Evolutionary Explanations
From ResearchID.org
For there to be a genuine scientific controversy between two competing hypotheses, it is necessary that each make predictions that are unavailable to the other. As such, when considering possible Predictions of Intelligent Design, it is important that these predictions not follow from evolution as readily as from design.
This page is intended to constructively critique the ID predictions: to point out where they fail to differentiate themselves from evolution predictions and to suggest ways in which they could be differentiated. Counter-critiques and other issues are also open to discussion.
Disclaimer: the current maintainer of this page is by no means an ID proponent - if that bothers you, you should probably take this page with a pinch of salt.
Contents |
Differentiation from Evolution
This section will incorporate a step-by-step listing of Predictions of Intelligent Design with a discussion of whether evolutionary biology could also claim those predictions. All bullet points are taken from the Predictions page.
This discussion will assume that the central premises of evolutionary biology - plasticity of organisms, inherited traits leading to differential reproductive success, etc - are actually valid. If anyone disagrees, it'd probably be best to create a subpage to handle specific concerns.
Design Analogues
- If intelligence is an intrinsic aspect of nature, more design analogues will be found.
- More examples of isomorphic instantiation will be discovered.
- The techonological successes of Biomimicry will continue.
Some design problems only have a handful of really good solutions. For example, many marsupials such as the thylacine and the marsupial mole bear a close resemblance to their placental cousins. If we accept that evolutionary processes are capable of locating good solutions, it is thus not unlikely that evolution would occasionally develop structures bearing remarkable resemblance to human structures.
The bacterial flagellum is a case in point - as any fluid dynamicist will tell you, when you're operating in a low-Reynolds-number environment, some kind of corkscrewing motion is really the only way to move efficiently.
Hence, it is reasonable for evolutionary biologists to also claim these predictions as following from their hypothesis. However, evolutionary biology can make a further prediction: where we see similar structures arising independently in distinct lineages, it will generally be the case that the components giving rise to that structure (both substructures and the underlying genes) will bear no resemblance to each other.
For example, the wings of pterosaurs, bats and birds, whilst being very similar in shape, are vastly different in layout. Pterosaurs use their fourth "finger" to support their wing; bats primarily use their second "finger"; birds use an elongated hand. More information and images are available here.
Examples of convergent evolution not just in form but in structure, or better yet in the genome, of otherwise-unrelated lineages would constitute a serious problem for the prevailing evolutionary hypotheses. If ID proponents were able to predict the presence of a specific homology in advance, that would constitute a confirmed prediction of ID and would pretty much instantly render it scientific.
Artificiality and context
- Designed phenomena will be found in environments where order and organization are not likely to arise by plausible natural means.
- Perhaps life will be found where the habitat is hostile to the emergence of life, or is the environment is generally sterile to biological life.
These predictions require a caveat: once life arises in one place, it is often able to adapt itself to other surroundings. By analogy, human intelligence could never have arisen in the Arctic but, once we developed the technology to insulate ourselves from the cold, it was relatively easy for us to spread there.
However, life arising in a place where conditions were not appropriate for it to form, with no indication that it could have been imported from elsewhere, would certainly constitute a problem for the prevailing evolutionary hypotheses. Examples of such locations might include meteors, comets or some of the less appealing planets and moons in the Solar System.
If ID proponents were able to go out on a limb and predict specific locations where the Intelligent Designer would have seeded life, that would constitute a confirmed prediction of ID and, again, would likely render it scientific in the eyes of the scientific community.
Function
- Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. See design, law, and chance for more on this.
It is already accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists that some junk DNA probably has functionality we haven't come across yet. The word "junk" refers to disorder ("my room is full of junk") rather than garbage. In particular, the discovery of functionality for any one chunk of DNA would in no way contradict evolution. Actually, such discoveries are pretty much inevitable in an evolved universe - Evolutionary Algorithms have been found to be "smarter" than humans in a variety of situations, so evolution could plausibly be expected to come up with uses for chunks of DNA that we'd have trouble spotting.
It's generally believed that a decent proportion of the genome is in fact garbage, but that's more a result of study of the genome than of evolutionary predictions - some bits of the genome strongly appear to be completely useless. An example would be "microsatellites" - long repeated blocks of DNA such as "AAAAAAAAAA" or "CGCGCGCGCGCG" that apparently arise from copying errors.
- Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
This would directly follow from the basic precepts of evolutionary biology. If a complex, intricate pattern does an important job best, and if there's a plausible evolutionary pathway from an existing organism to that pattern, then given sufficient time it's more or less inevitable for that pattern to arise.
In several cases, pathways of this sort have been proposed that are sufficiently specific to make testable predictions. For example, the current evolutionary hypothesis for the evolution of insect wings involves their development from the gills of wingless arthropods. A side-effect of this is that winged insects (even aquatic ones) use a distinctly different method of gas exchange to other arthropods - the former use tiny tubes to distribute oxygen through their bodies, whereas the latter use blood containing haemocyanin. It was noted that stoneflies possess a "primitive" form of wing, and the prediction was made that they would therefore also possess haemocyanin (unlike all other winged insects). This prediction was confirmed.
- In general, vestigial organs will yield some function for the organism. See design, law, and chance for more on this.
Evolutionary biology would also suggest this. The rate at which an organ evolves away will be proportional to its uselessness. Therefore the vestigial organs that have some residual purpose (for example the whale's pelvis) will hang around longer than the vestigial organs that don't. Hence, statistically speaking, in general you'll find that current vestigial organs have some function, albeit function completely unrelated to the apparent original purpose of the organ. However, in a few cases (such as that of the human appendix), the organ's functionality is so incredibly minimal (or nonexistent) that it's hard to argue for its usefulness.
- The correlation between habitability and discovery will strengthen. See Privileged Planet for more on this.
Nothing to do with evolution so no evolutionary explanation :)
Information infusion and/or Front-loading
- Informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found.
Currently I am not aware of any confirmed limits to the inherent abilities of natural forces and chance to produce informational structures, for any definition of information. As such, this claim is difficult to assess.
- Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
Again, this depends on the definition of information. I would also add the caveat that the likelihood of finding such precursors if they exist must be taken into account for such an absence to be inconsistent with evolution.
Other Issues
Vagueness
Currently, many of the "predictions" listed are extremely fuzzy. For example, there is no way of testing whether "ID will bring more clarity to nature's abilities to yield order and organization."
For ID to be considered scientific, it will need to produce far more specific predictions. An example of such a prediction based on evolutionary biology would be:
Fact: humans have 23 chromosome pairs
Fact: all the apes most closely related to us have 24 chromosome pairs
Premise: humans share a common ancestor with apes, and all subsequent divergence results from natural causes
Hypothesis: the most recent common ancestor had 24 chromosome pairs
Inference: humans appear to have lost a chromosome pair
Fact: flat-out losing a chromosome pair is pretty much instantly fatal
Fact: it's possible to give the appearance of having lost a chromosome pair by having two fuse together
Prediction: one pair of human chromosomes will effectively be two pairs of ape chromosomes fused together
This can then be directly tested in the lab by firstly looking for a human chromosome that appears to be a product of fusion (for example, one with an extra centromere) and comparing its genetic sequence with that of chimpanzees. A confirmed result (as occurred when scientists performed this test) would then add a lot of weight to this specific evolutionary hypothesis.
If the prediction had been demonstrated false, that would falsify the specific evolutionary hypothesis. It would not immediately falsify the evolutionary premise, as there is another plausible hypothesis.
Hypothesis: the most recent common ancestor had 23 chromosome pairs
Inference: all the apes related to humans appear to have gained a chromosome pair.
Fact: the only plausible ways to appear to gain a chromosome pair are by either duplicating or splitting an existing pair
Prediction: two of the chimpanzee chromosome pairs will either closely resemble each other (duplication) or will each closely resemble half of one of the human chromosome pairs (splitting)
This prediction could also have been falsified, in which case it would have followed that one of the premises or "facts" was actually wrong. As the facts have been confirmed ad nauseam, it might well have been the specific evolutionary premise that got it in the neck.
I am currently aware of no ID hypothesis that is testable in this fashion.
Lack of Logical Progression
In the case of the hypothesis I mentioned above, the logic by which the prediction can be derived from the facts, premises and hypotheses is (I hope) very clear. That so far hasn't appeared to be the case with the predictions attributed to Intelligent Design.
Would biomimicry still be an effective technique if the Designer were working with seriously limited resources? Or if the Designer were incompetent? The premises and hypotheses that have so far been explicitly made appear to be insufficient to support the conclusions drawn.
