Jan 202006
 

Intelligent Design’s Prediction: Compatible Mates (cross male x female) Interbreed Producing Fertile Offspring

Antecedent:
It has been demonstrated that the next finches produce fertile offspring: Geospiza fortis (medium ground finch) hybridizes with G. scandens (cactus finch), and with G. fuliginosa (small ground finch).

Experimental Hypothesis:
Intelligent Design, through Mendelian Bioengineering predicts that the rest of Geospiza sp. finches will also be able to produce interfertile offspring.

Expansion:
After exhausting the previous experiments, the hypothesis can be expanded to include the misclassified different finches ‘genus‘ of Cactospiza sp., Platyspiza sp., Camarhynchus sp. and Certhidia sp. (see picture) finches

Quote:

The finches numbered 1–Å“7 are ground finches. They seek their food on the ground or in low shrubs. Those numbered 8–Å“13 are tree finches. They live primarily on insects.

1. Large cactus finch (Geospiza conirostris)
2. Large ground finch (Geospiza magnirostris)
3. Medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis)
4. Cactus finch (Geospiza scandens)
5. Sharp-beaked ground finch (Geospiza difficilis)
6. Small ground finch (Geospiza fuliginosa)
7. Woodpecker finch (Cactospiza pallida)
8. Vegetarian tree finch (Platyspiza crassirostris)
9. Medium tree finch (Camarhynchus pauper)
10. Large tree finch (Camarhynchus psittacula)
11. Small tree finch (Camarhynchus parvulus)
12. Warbler finch (Certhidia olivacea)
13. Mangrove finch (Cactospiza heliobates)

(From BSCS, Biological Science: Molecules to Man, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963)

1963’s information found in a webpage with the false pretense to ‘explain‘ the speculative evolutionary/darwinian ‘speciation, word which Mendelian Bioengineering replaces with the most adequate word of variation , in order to most correctly represent the relationships between organisms, to own a better understanding of biology for a most natural and practical production of new biodiversity!

Like this ID experimental program, hundreds of thousands of other experiments can be done with innumerable compatible organisms, organisms erroneously represented by the current biological sciences controlled by the falsehoods of darwinian evolution!

 Posted by at 9:38 am

  26 Responses to “Intelligent Design’s Prediction: Compatible Mates Interbreed Producing Fertile Offspring”

  1. Compatible Mates (cross male x female) Interbreed Producing Fertile Offspring

    I’m not a zoologist (IANAZ?). What do you define as a “compatible mate”? I assume it doesn’t mean “mates that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring” because that would be circular.

    Intelligent Design, through Mendelian Bioengineering predicts that the rest of Geospiza sp. finches will also be able to produce interfertile offspring.

    No, it doesn’t. You make this prediction on the grounds that some birds that are considered different species have been observed to interbreed. This is not a prediction of ID.

    As far as I can tell, your goal here is to highlight what you perceive as a weakness in NDE, i.e., that it has not demonstrated the details of speciation to a level of detail that would satisfy you. You plan to do this by discrediting the claim that the finches are different species.

    However, this doesn’t help your case vis-a-vis ID. First, as I understand it, a species boundary is a fuzzy concept, and fertile interbreeding isn’t considered the one and only determinant. Second, NDE’s account of speciation isn’t weakened by your claim. Third, even if you did weaken NDE’s account of speciation, that wouldn’t strengthen your own claim about ID.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think these would be interesting experiments. Indeed, you might also broaden your test. For all we know, fertile interbreeding between radically different species (e.g., goats and horses, or chickens and finches) might also be possible. I just see no connection between any of these experiments and generic intelligent design.

    Why do you think ID predicts that the finches will interbreed? If there was ID by front-loading, you still end up with an NDE model running on top of front-loaded genes. In that case, the finches may or may not interbreed. What is it about your personal model of ID that says the finches must interbreed?

  2. “that would be circular”

    No, because it is necessary to emphasize that the F2 is fertile. F2 is what the “fertile offspring” (the F1) produces.

    This is not a prediction of ID (or of “generic intelligent design” , or of a “model of ID that says the finches must interbreed” ).”

    As the fingerprints of design that we can detect, standing out are the boundary conditions of organisms. There are organisms that can produce fertile offspring and organisms that can not produce fertile offspring due to genetic incompatibility.

    “the details of speciation to a level of detail”

    You can always replace that presumptuous word of ‘speciation‘ with the word of variation and then you can start making sense of the proper affinities and relationships between living beings as high quality ID products.

    “fertile interbreeding between radically different species (e.g., goats and horses, or chickens and finches) might also be possible”

    Absolutely NOT, That’s not the purpose of Mendelian Bioengineering. Yours may be the purpose of a Greek-like anti-natural pursuit of abnormal chimeras. That’s not the purpose of an ID Mendelian Bioengineering. The genetic compatibility is within those thousands of organisms that have already been reported and documented as able to produce F2. Here we pursue the natural process of interbreeding to the point of producing new biodiversity, which means new varieties of compatible organisms, NOT abnormal and non self-replicable anti-natural chimeras!

  3. As the fingerprints of design that we can detect, standing out are the boundary conditions of organisms. There are organisms that can produce fertile offspring and organisms that can not produce fertile offspring due to genetic incompatibility.

    Again, this has nothing at all to do with ID.

    No matter how life got here, whether by evolution, ID, magic or whatever, you can always map out breeding compatibility. Are you saying that ID predicts what this compatibility map will look like?

    On what grounds? Because the designer wanted things that look similar to be compatible and produce fertile offspring? If so, how do you define “looking similar”?

    That’s not the purpose of Mendelian Bioengineering.

    Why is this relevant? We’re talking about a science experiment and ID. Are you predicting that there are no such compatibilities? If so, why?

  4. One more question:

    You can always replace that presumptuous word of ‘speciation’ with the word of variation and then you can start making sense of the proper affinities and relationships between living beings as high quality ID products.

    In what regard are these so-called products “high quality”? How are you measuring quality in this context?

  5. You wrote:

    You make this prediction on the grounds that some birds that are considered different species have been observed to interbreed. This is not a prediction of ID… this has nothing at all to do with ID… We’re talking about a science experiment and ID.

    Non-ID supporters telling ID researchers what is ID.

    Are you saying that ID predicts what this compatibility map will look like?

    ID predicts that compatible organisms will be able to produce new varieties.

    how do you define “looking similar” ?

    You are the one that mentioned that, you define it if you need to.

    Are you predicting that there are no such compatibilities?

    Just the opposite, if I expressed myself correctly.

    In what regard are these so-called products “high quality” ? How are you measuring quality in this context?

    These new producst are high quality organisms because they have a natural hybrid vigour (i.e., talking about one new variety, a new element of biodiversity); those new varieties produced in such a way are not expressing hereditary diseases, nor recessive genes, and will own a good molecular quality control mechanism!

  6. ID predicts that compatible organisms will be able to produce new varieties.

    Like breeds of dog? We already know that compatible organisms produce new varieties. That’s what you have to explain, not what you are predicting.

    Let me try to explain my difficulty with what you have said.

    You claim that your ID predicts that the listed Galapagos finches can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. You have not explained why you make this claim. What is it about the finches in your diagram that lead you to believe that they will produce fertile offspring based on your model of ID?

    An evolutionist would expect that the closer two species are to a common ancestor, the more likely interbreeding will produce fertile offspring. This is borne out in the data. What are you saying that is different, and why are you saying it?

    When I asked whether radically different species could interbreed to produce fertile offspring, you first expressed distaste for the experiment, then seemed to say that there probably would be compatibilities between radically different species. Maybe I misunderstood this part of your response. Then again, this might make more sense. Are you specifically predicting that compatibility is NOT related to genetic distance from a common ancestor?

    Your statement about high-quality products still makes little sense to me. People still suffer from diseases caused by recessive genes. If we were high quality, this would not happen. Life forms are far less reliable than six-sigma manufactured systems. Sony would not never run a factory that produced such low-quality products.

    And how about the Cheetahs? There are so few of them that they have to interbreed. Are they still high-quality products?

  7. Any of the abnormal ‘mules‘ are lacking of the natural self-replicability proper of the naturally normal interfertile groups of organisms.

    Another prospects to produce new biodiversity are the
    crickets and the Cichlids.

  8. fdocc,

    Any of the abnormal ‘mules’ are lacking of the natural self-replicability proper of the naturally normal interfertile groups of organisms.

    You have yet to define what “abnormal” means and what “naturally normal” means. That’s precisely the scientific problem you are supposed to be trying to unravel. That there are “naturally normal” possibilities for breeding is like saying that there are “naturally normal” rules that govern the motion of celestial objects. Fine, but WHAT ARE THESE RULES? That’s what science is about.

    Why are the listed finches “naturally normal” together? And why aren’t Alligators and Squirrels naturally normal together? And precisely how does your theory of intelligent design tell you that this is so?

  9. As somebody declared at ARN (Neil A. Wells), the animals able to interbreed can be considered as compatible software, and I must add that in order for that to be so it is necessary the complementarity of their genes (their ability to match). Which means the same number of genes and of no-genes (exons + introns being the same.)

  10. fdocc: Intelligent Design, through Mendelian Bioengineering predicts that the rest of Geospiza sp. finches will also be able to produce interfertile offspring.

    No, it doesn’t. You make this prediction on the grounds that some birds that are considered different species have been observed to interbreed. This is not a prediction of ID.

    This is just more NDE double standard. This prediction does not require that you know about any given species ahead of time. Any new discoveries of species should either affirm or disprove this prediction.

    On the contrary it is NDE who backfills their observation with predictions to fit their interpretation of the observed data. i.e. As in the case of stoneflies wings are predicted to have evolve from gills after the flies have been observe to skim on water, or the distinction between marsupial and placental mammals, or the emergence of whale from terrestrial mammals. Just about every NDE prediction from OOL to Cambrian to Homo sapiens have been nonsensical.

    Are you saying that ID predicts what this compatibility map will look like?
    On what grounds? Because the designer wanted things that look similar to be compatible and produce fertile offspring? If so, how do you define “looking similar” ?

    Actually the same question needs to be asked of NDE. On what basis does NDE make its predictions? Are there any specific conditions that will also result in wings? Can NDE use a set of criteria to make a future prediction of an extent species on what that future form will be? Can we test that prediction? Your invocation of the designer again is a strawman. We have repeatedly specified that the intention of the designer is irrelevant to ID and yet you keep bringing it up without any supportable argument as to why it is a necessary prerequisite for ID. That fact to the matter is that all ID needs to observable data that support the inference of design and not macroevolution through RM&NS.

  11. Like breeds of dog? We already know that compatible organisms produce new varieties. That’s what you have to explain, not what you are predicting.

    This is incorrect. The prediction is that different species are incapable of producing a fertile offspring. You are confusing classification with prediction of speciation. Dogs and cats is incapable of producing a fertile offspring. Different morphological expression of a species will nevertheless produce viable offspring. NDE has been misclassifying varieties of the same species for the purpose of promoting macroevolution. What fdocc has been doing is just to correct that misclassification and from that correct basis make the prediction of subspeciation.

  12. teleologist,

    fdocc doesn’t seem to be saying what you think he’s saying.

    You’re saying he means that the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring is the definition of a species. That’s a nice (though unconventional) definition of a species, but it’s not a prediction of ID. It’s just a definition of a categorization algorithm for species.

    The remainder of your responses to my posts were evasions, and claims of a double standard. Every theory will have its share of speculation about related phenomena that cannot yet be predicted. However, every theory must actually predict something. Generic ID does not predict anything. NDE not only has predictive mechanisms, but it also has had those mechanisms confirmed by experiment. NDE cannot predict every detail (we don’t have the computing power yet), but it can predict certain phenomena very well. ID has nothing to show.

    Why do I bring up the designer? Because without one you have no predictions. Without predictions, you don’t even have a wild guess at an explanation.

  13. doctor(logic),

    You’re saying he means that the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring is the definition of a species. That’s a nice (though unconventional) definition of a species, but it’s not a prediction of ID. It’s just a definition of a categorization algorithm for species.

    No that’s incorrect. As I understand it, fdocc’s premise makes the prediction that a given species will not produce a different species. IOW, any given species will not produce any viable offspring that is incompatible genetically with its ancestral type.

    The remainder of your responses to my posts were evasions, and claims of a double standard. Every theory will have its share of speculation about related phenomena that cannot yet be predicted.

    Evasive? I provided specific instances that NDE claim to be predictions, which are nothing more than Darwinian deceptions. Please can you provide specific NDE predictions that meet scientific standards and supports macroevolution?

    Generic ID does not predict anything.

    Let’s put it this way. ID makes predictions that are as valid as NDE.

    NDE cannot predict every detail (we don’t have the computing power yet), but it can predict certain phenomena very well.

    It has nothing to do with computing power. Einstein didn’t need a supercomputer to predict the perihelion of Mercury, did he? Does General relativity need some super computing power to be verified to the 12th decimal places?

    Why do I bring up the designer? Because without one you have no predictions. Without predictions, you don’t even have a wild guess at an explanation.

    LOL! Do you ever get tired of sticking your head in the sand? You keep repeating this as if it has some truth, but never addressing what ID actually posits.

  14. No that’s incorrect. As I understand it, fdocc’s premise makes the prediction that a given species will not produce a different species. IOW, any given species will not produce any viable offspring that is incompatible genetically with its ancestral type.

    But this directly contradicts fdocc’s original post in which he states that different species of finches will interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

    There are just two options here.

    1) Either the finches are different species, in which case fdocc is trying to make a prediction about which species can interbreed, but fdocc fails to say how he reaches his conclusion, or

    2) fdocc is re-defining species by ability to interbreed an produce fertile offspring, in which case he’s just created a definition, not a prediction.

    Which option would you prefer?

    It has nothing to do with computing power. Einstein didn’t need a supercomputer to predict the perihelion of Mercury, did he? Does General relativity need some super computing power to be verified to the 12th decimal places?

    So are you claiming that the protein folding problem has no bearing on evolution? The protein folding problem cannot be solved today because our computers aren’t powerful enough. The fastest computer in the world is the IBM Blue Gene, designed to compute just these sorts of problems. You appear to be arguing that if we really understood proteins we could compute what a protein would look like without any computers, so the Blue Gene must be a total waste of money.

  15. Which option would you prefer?

    Neither. You’ve completely misunderstood what I’ve said and what fdocc have said, there is no conflict between our statements. Please provide the exact quote in which fdocc claims that different species can interbreed?

    So are you claiming that the protein folding problem has no bearing on evolution?

    It depends, in the case of Behe and Snoke 2004 then it is completely relevant. However, in the context of the viability of NDE itself it is irrelevant. I don’t think you are willing to say that NDE is in limbo until you have enough computing power to solve protein folding are you? You comment is insightful in that it shows that there is no working scientific theory for NDE. Darwinists are perpetually arguing from ignorance, in the sense that NDE is true because we don’t know how it happened but eventually in the future we will finally have empirical evidence support the theory.

  16. teleologist:

    Please provide the exact quote in which fdocc claims that different species can interbreed?

    Sure:

    Experimental Hypothesis:
    Intelligent Design, through Mendelian Bioengineering predicts that the rest of Geospiza sp. finches will also be able to produce interfertile offspring.

    Expansion:
    After exhausting the previous experiments, the hypothesis can be expanded to include the misclassified different finches ‘genus’ of Cactospiza sp., Platyspiza sp., Camarhynchus sp. and Certhidia sp. (see picture below)

    The finches are different species. fdocc says they’ll interbreed. (BTW, can you shed any light on the “Mendelian Bioengineering” mumbo jumbo in this context?)

    I ask again: Option 1 or 2? If it is neither option, then what is the prediction? If I have two species, A and B, how do I predict whether they will interbreed to produce fertile offspring, and what does ID have to do with the prediction?

    I don’t think you are willing to say that NDE is in limbo until you have enough computing power to solve protein folding are you?

    NDE contains working, predictive theories, but we lack the power to compute every answer (e.g., do a molecular simulation of macroevolution). I don’t see the problem. If we lack the power to compute binding energies in quantum chromodynamics (the physics of quarks and gluons), does that imply that QCD is “in limbo” despite the fact that it successfully makes other predictions? Are Newton’s Laws in limbo because we cannot compute the three-body problem?

  17. Dill declared,

    teleologist: Please provide the exact quote in which fdocc claims that different species can interbreed?

    I think fdocc can do it by himself (smile.)

    Oh, dear faithful reader and Illogical Dr. (smile),

    I want to ask you what is this that I wrote in my first lines of this posting (above):

    Geospiza fortis (medium ground finch) hybridizes with G. scandens (cactus finch), and with G. fuliginosa (small ground finch).

    Don’t we all agree that those are nothing else but misclassified varieties or subspecies? [Please, don’t evade it, but answer that, in order for us to speak about the same thing!]

    The same can be said from the first link that I presented above, featuring the misclassified or ‘misclassifying’ words of the illogical Grants:

    all six species of Darwin’s ground finches (genus Geospiza) hybridize” … “crosses are known among the tree finches and warbler finch, and breeding hybrids have been produced.”

    Do you want to do a little bit of unbiased reasoning by yourself or not?

    No? Well wells, at least we can do a little bit of research to see that those “tree finches” are currently misclassified under a different genus (Camarhynchus), and the same can be said of its fertile offspring producer mate, “the warbler finch” (Certhidea).

    And I must add that other finches that my ID predicts to be able to interbreed, producing a fertile offspring as well are the Cocos finch (Pinaroloxias), the “vegetarianfinch (Platyspiza) and both, the woodpecker finch and the mangrove finches (Cactospiza)…

    Not only different misclassified ‘species‘, but different misclassified ‘genusare able to interbreed producing fertile offspring when their modular software is the same (the equal number of exons and introns in their genome, the equal “match.”)

    One finch student, before presenting an updated list of the currently known finches (the Dr. Robert Rothman), declares [my brackets]:

    “finch expert David Steadman feels that splitting the finches into six genera [uselessly over-] emphasizes their differences; and [rather] suggests [the same Dr. David Steadman], that all of the finches should be united as 14 species in the single genus Geospiza to emphasize their similarities!!”

    And I must add that not only “to emphasize their similaritiesall of them finches in the real-nature are under the same Kind, Min or “species“, no matter how much the classifyings of men mess them up for philosophical, ideological, evolutionary, Darwinian, or whatever other wrong idea may pop-up to any illogical Darwinian mind reading this response, in their attempt to justify the unjustifiable, as it is such and deliberate misunderstanding within biology!

    So, I must go one step further, rendering the words of Dr. Steadman as follows:”all of the finches should be united as 14 VARIETIES in the same and single Kind, Min, species (or whatever you may want to call such self consistent and self-replicable set of molecular, modular and self-perpetuating mates!)”

  18. I think fdocc can do it by himself (smile.)

    Aye, aye Captain. 😀 I just wanted to get dl on record for his blatant misunderstanding of what you’ve presented. I already know the answer before I asked the question. 😀

  19. fdocc,

    I understand that your goal is to insist that the finches are all the same species so that the finches cannot be used as examples of neo-Darwinian speciation.

    You claim that species should be determined based on their ability to breed interfertile offspring. Most biologists don’t agree, but your definition is well-defined. So let’s say that we accept this definition for argument’s sake.

    So your hypothesis is that all of the finches in your list are really the same species. By your definition, this may well be true. Biologists would agree that the different finches are more likely to interbreed with eachother than is one finch to interbreed with a frog because they are genetically similar (chromosome count, introns, exons, etc). IOW, interfertility is a generally a function of similarity in genome. So what does this have to do with ID? What does intron/exon count have to do with your ID theory? The fact that interfertility is a generally a function of similarity in genome has nothing intrinsically to do with either evolution or ID.

    Imagine it were possible to study biology without reference to evolution (that’s some hypothetical there). So you know about different species, their interfertilities, their genomes, etc. This is your raw observation. What you have to explain is the origin of the species – why certain genera have similar genomes, why certain species are more closely related in morphology and biology, etc.

    Evolution accounts for these similarities through common descent. Evolution explains the similarities in the finches by saying that they have common ancestry, and that this chain of ancestry also explains similarities between non-interfertile bird species.

    What is ID predicting and why? For example, ID must account for apparent common ancestry, despite the fact that no designer need be bound by this constraint.

  20. Teleologist wrote:

    I just wanted to get dl on record for his blatant misunderstanding of what you’ve presented. I already know the answer before I asked the question.

    My Response: Oh, thanks for clarifying that! I don’t wanted to be harsh with you, at least I don’t wanted to be as the ‘harshest’ as Dr. Davison, who left us because of his blind and doctrinal beliefs in a preposterous ‘common descent‘ (smile).

  21. doctor(logic),

    I understand that your goal is to insist that the finches are all the same species so that the finches cannot be used as examples of neo-Darwinian speciation.

    At least you realize that you were wrong about what fdocc and I have said.

    why certain genera have similar genomes, why certain species are more closely related in morphology and biology, etc.

    Evolution accounts for these similarities through common descent. Evolution explains the similarities in the finches by saying that they have common ancestry, and that this chain of ancestry also explains similarities between non-interfertile bird species.

    It is true that Darwinian evolution promotes the myth of common descent to explain morphological and genetic similarities, but it is not supported by scientific evidence. ID makes the same inference that similarities are a result of common design and reuse, techniques employ often in engineering. The only difference is that ID is supported by empirical evidence from biological artifacts indicative of design. Darwinian evolution makes many fictitious mechanisms that is not testable nor demonstrated by evidence.

  22. teleologist,

    I’m not wrong about what you and fdocc have said. Just re-read the original post.

    Your responses have had nothing to do with the original claim that the finches being interfertile is a prediction of ID. Even if your original post amounted to a counterclaim against evolution (it doesn’t), such a counterclaim would not constitute a prediction of ID. If you guys cannot back up the the claim as being a prediction of ID, maybe you should issue a retraction.

    So let’s sum things up.

    1) You disagree with the scientific community that evolution is supported by the evidence.

    2) You reject claims of common descent despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    3) Since a generic designer would not build things exclusively by re-use, you choose to define a designer who does but who gives the illusion of common descent.

    4) You have no answer for why the designer made what he did.

    5) No answer for why he built them over such a long period of time (billions of years).

    6) No answer for how biological systems were designed or manufactured.

    7) Not one ID prediction about what we will find in the lab.

    This is a multi-leveled conspiracy theory that not only claims 98% of scientists are in cahoots to promote evolution over ID, but that the designer conspires to design life to make it look purposeless and evolved over billions of years.

  23. doctor(logic),

    I’m not wrong about what you and fdocc have said. Just re-read the original post.

    You keep digging your hole deeper. 🙂 Let’s recap.

    doctor(logic): But this directly contradicts fdocc’s original post in which he states that different species of finches will interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

    teleologist: Please provide the exact quote in which fdocc claims that different species can interbreed?
    doctor(logic): Sure: Experimental Hypothesis:
    Intelligent Design, through Mendelian Bioengineering predicts that the rest of Geospiza sp. finches will also be able to produce interfertile offspring.

    doctor(logic): I understand that your goal is to insist that the finches are all the same species

    You see fdocc and I was in sync. We’ve both were talking about the same species or subspecies. You were wrong to state that I was in contradiction with fdocc.

  24. teleologist,

    I know you want to claim the finches are the same species, but why do you make this claim?

    Because you think they’ll interbreed and you guys define a species on this basis? But why do you think they’ll interbreed? What has this got to do with ID? Why don’t you think alligators and frogs will interbreed? And what has that prediction got to do with ID?

  25. doctor(logic),

    I know you want to claim the finches are the same species, but why do you make this claim?

    Again you’ve failed to understand my point. I don’t expect you to accept what fdocc and I are theorizing regarding ID. What I am trying to point out in the last few posts is that you didn’t even understand what we were saying regarding ID, when you claimed that I contradicted what fdocc was saying. That is the problem.

  26. Dear Readers,

    Inspired by the comments of Teleologist and of Dr. Logic I have written my
    The Evolutionist Racketeering: Compatible Ancestry sold as Common Descent

    This is my way to contribute with ‘the celebrations’ already started by the Daily Stanford and by Uncommon Descent (smile.)

    Have a good weekend!

    Fer.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.