arguments at all, and is a valid scientific argument when not presented as a cloak for creationism.

For example, one of the principle arguments of the creationists was "irreducible complexity" using the bacterial flagellum as an example of a biological device that cannot be simplified in any way without ceasing to perform its function. This happens to be true. Take away even one of the protein building blocks that create the rotating "axle" of the flagellum and it ceases to work. The argument made by the plaintiffs was that the building block proteins in the flagellum are the same building block proteins found in the bacterial lancet device, which they maintain preceded the flagellum and which was used for a different purpose by the bacterium.

The inference that they made, and it was only an inference, was that because the protein building blocks existed, and took the form of a lancet device, that evolutionary theory suggests that the same building blocks could also have assembled in the necessary configuration to form the flagellum device, and therefore the flagellum is not "irreducibly complex" at all. It was this argument, along with other evidence, that the judge in Kitzmiller decided to use in his ruling, which went far beyond what he was competent to rule upon, in which he (one individual) "legally" dismissed the entire concept of intelligent design and ruled that it is "not science" and therefore can never be taught in the schools. The problem is that he's wrong, although he certainly had adequate evidence of the flatly perjured testimony of the defendants, who falsely claimed they had no creationist motives, to rule against them. Rather than rule on that basis he took the opportunity to try to drive a legal stake through the entire concept of intelligent design, in all it's iterations, because he was ideologically biased against creationism.

The reason both he and the plaintiffs were wrong in their biological arguments is that logically and rationally the fact that both the lancet device and the flagellum are constructed from the same protein building blocks, both of them cease to function if just one of the building blocks is not present. Thus they are, in and of themselves, irreducibly complex. Not only that, but each device serves an entirely different biological purpose, with the flagellum providing motive power and the lancet being used to inject DNA into another organism.

Now, this does not prove that the flagellum did not evolve from the lancet, but it also does not prove that the flagellum did in fact evolve from the lancet. It could have been the fact that in a stew of protein building blocks containing all of the necessary blocks for either to form it is of course possible that each device self-assembled by random chance entirely independent of the other device. One can build a replica of the Empire State Building or a replica of the Pentagon from the same set of Lego blocks. But this does not mean that the Pentagon evolved from the Empire State Building or vice versa.

All it means is that some or all of the same blocks may assemble in different ways...or be assembled in different ways, to produce different results.

What was not shown by the plaintiff's experts was that, or even how the bacterial lancet actually evolved into the bacterial flagellum. What the experts did (expertly I must concede) is to turn an inference into a presumption in the mind of the judge simply by showing that the lancet and the flagellum were both comprised of the same protein building blocks without showing how one device could factually morph into the other.

Their argument amounted to arguing that because F-16 fighter aircraft and Chevrolet Suburban SUVs contain 9/16 inch bolts and nuts, that F-16s evolved from Chevrolet Suburban SUVs. The actual fact is, however, that despite being constructed from the same "soup" of nuts, bolts and other building blocks, each was intelligently designed for a specific and highly diverse purpose. Applied to protein building blocks in a primordial soup it is true therefore that the flagellum might have evolved from the lancet, but it is also true that either the lancet or the flagellum were intelligently designed to suit each's particular purpose.

Absent an actual demonstration of how protein building blocs can spontaneously assemble themselves into an operating lancet configuration which then just as spontaneously changes to a operating flagellum configuration (each being irreducibly complex on its own and non-functional with the removal of a single protein building block from either), intelligent design cannot be rationally excluded as the causative force involved. This is not a claim that intelligent design WAS the cause, merely that it's a valid scientific question and not an inherently religious concept unfounded in scientific fact.

The obvious logical corollary is that if intelligent design of genetic structures is a known fact of today, there is no reason to believe that it could not also be a fact of the past. Remember, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case the absence of intelligence capable of manipulating DNA sometime in the past history of the universe, somewhere in the universe.

Your eagerness to appeal to equivocation is demonstrated by your continued use of 'intelligent design.' There's no need to add 'intelligent design' to a description of science's ability to manipulate genetic matter unless you specifically want to wedge the possibility of made humans in a bespoke universe into the scientific arena - which you do.

This is where your ideological beliefs overwhelm your reasoning.

Your ontological argument, that if it can be imagined then it must be accepted as a reasonable possibility, is nonsense, and when relied upon to justify the implicit claim that a creator created the universe and/or humans is just as valid a explanation as any supported scientific theory, like Evolution, it is also fallacious and wholly pseudosceintific. If you want to demonstrate that our current understanding of cosmological, geological and biological processes are wrong you'll need more than then incredulity, doubt, and fantastical imaginable possibilities that ID proponents and Creationist bring to the table.

Well, the problem with the above diatribe is that I have not ontological argument, I'm simply pointing out that the intervention of an intelligence in the evolution of any organism, or all organisms, cannot simply be discarded as a "pseudoscientific" lark because, scientifically speaking, it is a proven fact that such intervention in the evolution of organism has already occurred as a result of human scientific understanding. You simply cannot deny that what has been done by mankind cannot be, or have been done by some other intelligence.

And that being the case, there is also no reason to believe that such intelligent design could not have occurred on earth at some time in it's 4 billion year history.

You're not making logical sense here, not least because you must presuppose the existence of some universe creating or planet-seeding intelligent designer and then presuming that how things are now was the intended consequence of their actions, when everything Evolution tells us is that there's no particular reason why our biosphere should be the way it is today - that's just the result of the circumstances of our planets history.

Evolution, I must point out, doesn't tell us anything of the sort. My argument is that evolution is a fact of biology, but that evolution is not the only way in which organisms can be made to function. We know this is an absolute scientific truth because we've done it successfully hundreds if not thousands of times. One does not have to presuppose an intelligent designer for intelligent design to be a reality. Intelligent designers may come and go, just as knowledge comes and goes. One does not need to presuppose an omnipotent and omniscient intelligent universe-creating entity to hypothesize that what can be done today by humans could have been done in the past by some other intelligent entity. As to evolution telling us something about why things are as they are, this is a specious argument because as we now know, evolution can be "interfered" with by an intelligence that has specific design objectives in mind and that such manipulations are undetectable without some prior frame of reference about the changes. Thus, a manipulation of the genetic material of fish leading to the development of legs and the formation of lungs which allow the organism to leave the sea and survive on land would today be undetectable as being intelligently applied and would give every appearance of being part of natural selection when in fact they aren't.

The idea of evolution as the only method of organismic change evaporated the first time a human being cross-bred an animal to enhance certain traits and de-enhance others. The final nail in the coffin of the argument that evolution is the only method of organismic change was driven in the first time a scientist intelligently manipulated a DNA strand to create or enhance certain traits or to eliminate undesirable ones in future genetic lines.

It is therefore completely non-scientific and irrational to argue that intelligent design (not "Intelligent Design (as proposed by the Dover School Board)") is not a quintessentially scientific proposition worthy of scientific examination and discussion, which makes the iteration of the concept I have suggested entirely suitable for teaching in public school classrooms.

For the biosphere to be deliberately guided towards this exact point with the exact compliment of elements it has now every cosmological, geological, meteorological, biological, and every other significant event in the Earth's history would have to be 'designed' and actioned - every meteor strike, every solar flare, every gamma-ray burst from nearby systems, every environmental shift, every resource, every species interaction, everything.

This is obviously wrong. First, you are shoehorning the theistic notion that intelligent design must be directed at deliberately guiding the biosphere towards "this exact point." There is no rational basis for this argument other than to poison the well with a theistic claim, which is not something I have ever even intimated at.

Presuming arguendo that there is an intelligence out there engaged in some sort of design with respect to Earth, there is nothing in that idea that says that the intelligence involved is designing with an exact, specific end result in mind. If we presume, again arguendo that the intelligence has similar interests and motives to our own scientists, which is experimentation and observation and more experimentation and more observation not to reach a specific goal, but simply to see how things work out when particular elements of the experiment are adjusted or changed, then there is no necessity for trying to wedge in a theistic argument other than to poison the well.

Please note that I am not claiming that such intelligent design DID occur before mankind managed it, merely that it is irrational to claim that it either did not or could not have happened in the past.

Well, saying this just demonstrates the kind of bait-and-switch we've become accustomed to whenever you get stuck into telling reasonable and rational people they have no 'rational and logical' basis for disagreeing with you or setting any store by the scientific process.

You're free to argue what you believe to be the rational and logical basis for trying to wedge Creationist arguments in to a scientific discussion if you like, but the only reason I can see is that you are being irrational and illogical because you know that what I'm saying is in fact objectively true but you don't like that because you aren't even willing to consider the issue of possible intelligent design of life on earth (or elsewhere) because it offends your own religious orthodoxy.

... and not a religious belief...

It is a religious belief, of which you are fully aware, and you're only using the term with that in mind, otherwise you'd just refer to 'gene manipulation' or 'current technology' or similar. The only reason to use 'intelligent design' is to reference the fundamentalist Christian doctrine of creation.

You're wrong, as I have gone to great pains to establish. The reason to us "intelligent design" is because that's what I'm discussing, not creationism.

it is therefore within the ambit of science to determine if and when such intelligent design might have occurred on earth, or anywhere else for that matter, and that keeping the scientific fact of intelligent design firmly in mind when approaching questions of evolution on Earth is rational, appropriate and necessary if science is to be held to its own standards.

Science deals in observations, evidences, and rational thinking.

Yes, it does. Some people, however, don't. That's the case here.

The current cosmological, geological, and evolutionary theories are not guess work or imagined possibilities, they are the most parsimonious rational explanations that are consistent with observation, evidence, and the known facts.

Ah, there it is, the "rule of parsimony" or, in other words, Ockham's Razor, which is soooooo often misstated and misused by pseudoscientists in a vain attempt to support the insupportable.

Ockham's Razor is not a law of physics, Brian. It's nothing more than a rhetorical device used by those who aren't interested in examining more complex explanations for scientific observations.

"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

...

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[1][10][11] Source: Wikipedia

While simpler theories may be preferable for reasons of scientific testing, it is not always the case that the simpler theory is the correct one, as should be obvious.

Positing that there maybe some other unobserved, unevidenced facts is not a problem for science - scientists keep striving to uncover more evidences, to make better, more reliable observations, and to get a better understanding of the facts everyday, and they have no problem amending the theories accordingly when new information comes to light.

Indeed. And its time they amended their theories about the potential for past intelligent design of organisms on earth because the march of science has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that such intelligent design is both possible and factual, and therefore was both possible and could have been factual in the past.

There is absolutely no need to place mythologies on the same footing as science or to keep the possibility of intelligent design 'firmly in mind' when scientists go about their everyday business of falsifying hypotheses, making observations, running experiments, and thinking critically.

Intelligent design is not a mythology, it is a hard fact of science.

If you deliberately never even consider looking for evidence of DNA modifications in the past when examining the DNA of existing organisms, you'll never find it and you will have abandoned science in favor of ideology and religion. Is that how you want to represent science?

Science does not proceed from a conclusion in that way, and it's fallacious to do so. Scientific conclusions are formed from observations, evidences, and robust, rational and logical, thinking. That is the fundamental rational flaw in ID/Creationism, its an answer in search of a question and throws away anything and everything which doesn't lead to the answer it began with.

Strawman fallacy. We are not discussing creationism, we are discussing the scientific fact of intelligent design of living organisms on Earth and the possibility that intelligent design might have occurred at some earlier time in Earth's evolution.

[Brian Peacock]

I read all that, but it's all ifs, buts and special pleading. Intelligent design is not a scientific fact, it's a creationists pseudoscientific buzzword: an attempt to give a mythology scientific credentials. Trying to repatriate the term as legitimately scientific and relevant to scientific endeavour is foolhardy, misleading, and promotes ambiguity and confusion about what evolution is as well as how scientific enquiry actually proceeds.

[Seth]

I read all that, but it's all ifs, buts and special pleading.

Nonsense.

Intelligent design is not a scientific fact,

So...the Monsanto scientists who created GMO RoundupReady corn are not intelligent or are they not scientists?

it's a creationists pseudoscientific buzzword:

Um, it's a phrase, not a word, and yes, it has been co-opted by creationists, which is why I do not use "Intelligent Design" but rather "intelligent design."

an attempt to give a mythology scientific credentials.

Indeed, but that doesn't change the scientific fact that intelligent design of organismic DNA is not a scientific reality because it is.

Trying to repatriate the term as legitimately scientific and relevant to scientific endeavour is foolhardy, misleading, and promotes ambiguity and confusion about what evolution is as well as how scientific enquiry actually proceeds.

See, there's that religious orthodoxy squirting out around the edges of your dogma. You're more interested in disparaging theists than in discussing scientific realities, which happens to be true of many Atheist believers.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

My argument is that evolution is a fact of biology, but that evolution is not the only way in which organisms can be made to function. We know this is an absolute scientific truth because we've done it successfully hundreds if not thousands of times.

Here is to be found the core of your incorrect thinking. All modern geneticists have done is a little tinkering around the edges with organisms whose complexities are the result of billions of years of evolution. We have not made an organism from scratch (although Craig Vintner is trying...), we have not produced a different species, we have not produced a new body plan. Our achievements are not evidence that a version of intelligent design has influenced life on Earth in the past. An attempt to say "it can't be ruled out" is futile - there are a vast number of possibilities that "can't be ruled out", but their status as useful models of how the universe actually works is zero unless and until supporting evidence is found.

The current model of evolution by natural processes is awash with supporting evidence. The model for intelligent design of life on Earth has precisely zero evidence in its favour. Whether there may be examples of intelligent design of whole organisms or whole biota somewhere else in the Universe is simply unknown, although clearly possible. I would lay odds that if ever scientists from Earth in the future had a chance to analyse a biota which owed its present form to advanced genetics by an alien race, they would see clear signposts of such design, with much of the tangled undergrowth seen in both the genome and phenotype of Earth based life absent. It would actually be fascinating to see such a streamlined form of life...

But this, of course, is speculative SF, not current science...

[Brian Peacock]

I read all that, but it's all ifs, buts and special pleading.

Nonsense.

Intelligent design is not a scientific fact,

So...the Monsanto scientists who created GMO RoundupReady corn are not intelligent or are they not scientists?

Baitin', switchin' and equivocatin'. That Monsanto's R&D dept is staffed by talented science researchers does not bolster or support a claim for an intelligently designed biosphere, and I doubt you'd find a single one of them who would be willing to say they were involved in intelligent design. They are manipulating the genome of some hybrids for sure, but they're not designing new life in the sense that you've been applying it here: as a possible mechanism for the (wilful) creation of life on Earth. This is where you're merely adding ambiguity and confusion, by reifying 'intelligent design' simply to save face and win the silly challenge you've set yourself to use any and all means to tell atheists that they're wrong about anything and everything they say.

... it's a creationists pseudoscientific buzzword:

Um, it's a phrase, not a word, and yes, it has been co-opted by creationists, which is why I do not use "Intelligent Design" but rather "intelligent design."

Wrong. It's a term invented by Creationists, initially YECs of the late 1960s early 1970s, to lend scientific credentials to an explanation rooted in the narrative of their religious tradition, most notably the updating of William Paley's Natural Theology and his Watchmaker Argument for the existence of God.

If you didn't know this before you do now, just as you know full well that intelligent design is not an intellectually neutral term with or without capitalisation - why else would you doggedly insists on repeating and erroneously applying it, particular when there's far more appropriate and relevant terms you could apply to the current state of research into genetic modification?

Do you accept that 'intelligent design' is not an intellectually neutral term in the discursive realm of evolution, human and/or cosmic origins?

... an attempt to give a mythology scientific credentials.

Indeed, but that doesn't change the scientific fact that intelligent design of organismic DNA is not a scientific reality because it is.

It's equivocation all the way down. The manipulation of a organism's genome is not the same as designing the genome of of an organism. See what Jim said above.

Trying to repatriate the term as legitimately scientific and relevant to scientific endeavour is foolhardy, misleading, and promotes ambiguity and confusion about what evolution is as well as how scientific enquiry actually proceeds.

See, there's that religious orthodoxy squirting out around the edges of your dogma. You're more interested in disparaging theists than in discussing scientific realities, which happens to be true of many Atheist believers.

Well, your own confusion about evolution and what scientists are currently involved in and capable of achieving is evidence of the kind of mess freely splashing about 'intelligent design' as science can cause, and if you feel that pointing this is out disparages you personal then perhaps you should stop doing it and read a few books on the subject. Nonetheless, tell me how any of what I've said about evolution and intelligent design disparages theists, other than me saying I'll accept conclusions that follow from a robust scientific process over mythological narratives 100% of the time.

[Seth]

I read all that, but it's all ifs, buts and special pleading.

Nonsense.

Intelligent design is not a scientific fact,

So...the Monsanto scientists who created GMO RoundupReady corn are not intelligent or are they not scientists?

Baitin', switchin' and equivocatin'. That Monsanto's R&D dept is staffed by talented science researchers does not bolster or support a claim for an intelligently designed biosphere,

Goalpost shifting strawman argument. I said nothing about "intelligently designed biosphere." But, since you bring it up, those exist too. That's how scientists managed to take a bunch of chemicals, submit them to temperature, pressure and electrical variations and managed to turn those chemicals into the basic elements of DNA.

That the "biosphere" was in a retort in a lab is completely irrelevant.

and I doubt you'd find a single one of them who would be willing to say they were involved in intelligent design.

Not my problem if they are moral and intellectual cowards.

They are manipulating the genome of some hybrids for sure, but they're not designing new life in the sense that you've been applying it here:

Er, I have not been saying anything of the kind and you are deliberately misstating my argument. I explicitly and specifically said early on that I was referring to genetic nudges and changes to DNA to guide evolution down particular paths, not the creation of a living organism from scratch. I even said that I feel that doing so is not all that far off in the future. If one can manipulate and assemble DNA to be inserted into the DNA of an existing organism, building an entire DNA chain of a completely new organism is merely a matter of doing so. It's not as if doing so is physically impossible, it's not. It's eminently possible.

as a possible mechanism for the (wilful) creation of life on Earth.

Well, let's see...if some ancient alien came upon the primordial Earth and decided to salt it with DNA building blocks and stop back by occasionally to tinker with the experiment, that would be "intelligent design," now wouldn't it?

This is where you're merely adding ambiguity and confusion, by reifying 'intelligent design' simply to save face and win the silly challenge you've set yourself to use any and all means to tell atheists that they're wrong about anything and everything they say.

Well, if you'd stop being wrong about anything and everything you say I wouldn't have to correct you. It's not my fault that you cannot form a rational argument.

If you didn't know this before you do now,

That falls into the "I don't give a fuck" category. You want to taint the whole notion of intelligent design with that broad brush of one small group of theists misusing the concept for precisely the same reasons that you accuse the theists of, which is to control the debate by simply dismissing it because the words "intelligent design" apply to both arguments, which are entirely different arguments.

just as you know full well that intelligent design is not an intellectually neutral term with or without capitalisation - why else would you doggedly insists on repeating and erroneously applying it, particular when there's far more appropriate and relevant terms you could apply to the current state of research into genetic modification?

So what? It's the proper label for the concept. That someone else has misused the phrase in the past does not make the phrase anathema and forbidden speech.

Do you accept that 'intelligent design' is not an intellectually neutral term in the discursive realm of evolution, human and/or cosmic origins?

No, I do not. I accept that one small group of creationists tried to co-opt the phrase in their attempts to shoehorn creationism into public education. I do not concede that therefore the entire subject of intelligent design is forever off-limits, which is what you're trying to achieve.

... an attempt to give a mythology scientific credentials.

Indeed, but that doesn't change the scientific fact that intelligent design of organismic DNA is not a scientific reality because it is.

It's equivocation all the way down. The manipulation of a organism's genome is not the same as designing the genome of of an organism. See what Jim said above.

Talk about equivocation! You are again expressing a strawman argument in the absolutely classic sense of the phrase. While creationists might argue that God created life by designing each organism from scratch that is neither the only nor the correct use of the term "intelligent design" and you know it. You are trying to falsely conflate the intelligent design of particular existing organisms with the from-scratch creation of all living organisms, which is just a bald-faced attempt to poison the well by using a strawman argument that I have never stated nor agreed applies.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

My argument is that evolution is a fact of biology, but that evolution is not the only way in which organisms can be made to function. We know this is an absolute scientific truth because we've done it successfully hundreds if not thousands of times.

Here is to be found the core of your incorrect thinking. All modern geneticists have done is a little tinkering around the edges with organisms whose complexities are the result of billions of years of evolution. We have not made an organism from scratch (although Craig Vintner is trying...), we have not produced a different species, we have not produced a new body plan.

That we have not does not mean we cannot, and that is my point. "Tinkering around the edges" is a precursor to designing an entirely new and unique organism assembled by humans from basic DNA materials. It's now just a matter of the will do do so and the input of the necessary work to make it so. The fundamental premise, which is that humans can manipulate DNA in living organisms to make them do new things, has been unequivocally proven. The rest is just details.

Our achievements are not evidence that a version of intelligent design has influenced life on Earth in the past.

Of course they are not. But they are evidence that such a thing is possible. Direct intelligent DNA manipulation of organisms to direct evolutionary development is not just possible but factual. The only question that remains is whether or not such direct intelligent DNA manipulation of organisms to direct evolutionary development actually occurred on earth in the past. And that question remains unanswered, and may well remain unanswered for the foreseeable future. But that does not make the question a religious question or a matter of theistic fancy, it is a hard scientific question.

An attempt to say "it can't be ruled out" is futile - there are a vast number of possibilities that "can't be ruled out", but their status as useful models of how the universe actually works is zero unless and until supporting evidence is found.

Utilitarian fallacy. Science depends on speculation about things unknown as the basis for even beginning an investigation. One does not generally find supporting evidence for a scientific hypothesis unless one first conceives the hypothesis, which requires speculation about things unknown, usually based on things known. In this case we know that direct intelligent manipulation of DNA affecting the evolutionary path of an organism is a present scientific reality. From that known fact it's not irrational to speculate that the same sort of manipulation could have occurred at some time in the history of the universe prior to our time. If that hypothesis is true, then it would be of supreme importance to science because it would change many other fundamental assumptions about biology and evolution. So, first one states the hypothesis based on known facts, and then the rational scientist understands that the search for evidence either supporting or negating that hypothesis begins. It's not the cart-before-the-horse that you are claiming, where all the evidence comes first and then the hypothesis is formed.

The current model of evolution by natural processes is awash with supporting evidence.

Yes, it is. But none of that evidence precludes the possibility of genetic manipulation in the past.

The model for intelligent design of life on Earth has precisely zero evidence in its favour.

Actually it has the most important bit of evidence there is: it is a scientific fact that DNA can be manipulated to direct the evolutionary future of an organism. And that one fact alone makes the question of whether or not such manipulation happened in the past an absolutely scientific question.

Whether there may be examples of intelligent design of whole organisms or whole biota somewhere else in the Universe is simply unknown, although clearly possible.

You are here committing the same goalpost-shifting strawman argument fallacy that Brian does. You are dismissing the entire concept of intelligent design on the premise that it has not (yet) been demonstrated that it is possible to design an entirely new living organism from basic DNA materials. That has never been my argument.

I would lay odds that if ever scientists from Earth in the future had a chance to analyse a biota which owed its present form to advanced genetics by an alien race, they would see clear signposts of such design, with much of the tangled undergrowth seen in both the genome and phenotype of Earth based life absent. It would actually be fascinating to see such a streamlined form of life...

If you are willing to lay odds, that means that you accept that such a thing is scientifically possible. And if such a thing is scientifically possible, then the question remaining is whether or not it has in fact happened here or elsewhere in the past.

But this, of course, is speculative SF, not current science...

The word "current" in your statement is the critical concept that both supports my hypothesis and indicates your own uncertainty with your attempts to dismiss the idea of intelligent design.

Why don't you just admit that it's possible? I suspect because it goes against your own anti-theist religious orthodoxy and dogma. And that ain't rational thinking.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

If you are willing to lay odds, that means that you accept that such a thing is scientifically possible. And if such a thing is scientifically possible, then the question remaining is whether or not it has in fact happened here or elsewhere in the past.

An excellent example of how you wilfully misread others posts. I had already said that wholesale manipulation of the genome of a biota is theoretically possible elsewhere in the universe. What I was betting on was that a careful analysis of such a biota would show evidence of critical differences to a biota that arrived via natural processes.

The thing that you clearly misunderstand is that we already see all the messy signposts of evolution by natural processes when we examine Earth's biota and fossil history, and we see nothing that would be a signpost of earlier intervention. We have no need to include fantasy or speculation to account for life on Earth.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

If you are willing to lay odds, that means that you accept that such a thing is scientifically possible. And if such a thing is scientifically possible, then the question remaining is whether or not it has in fact happened here or elsewhere in the past.

An excellent example of how you wilfully misread others posts. I had already said that wholesale manipulation of the genome of a biota is theoretically possible elsewhere in the universe. What I was betting on was that a careful analysis of such a biota would show evidence of critical differences to a biota that arrived via natural processes.

The thing that you clearly misunderstand is that we already see all the messy signposts of evolution by natural processes when we examine Earth's biota and fossil history, and we see nothing that would be a signpost of earlier intervention. We have no need to include fantasy or speculation to account for life on Earth.

Well, your speculation is just as rational as mine is. Then again, if the manipulation took place billions of years ago such precision might be obscured by the very evolutionary forces you claim defy the hypothesis.

And, once again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and your "need" is to dismiss the concept of past intelligent design because it conflicts with your own religious orthodoxy and dogma, and nothing more. You're being entirely un-scientific when you say "we have no need." Science isn't about "need" it's about curiosity and investigation, something you seem to be uninterested in.

[Brian Peacock]

Bye-bye.