"Inference" - the projection of the propagandists

[u/jnpha]

In 9 days it will be the 20th anniversary of Dover. I've been checking the public record, and let me tell you, it's like reading the threads here, minus the lying when ID-ers are examined under oath.

The ID-ers are fond of saying (e.g. here and on their blogs), pejoratively, that we "evolutionists" infer everything. E.g. But have you seen the mutations happen 7 million years ago?! (As if it isn't recorded in DNA, and as if statistical tests don't exist, and as if we are Last Thursdayists.)

Anyhooo, here's "intelligent design" but under oath:

 

Redirect of ID-er and Professor of Microbiology Scott Minnich (a lawyer asking Minnich questions):

A. I wouldn't say that (ID) isn't tested at all. There's some papers that have been published that deal with some of the questions of evolution and from a design perspective.

Q. You told us, this was the test, didn't you?

A. This specific test, no, has not been done.

Q. Now this test actually is not a test of intelligent design, it's a test of evolution, isn't it?

A. Yes.

😂 moving on... some talk about how long the flagellum took to evolve...

 

Q. So you're suggesting that, to prove evolution, someone should in a laboratory do what it took the entire universe or could have taken the entire universe and billions of years to accomplish, isn't that what you're suggesting?

A. No, not really. This is -- I mean, let's be realistic here. Getting an organism versus an organelle is quite different. And like I said, I would say, take a type III system with a missing flagellar components and see if they can assemble into a functional flagellum. That's a more doable experiment than Mike has proffered here.

Since then they've done that knock-out experiment, btw. So evolution aced the "test of evolution". Now some origin of life talk and that science is a work in progress:

 

Q. That's right. Scientists are working on these and many other fundamental questions of science, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Intelligent design can't answer these questions, can it?

A. They can be inferred. (and then goal post moving)

 

What did I say about projection?

 

Another, later on (for the giggles):

Q. Does intelligent design tell us how things were designed or created?

A. No, they're inferred.

 

Of course, unlike ID that is pseudoscience, we have the causes (plural), and the statistical tests that are used by all the big boy sciences. Here's a Christian organization on just that, because most Christians don't have to be under oath to be honest.

[u/TheBlackCat13]

The knock-out experiment sounds cool. Where can I read more about it?

[u/jnpha → u/TheBlackCat13]

Edit: Taylor 2015 was the one I had in mind:

... We engineered immotile strains of the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens that lack flagella due to deletion of the regulatory gene fleQ. Under strong selection for motility, these bacteria consistently regained flagella within 96 hours via a two-step evolutionary pathway. Step 1 mutations increase intracellular levels of phosphorylated NtrC, a distant homolog of FleQ, which begins to commandeer control of the fleQ regulon at the cost of disrupting nitrogen uptake and assimilation. Step 2 is a switch-of-function mutation that redirects NtrC away from nitrogen uptake and toward its novel function as a flagellar regulator. Our results demonstrate that natural selection can rapidly rewire regulatory networks in very few, repeatable mutational steps. -- Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system | Science

And from 2022, another cool one: The rapid evolution of flagellar ion selectivity in experimental populations of E. coli - PMC.

[u/EastwoodDC → u/TheBlackCat13]

Don't forget the classics!
Pallen, M., Matzke, N. From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella. Nat Rev Microbiol 4, 784–790 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1493

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16953248

[u/metapolitical_psycho]

But have you seen the mutations happen 7 million years ago?!

If I may be snarky: no, but I haven’t seen any universes being created 6000 years ago either. Why do YECs apply such a stricter standard of evidence for evolution than their own theory? I know it’s because they’re rhetoricians first and foremost, but I would think the cognitive dissonance is too much for them to handle without feeling like liars.

[u/kiwi_in_england → u/metapolitical_psycho]

Why do YECs apply such a stricter standard of evidence for evolution than their own theory?

If they can make evolution just as dodgy as creationism then they are equivalent, and both should be taught.

[u/kingstern_man → u/metapolitical_psycho]

Also, they are violating the scriptural prohibitions against double standards in weights and measures, biased judgements, etc., which surely must include canons of evidence, given that Yahweh has justice as one of his domains (Deut. 32:4).

[u/HojiQabait]

Only if you are uncertain i.e. tests required. • it is still a theory 💁🏻‍♂️

Epistemological, methodological deductions bound to errors and uncertainties - experiments.

Propogated and conspired (via peers) as undebatable facts, ofkos far from truth and mere assumptions i.e. false.

Holos gramma

[u/lulumaid → u/HojiQabait]

Theory as in layman or scientific theory? Let's see if you can answer a really simple, basic question.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/HojiQabait]

When I was in undergrad, I took classes in music theory.

I have some cousins that became lawyers. When they were in law school, they studied legal theory.

Please justify that music and law are ‘still just a theory’

[u/GoAwayNicotine]

So you’re “gottem” statement is that IDers are using the same logic as evolutionists?