The Designer Apparently Designs Like Humans Do

_{May 5, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here at UD we’ve heard over and over again that unless we “know” who the Designer is, then we can’t infer design. For example, if we were to argue that we’ve never seen the ancient Native Americans who fashioned arrowheads from stone, yet we are able to infer design in arrowheads nonetheless, the Darwinian side would respond saying, “Yes, but that’s because the Native Americans are humans like ourselves.”

PhysOrg.com has an article about the microRNA, miR-7, which has been found to regulate a network which brings about uniformity among humans. The article is interesting in itself, but most interesting is this comment by one of the lead authors, Richard W. Carthew:

When something is changed, say the genetic sequence of a molecule or the temperature of the organism, the network responds to compensate for the change and keep things intact. . . . This design is similar to the principle that engineers use to design safety features into products.”

Unless some Darwinist can mount some kind of sensible objection, then I guess we here at UD can safely, and reasonably, conclude that whoever the Designer is, he ‘designs’ like human engineers do. Thusly, the opposite is true: if we find human engineering-like design in biological systems, then we can conclude that we have encountered the/a Designer. And Darwinists can kindly drop this type of argument from their repetoire.

Comments

Nakashima:
Again, your assertion is not supported by evidence.
Which assertion? Is there a paper which demonstrates the 4 nucleotides can arise without agency involvement? No. Is there a paper which demonstrates a RNA catalyst can arise without agency involvement? No.Joseph_{May 11, 2009
May
05
May
11
11
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PST}

Mr Joseph, Again, your assertion is not supported by evidence. As a matter of fact, the article you brought to my attention is now cited by another. Here is the abstract . The dawn of the RNA World: Toward functional complexity through ligation of random RNA oligomers Carlos Briones, Michael Stich and Susanna C. Manrubia Centro de Astrobiología (CSIC-INTA), 28850 Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain Abstract A main unsolved problem in the RNA World scenario for the origin of life is how a template-dependent RNA polymerase ribozyme emerged from short RNA oligomers obtained by random polymerization on mineral surfaces. A number of computational studies have shown that the structural repertoire yielded by that process is dominated by topologically simple structures, notably hairpin-like ones. A fraction of these could display RNA ligase activity and catalyze the assembly of larger, eventually functional RNA molecules retaining their previous modular structure: molecular complexity increases but template replication is absent. This allows us to build up a stepwise model of ligation-based, modular evolution that could pave the way to the emergence of a ribozyme with RNA replicase activity, step at which information-driven Darwinian evolution would be triggered. One of the things I found interesting in that abstract was the statement that the tertiary structures are often hairpins. As I'm sure you know, tRNA is composed of two such hairpins. re cells - the point was that the ability of cells today, with complex internal compartmentalization, to control polymerization doesn't tell us much about proto-cells, which are assumed to be much much simpler, to the point of being just bubbles with no internal structure at all. The length of time cells have been evolving merely underscores this point. re Stonehenge - did I really say such a thing? I remember seeing comments on Stonehenge in previous threads, but I don't remember making any myself. Google cannot distinguish words in the recent comments sidebar from words in the thread, which makes it very difficult to search back. If I said something amusing about Stonehenge, please refresh my memory!Nakashima_{May 11, 2009
May
05
May
11
11
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PST}

BTW I have already stated I want OoL research to continue. That is the ONLY way they are going to learn that living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.Joseph_{May 11, 2009
May
05
May
11
11
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PST}

Makashima:
The experiment is one small step in the process of understanding what a pre-biotic world could have looked like.
That is false. Even getting the first RNA molecule that is capable of being a catalyst is beyond chance and necessity. I say that because the syntheiszed RNAs were only capable of ONE bond. With abiogenesis you don't even get those first catalysts. Heck without agency involvement you can't even get the four required nucleotides. So where does that leave OoL research? Also by reading your posts it would appear that you think it is OK to say that Stonehenge is a natural formation and we should study it as such until we find that non-telic explanation. Strange. Also you say:
Given that the cell is the result of a few billion years of evolution, that doesn’t tell us much about the conditions in OOL scenarios.
Yet the alleged first signs of cells appeared in less than a billion years.Joseph_{May 11, 2009
May
05
May
11
11
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PST}

Being a engineer student I can say the Designer designs on much higher level than humans. Biological system has chemical computing system that we have not much of a clue how it works. If we did our supercomputer will feel slow. Standford book tells us that nature is unable to preserve design. There fore there must be designer. Nature is too imperfect to be the designer. Even before read Standford I knew this to be true. It is clear to all parties that nature can not build things up and only make imperfect modification . In fact i think I can difference between nature sloppy workmanship and the designer perfect workmanship.spark300c_{May 9, 2009
May
05
May
9
09
2009
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PST}

Mr Joseph, I'm sorry, I don't see any support for your statement about the implications of the experiment. The experiment is one small step in the process of understanding what a pre-biotic world could have looked like. Can you cite anyone in the scientific literature with such a negative view? Was SciAm of this opinion in their article? You are correct that I ignored your other comments while trying to get at the basis for your misconception about this experiment. I agree that we don't see nucleotides and amino acids forming polymers in the cell, except under very controlled conditions. Given that the cell is the result of a few billion years of evolution, that doesn't tell us much about the conditions in OOL scenarios. The cell is a chemical factory, ne? It is not safe to allow experiments on the factory floor. Such controls did not exist in the era we are considering. Chemists are still working out what the scaffolding for RNA synthesis might have been, such as PAHs. We only recently discovered that boron was important to the creation of ribose. I can see that you are quite critical of the current directions in OOL research. What is a better alternative line of research? Is OOL a scientific subject, in your view, or is it a religious subject that cannot be fruitfully questioned by science?Nakashima_{May 8, 2009
May
05
May
8
08
2009
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PST}

Nakashima, The experiment pretty much squashed abiogenesis. Ya see in order for abiogenesis to be realistic RNA has to come together without agency involvement, as do proteins. And I noticed you ignored the point of my previous response.Joseph_{May 8, 2009
May
05
May
8
08
2009
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PST}

Mr PaV, Thank you for responding. A lot people start a thread, and then let the comments wander off in any old direction. I appreciate your participating in the discussion over a longer term, and helping it to maintain structure. Here is my basic problem. Especially with respect to DNA coding information, I read several commenters here breathlessly describing the wonder of a poly functional information storage (just like a computer language!) with compression and layers of meaning that will wind the cat and whiten my teeth just by reading about it. The conclusion is - the Designer is so much better at design than even the best human programmer. Then your post comes along and says "Look, the Designer uses feedback, just like us!" So I get confused. Is the design apparent in Nature transcendantly better than Man's design, pointing to the transcendance of God? Or is God just like us? I do think design in nature is like human design, mostly because we are clever imitators of nature. But then there are places where we effortlessly invent things unseen in nature, even simple things like the pulley. Having listened to the podcast on miR-7 from Cell, I think you are placing too much emphasis on a casual use of language.Nakashima_{May 7, 2009
May
05
May
7
07
2009
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PST}

Mr BiPed, Thanks for being patient with me! I think it is wrong to say DNA is physically inert. Obviously, it participates in a lot of chemistry inside our cells, so inert is either wrong (in the sense that gold or helium is inert) or relative. DNA is less active than RNA, and you may notice that we have been talking past each other if I have been making points about RNA and you have been making points about DNA. I'm basically arguing from within a framework of thinking about OOL where storage of information in DNA is a relatively late addition to the repetoire of life. I don't see how a DNA-first explanation of OOL can work. So as marvelous as DNA is, it is an upgrade to a function the existed in some less functional way earlier To your explanation of chance operating at maximum uncertainty - the example you gave was very helpful. I think that the concept you are describing is more commonly known as independence of trials. I think you have touched upon a very important point. I agree that independent trials cannot produce the interesting complexity we see in the world. This is why it is critical for evolution to have access to prior trials to work. Evolution is contingent and all about dependent trials. Combining the two streams of thought above, this is why bignum arguments about how unlikely a DNA strand that codes for specific protein is are so unrealistic. 1 - No one thinks you start with DNA. 2 - No one thinks evolution proceeds by independent trials.Nakashima_{May 7, 2009
May
05
May
7
07
2009
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PST}

Nakashima [63]:
How far are you willing to push your argument? Is it true that when the Designer designs, he must design like humans? Is it true that when the Designer designs, he only designs like humans? Does ‘like humans’ mean occasionally better, and occasionally worse than humans? Is the Designer constrained in his designs? Why does a giraffe have the same number of neck bones I do, not the same number as an apatosaurus?
Quite a number of questions, and not entirely related to the point of this thread. However, . . . (1) Is it true that when the Designer designs, he must design like humans? RESPONSE: The author of reason and the embodiments of reason both 'design' using 'reason'. Why introduce the word "must". Is this just a debating trick? (2) Does 'like humans' mean occasionally better, and occasionally worse than humans? RESPONSE: Why the introduction of comparatives? Is this a method of obfuscation? Why don't we put things this way: when human beings can completely understand how life operates, and can, using only the basic elements of life (nucleotides, fatty acids, etc.), design original life forms, then, and only then, can we make judgments about whether our 'designs' are 'better or worse' than those of the Designer. (3) Is the Designer constrained....? RESPONSE: Aristotle would tell us that all that exists consists of matter and form. The various forms that matter can take depends on the properties of the matter. If the Designer works with 'matter', and since matter isn't infinite in scope, a constraint has been introduced. Thus, once a Designer "creates" matter, constraints are necessarily introduced. There is such a thing as wisdom. Wisdom involves, for want of better definitions, a balancing of constraints. I hope this isn't simply an attempt to deflect us from the principal point being made here; i.e., that the design directly observed in nature is just like the design observed in human engineering.PaV_{May 7, 2009
May
05
May
7
07
2009
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PST}

Nakashima, You might have missed the point. DNA contains poly-functional information which is written in a digital language of symbols that operate under an established convention which is chemically and physically inert - just as physically inert as the information it contains. Any scenario you propose has to make this jump. What you are suggesting is that we divert our eyes from the empirical facts surrounding the presence of non-physically-caused symbol systems, poly-functionality, code conventions, and information, so that we may suppose life with no need for any information at all. In other words, it just happened. That is patently silly, and its bad science as well. - - - - - - - - - Given the gulf between our two understandings as what is at issue in my first question (at #40), I can’t see getting any further in my other two questions, but I am certain willing to try. You say “I really don’t understand this phrase “chance operating at a maximum level of uncertainty”. Can you explain it?” Nakashima, if you toss a pair of dice, then pick them up and toss them again, how much is whatever result you get in the second toss dependent upon the first toss? The answer is none. This is chance operating at maximum uncertainty. This is not about the results of either throw; it’s about the uncertainty of both throws. At no time does one toss of the dice affect the uncertainty involved in the next toss of the dice. In other words, such a mechanism (repeated tosses of complete uncertainty) is understandably incapable of formulating language, establishing conventions between symbols and the meanings of those symbols, organizing discreet molecular objects, or coordinating functions between those molecular objects and processes. - - - - - - - - - - Nakashima, you are hopeless to explain the observations of DNA by chance and necessity. There is a cut in the pathway between those things that are physically dependent, and those things that are inert to such physicality and beyond the reach of maximum uncertainty. Those are the facts.Upright BiPed_{May 7, 2009
May
05
May
7
07
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST}

Mr Joseph, Again, there was no attempt to build a system of multiple catalysis by single RNA strands. Why do you think this is even possible at the scale you posit? Most catalysis is much more specific. What evolved is the same functional network, but operating faster. In the limited environment of the experiment, would you have any reason to expect something different to evolve? There are no selection pressures in any other direction but 'faster'.Nakashima_{May 7, 2009
May
05
May
7
07
2009
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PST}

Mr PaV, How far are you willing to push your argument? Is it true that when the Designer designs, he must design like humans? Is it true that when the Designer designs, he only designs like humans? Does 'like humans' mean occasionally better, and occasionally worse than humans? Is the Designer constrained in his designs? Why does a giraffe have the same number of neck bones I do, not the same number as an apatosaurus? If your argument comes down to "The Designer can design like humans design, whenever he wants to, but he can design in other ways too, and we have no way of knowing which method is in use at any point", well, Mr StephenB would say that you've stated a tautology, A and not-A. Always true, no information value. Is your agrument more specific than that? In what way is God built in Man's image?Nakashima_{May 7, 2009
May
05
May
7
07
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PST}

Mr BiPed, Thank you for your kind words. So prior to that it must have been selected for some other combination of features, which it came upon without the assistance of any information (for which it could not store anyway) and then it stored it anyway. Yes, for example, in the systems of RNA mutual catalysis that I recently discussed with Mr Joseph, the sequence of RNA nucleotides is not storing any more information than its own functional shape. When tRNA eventually developed, its sequence carried no more information than its structural function. Similarly, there are people in the nanotech field who are interested in using DNA as a building material, not as an information storage mechanism. The point here is that these macromolecules, which we think of almost exclusinvely in terms of embodied information, do have other selectable properties. I'd like to respond to your other questions, but I really don't understand this phrase "chance operating at a maximum level of uncertainty". Can you explain it? Thank you.Nakashima_{May 7, 2009
May
05
May
7
07
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PST}

Nakashima, When synthesized RNA can only make ONE connection out of the hundreds if not thousands that need to be made, then there is trouble. Also the "evolved" forms did the SAME thing. No change in function. So what do you think "evolved"? There has never been an experiment that demonstrates an RNA catalyst can arise from a broth of chemicals. Heck there isn't anything which demonstrates all the nucleotides can arise outside of a living cell. And just look at the cell- amino acids packes in very close proximity and they do NOT spontaneously form polypetide chains. Nucleotides also closely packed that do not spontaneously form into RNA nor DNA. But as I said I hope this sort of research continues because sooner or later those scientists will realize they are chasing their tails.Joseph_{May 7, 2009
May
05
May
7
07
2009
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PST}

Nakashima in#36:
So from the first time humans imitated nature, the Designer could be inferred? You need to find some way of eliminating bio-mimesis as an issue.
There's a not so subtle difference between what you think I'm saying, and what I'm actually saying. I haven't said that humans imitating what they find in nature allows us to infer design. While I think this is true, that is not what is at issue here---which I'll make clear in response to the second part of your post. Nevertheless, whatever dim view you might have of this 'feedback system', let's note that it wasn't I who called these networks 'designed' but the scientists who investigated them.
Further, you seem to be positing features as simple as “feedback” as design. I think that is quite overstated.
I'm not doing that. The scientists who are reporting their results are doing that. But, again, this isn't the point here. The point here is that those who attack ID play a game of willful ignorance, saying that since "we don't know who the Designer is, then we can't possibly know how he would design anything." But you see, in this article, the scientists tell us that the genetic networks they are examining function 'just like' the kinds of networks that engineers design. Thus, whoever the Designer is, He designs like humans. Now, if we were to approach this theologically, the argument would simply run backwards: that is, God made man. Man is rational. God made man rational. If man's reason is different than that of God, then man possesses something that God does not---which is impossible. Hence, man's reason is ordered to God's reason. Further, when 'man' designs, it will look like 'God's designs'. However, we're dealing with science and so we should steer clear of theological arguments (something that Darwinists fail to do, beginning with Darwin and (not) ending with Dawkins). So, let us again note that in this instance it is the scientists themselves who declare that the 'design' of the genetic networks are like those that human engineers design. They present this as a demonstrable fact, not an article of faith.PaV_{May 7, 2009
May
05
May
7
07
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PST}

Nakashima, First, please allow me to say something about your second answer - I am quite certain that your English is just fine. However, if you object (as you have) to the “dichotomy of a symbol system and living tissue” then perhaps it is my English that is lacking.
dichotomy: a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities.
Do the terms symbol system and living tissue represent mutually exclusive groups or contradictory entities? I was not aware that these were even controversial terms. If the terms genetic information and life are less offensive to you, you may use them at will. Either way, it does not change the existence of a physically-inert symbol system being embedded in all living things. It also does nothing to help chance and necessity to become fit in creating this information, or the symbol system that contains it. You go on to say “Life is chemistry. The selective advantage of the ability to store information has evolved DNA.” So if I understand you correctly, there was a time when perhaps chemistry itself was being selected, but there was no ability to store information. Then a moment in time came when the ability to store information appeared where it wasn't before, and this ability was then selected. So the process of selecting information was in existence prior to the ability to store information, and when this new ability came along, selection selected it, and then perfected the system. And that’s where DNA came from. And this ability emerged in something that was apparently already reproducing (so that it could eventually be selected for). So prior to that it must have been selected for some other combination of features, which it came upon without the assistance of any information (for which it could not store anyway) and then it stored it anyway. And that was a good thing. And then you say it went on to “evolve synaptic memory” and “other systems as well”. - - - - - - - - - - - Nakashima, I am certain you are a nice person; I think that shows in your posts. There is no doubt about it. But I must say, I think the treatment you give the information paradox (and the other issues in general) is weak. I am not in the least bit offended that you passed on the 2nd and 3rd questions I asked.Upright BiPed_{May 7, 2009
May
05
May
7
07
2009
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PST}

DATCG
I think you’re being reasonably open minded. You are stating you are unsure about the current state of knowledge. And you think that ID may be a possible answer. Correct?
I think that is accurate, yes. I do not think you need to believe in a designer to respect ID and find its arguments compelling (but perhaps not convincing just yet). To say otherwise, I think, is to lend credence to the accusation that ID is essentially religious in nature, which I do not believe is true when applied properly. I do not buy the Darwinian view persuasive at all, and if forced to choose I would go with ID in a heartbeat. I personally do not think we have to choose between the two just yet, however, and I am excited about the next 50 years of discovery, ID included. Bantay:
Tommy V…Interestingly, the only people who consider design a “silly argument” are those who aren’t open to where the evidence best points.
If you read my post more carefully and not have assumed that I was someone challenging ID, I think you would have noticed that what I was calling a "silly argument" was the assertion that one must first know the designer to infer design. (I suspect when you reread my post with that in mind you will find something different than the person you think you're arguing with) I understand you guys get a lot of critics around here, most of them unreasonable, but you really need to stop going after people who are actually sympathetic to ID and find it an extremely worthwhile endeavor, despite the fact that I do not believe in a designer.Tommy V_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PST}

Upright, I have not answered your questions because I don't see the need to. As I have stated before, I find ID a compelling argument, and I do not find chance persuasive at all. This is why I am confused by your desire to debate me as if I am arguing against ID. I do not think that, even amongst ID advocates, there is the belief that this is settled science, so I find your resistance to me stating the obvious rather strange.Tommy V_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PST}

Mr Joseph, I am not sure why you think this paper is particulary devastating. Previous work had shown RNA catalyzing other RNA assembly. The point of this paper was the mutual catalysis of two different RNAs on each others precursors. You say ONE like it was a bad thing. They weren't trying to make a Swiss Army knife RNA and reporting failure. They were trying to build an extremely small network of two nodes and two relationships, which they succeeded in doing. This is meant to be a very simple model for a genetic system that can undergo change (due to copying error) and thereby build up variety, which can lead to new opportunities. As you note, the original pair was out-competed for resources by a new pair. Evolution in action. This paper is a triumph for OOL studies, not the opposite.Nakashima_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PST}

Mr BiPed @45, Thanks, I am familiar with the second Abel paper, but I had read the first. I have posted comments on the second Abel paper here on UD, in the thread opened for it by Mr Cordova. To your questions: 1 - I reject the dichotomy of a symbol system and "living tissue". Especially the second phrase sounds powerfully to me like vitalism. Life is chemistry. The selective advantage of the ability to store information has evolved DNA. It has also evolved synaptic memory. It could have evolved other systems as well, such as bits captured as changes in polarization in some protein. 2 & 3 - My English is not good enough to understand these questions.Nakashima_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PST}

Nakashima, All OoL scenarios took a big hit when the Tracey/ Lincoln paper came out: Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce. It was touted as evidence for self-replicating RNA and "evolution in a bottle" (SciAm). The research is leading edge stuff and should give us a glimpse at the reducibility of living organisms. If this paper is any indication, origin of life research isn't looking so good. I say that because all the synthesized RNA did was make- catalyze- ONE connection. It took two pre-synthesized sections and joined them together. The "evolution" came with variance of sequence but the new sequences still performed the same function (the original sequence "died out"). This is a start and I hope they continue to see how far they can go- Sooner or later the "mainstream" will come to realize what IDists have been telling them- living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.Joseph_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PST}

By the way Tommy, I noticed that you decided not to address any of the questions of evidence I raised in #40. Why is that?Upright BiPed_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PST}

Tommy: “Since I am essentially on your side, sympathetic to ID, and have not said anything that would normally be considered controversial, and yet still feel the need to be aggressive because I do not subscribe to ID the way you would like me to, I feel like a call to relax in perfectly in order.” I wasn’t even responding to you until you jumped in for BVZ at 35, making the observation that ID can’t say anything for certain because we might not know it all. I responded by posting a question to you on 40. I did nothing to insult you, or call into question your ability to think. My exact words were “In a post on an earlier thread I asked these questions. I leave them here for you to consider” Personally, that doesn’t sound too confrontational, but if you find that kind of language too intimidating for your sensibilities, then you certainly have my fullest apology. - - - - - - - - Tommy: “I stand by my statement. Claiming that ID is far enough that it supplies THE answer is premature. The idea that we know all we will know that matters shows a distinct lack of humility.” I stated above that “There are no certainties in science, this goes without saying. I have never used “certainty” as a bullhorn for ID…The (overwhelming) inference to a volitional act in biology and cosmology is what ID is fighting for - not for a claim of certainty.” I would only add that the inferences to a volitional act are coming in from just about every sector of science, many of those inferences have been unanswered for dozens of years, even generations. Since you are determined to be as fair minded as possible, you might ask yourself at what point these inference will become mature, or why they should be ignored at all. And as far as your repeated reference to humility, I suggest you take it up with Behe, or Sternberg, or Crocker, or Gonzales.Upright BiPed_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PST}

Seversky: what if it's a restating of Paley's argument? No one's ever actually disproven it, after all.Barb_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PST}

Tommy V, I think you're being reasonably open minded. You are stating you are unsure about the current state of knowledge. And you think that ID may be a possible answer. Correct? What do you think about George Church's comments and Mike Gene's review of such comments that I posted above at comment #13? Mike Gene states that current speculative design issues show that Front Loading is a Design option for evolution. Please review the link I posted in the comment. I think you'll find it interesting. I'm curious what you think. Because it specifically relates to humans engineering reproductive life forms and on PaV's comments.DATCG_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PST}

17 Sparc said, "In addition, the designer created self reproducing entities which is quite different from common human design." That is only true until humans design self-reproducing orgamisms. They already create self-replicating entities, like computer viruses. Thus the human created dichotomy of good and bad viruses in the future. Right now, good forces fight hacker viruses from centralized centers. But I suspect they will create their own "white blood cells" in the future which can evolve to fight viruses. Any new information collected by such battles can then be passed back to central distribution. My post original post above included comments by George Church who is thinking critically about reproducing issues in synthetic life. He is contemplating the very issues of evolution as a Front Loaded mechanism of Design. I think the only question left is "when" will humans create Reproductive organisms that evolve. How far away is intelligence from producing simple Reproductive life forms that include variation? I do not know, but I suspect for Intelligence to increase, it needs to create such organisms and the space and resources for them. Supernatural to me is an exclusive term for a Designer outside of the universe as we know it. But it does not limit human design efforts, unless the original designer limits the potential. Also, does complexity of specific informational content follow exponential curves? If so, then evolutionary design is a given.DATCG_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PST}

Upright Since I am essentially on your side, sympathetic to ID, and have not said anything that would normally be considered controversial, and yet still feel the need to be aggressive because I do not subscribe to ID the way you would like me to, I feel like a call to relax in perfectly in order. I stand by my statement. Claiming that ID is far enough that it supplies THE answer is premature. The idea that we know all we will know that matters shows a distinct lack of humility. Appeals to victimhood do not impress me when you feel the need to attack those you feel might be slightly different from you. (And yes, suggesting what we might learn later could not contradict what we know now, is basically asserting certainty. Whether you use the word or not is moot.)Tommy V_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PST}

By the way Tommy, the questions I asked were based upon observations. Inference comes in the conclusion that fits the observation.Upright BiPed_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PST}

Tommy, "Inference is different from certainty because inference must take into account what we don’t know, when certainty does not." There are no certainties in science, this goes without saying. I have never used "certainty" as a bullhorn for ID. The (overwhelming) inference to a volitional act in biology and cosmology is what ID is fighting for - not for a claim of certainty. This is a red herring. And I must tell you, given the nature of the debate and the power structure in play, I find it a little nauseating to be told that ID should show a little "humility". If we can define humility as being scorned at throughout the university and its puppet media...then humility is all we've got. The NCSE didn't release a movie ducumenting how Big Design was keeping them down. Give that one a rest.Upright BiPed_{May 6, 2009
May
05
May
6
06
2009
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply