The Antikythera Mechanism and the Design Inference

_{May 17, 2017

Design inference}

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

Today’s Google Doodle honors the Antikythera mechanism discovered in 1901 from the Antikythera shipwreck.

This remarkable object has been the subject of intense study for more than a century, with various theories about its precise origin and construction still being put forward. Debates have played out about when it was constructed, by whom it was constructed, and the purpose of its construction.

Yet no-one has questioned whether it was designed.

It was clear from the characteristics of the object itself that it was designed.

It was clear that it was designed before subsequent questions were asked or (tentatively) answered about who designed it, when it was designed, how it was designed, where the designers came from, what their purpose was, whether there were more than one designer, and on and on. Indeed, if researchers had not first determined it were designed, those subsequent questions would never even have been asked.

Furthermore, and significantly, it was well known by scientists at the time it was discovered that the ancients had no ability to construct such a mechanism. At least that is what was thought. Some investigators even argued that it “was too complex to have been constructed during the same period as the other pieces that had been discovered.” In other words, we did not know that there was even a designer around at the time with the ability to construct such a mechanism. However, after the new discovery of the Antikythera mechanism and the eventual acceptance of its early date, we now have a new piece of information about the designer. Now we know that there was a designer at the time capable of producing the artifact in question. This is the direction in which the arrow of discovery and inference runs. Not the other way around.

The Antikythera mechanism is a wonderful example of how the design inference works in practice in the real world. And it gives the lie to so many of the anti-ID talking points against the design inference, showing that the objectors are more often motivated not by an objective search for truth but by philosophical or religious attempts to prop up a dying materialistic narrative.

Comments

@UB
Second, you still haven’t explained how constructor theory’s tasks with sub tasks are not equivlent to what you described.
Still waiting..critical rationalist_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

@UB, Yes, UB. I have tentatively adopted the idea that the laws of nature are indeed uniform. If the laws of nature are not uniform, it's unclear how science would be possible. That we've made relatively rapid, exponential growth in science is a good criticism of the idea that the laws of nature are not uniform. However, you seem to be implying that we can somehow derive what those uniform laws of nature are using experience as a source. This is inductivism. The problem is, no one has been able to formulate a "principle of Induction" that actually works, in practice. While people interpret their experience as using induction, attempts to take it seriously, as explanation for how knowledge grows, does not survive criticism. Specially, to use induction, it must provide guidance as to what part of our experience in the future (or what we would have experienced in the distant past) will be like our experience in the relativity recent past. And it must do so from a vast number of experiences that we have also continually experienced, but we do not assume will continue. IOW, I'm suggesting you are mistaken about how knowege grows and that genuine criticism of that idea exists in the above challenge. You will either find yourself with a step that you cannot fill (the guidance induction supposedly provides) or you will describe something other than induction. But, being a fallilbist, I would look forward to a "principle of induction" that can be used, in practice. By something other than induction, I'm referring to some kind of explantory theory, as opposed to a useful rule of thumb, which can be useful even when mostly false. Explantory theories have reach beyond mere experience. Our expectations are based on explanations, not experience. Even if those explantions are the rudimentary theories of optics, geometry, etc, that most people hold, at a minimum. It's hard to try to imagine the absence of these theories and their use is somewhat automatic. This is why I keep asking for an explanation how human designers design things. Specifically, mere intent or having "plans" are insufficient to actually adapt raw materials into organisms, as illustrated in my though experiment above. Plans must actually contain the necessary knowledge, otherwise they will fail. To say it was "molesting" is empty criticism.critical rationalist_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

@john_the_designer You're assuming human beings will not create new knowledge that will revolutionize how to design / build and manufacture things. 3D printing is just one example that we know of. However, we cannot predict the impact of new knowledge as it pertains to human designed things. The assumptions you're making will not hold in the future due to new knowledge we have yet to conceive. For example, the compromise design you selected because the alternative was too expensive was at some point in the past too expensive to implement, right? And the optimal design would be cheep and efferent for designer in the future. On one hand, problems are inevitable. But, on the other hand, problems are solvable. We start out with problems, that result in even better problems, that result in even better problems. Things have the appearance of design because they are well adapted to serve a purpose. When there are improvements, the question is: what is the origin of the knowledge that is responsible for those improvements. The intuition is correct in that the adaption is due to knowledge. But it's mistaken in that it assumes that knowege comes from authorative sources. It's a matter of epistemology.critical rationalist_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

CR, the Uniformity Principle is broadly regarded as necessary to conduct historical science. Do you believe the laws of nature have changed from the time of OoL to today?Upright BiPed_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

@UB,
This happens to be the fundamental description of language, entirely unique among all other physical systems known to science.
First, you're either appealing to an explanation, which you seem to have denied or refused to explicitly disclose, or you're appealing to induction. If the former, what I'd that explantion? If the latter, why should we expect the distant past to be like the recent past in that particularly sense, yet not others? What is the logic behind it? What steps have you taken, in detail, to reach that conclusion. Specifically, you're assuming that experiences in the distant past would be like experiences in the recent past, which is a variation on assuming experiences in the future will be like the past experiences. That is induction. The problem is, no one has managed to present a "principle of induction" with steps that can be followed, in practice. Second, you still haven't explained how constructor theory's tasks with sub tasks are not equivlent to what you described. Apparently, that just doesn't interest you?critical rationalist_{May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

[The following is something I have written before that I think is worth repeating here.] In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins tried to argue that biology was “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Notice that to explain away design he has to concede that there is the appearance or intuition of design. But is it merely just all appearance-- just an illusion? Notice the logic Dawkins wants us to accept. He wants us to implicitly accept his premise that that living things only have the appearance of being designed. But how do we know that premise is true? Is it self-evidently true? I think not. Why can’t it be true that living thing appear to be designed for a purpose because they really have been designed for a purpose? Is that logically impossible? Metaphysically impossible? Scientifically impossible? If one cannot answer those questions then design cannot be eliminated from consideration or the discussion. I have said this here before, the burden of proof is on those who believe that some mindless, purposeless process can “create” a planned and purposeful (teleological) self-replicating system capable of evolving further though purposeless mindless process (at least until it “creates” something purposeful, because, according to Dawkins, living things appear to be purposeful.) Frankly, this is something our regular interlocutors consistently and persistently fail to do.john_a_designer_{May 25, 2017
May
05
May
25
25
2017
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

CR, These are the kinds of things you present on this forum:
experience does not come with a label that tells you what that experience is we guess what our experience tells us about reality there are known problems with induction which are far older than I am the future is unlike the past in a vast number of ways induction doesn’t give us any guidance as to which our experience will continue
In contrast, these are the kinds of things that interest me:
The translation apparatus inside the cell is the way we find it, as complete and multifarious as it is, because that’s what is physically necessary to describe the system in a transcribable memory, and be able to successfully interpret the description. In order to function, the system requires coordination between two discontinuous sets of objects. The arrangement of one set of objects is independent of the material it’s made of, and the arrangement of the other set cannot be integrated with a lawful microscopic description of the system. Furthermore, in order for these two sets of objects to achieve semantic closure (i.e. to start the cell cycle) the coordination between them must be based on the use of combinatorial permutations – a reading-frame code -- where the spatial orientation of objects within each token of memory distinguishes one referent from another. This happens to be the fundamental description of language, entirely unique among all other physical systems known to science.
Notice a difference? All the things I talk about are taken from physical analysis of the translation system inside the cell. They are observations (by qualitied physicists and biologists) derived from relating the material operation of the system to the immutable laws of nature. In contrast, all the things you talk about are intended to flank the empirical evidence instead of addressing it. It is a demonstration of the weakness in your position. If you had any strength in your position you’d attack the actual evidence – not tell me that humans are fallible. In your grand theory of knowledge, is flanking inconvenient evidence a legitimate means of producing results? In other words, should you be protecting your theory from criticism? So now you are backed up against the fence and want to know what steps I’ve taken to “determine which part of our experience will continue?”. Good grief CR, give it a rest.Upright BiPed_{May 25, 2017
May
05
May
25
25
2017
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Thanks for pointing this out Eric. This does indeed expose the 'we don't know the motives and abilities of the designer' objection that gets used all to often. It's the sort of objection that provokes a lot of thought experiments to flesh out. Some have argued that if we found a tractor or some other obviously designed object on another planet we wouldn't hesitate to infer design. And in such a case we would know nothing of the designer's attributes. I have heard an interesting response to this (I think it was by Niall Shanks in 'Why Intelligent Design Fails'). He responded by saying that objects like tractors are antecedentely recognisable (we already know tractors are designed objects). However, in the case you have outlined, the object is clearly designed yet we have no real life analogue. By that I mean we don't already have examples of such designed objects.Joshua G_{May 25, 2017
May
05
May
25
25
2017
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

So, if you’re using induction “correctly” and I’m just trying to “justify not addressing observable evidence”, then what steps have you performed to determine which part of our experience will continue? Should you attempt to put your money where your mouth is you will find yourself with a missing step that you cannot fill in or you will retreat to describing something other than induction.
Still waiting...critical rationalist_{May 24, 2017
May
05
May
24
24
2017
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Here is some follow up on my earlier comment: There seems to be a number of pertinent points we need to keep in mind when we are discussing imperfect or suboptimal design. #1- We live in a suboptimal world. No design is perfect because all designs require tradeoffs (see my earlier comment @ #38.) #2- Humans create imperfect suboptimal designs. But just because they are suboptimal doesn’t mean they aren’t designed. #3- Humans at present are incapable of duplicating most of the design we find in nature. Furthermore, we still don’t completely understand the function of every organ that that has been studied by biology and medical science. For example, it has been discovered that some organs which were once thought to be vestigial may in fact not be. See the short Science Daily article about the appendix: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm #4- Critics of design in nature typically don’t (or can’t) explain how they would improve on the so-called bad designs, which often do not turn out to be bad at all. There are many cautionary tales about what happens when people think they know better than the designer. In this case I am talking about human designers. For example, in 1967 the USS Forrestal's Weapons Coordination Board (WCB) decided to make a minor change on how they launched their fighter jets in order to improve efficiency. Occasional problems with a faulty pigtail connector (a multi-prong electrical connector) which plugged into the Zuni rocket pod was sometimes causing delays in launching jets equipped with these pods. The board decided that, the flight deck crew could ignore protocol and connect the pigtails while the aircraft were still queued on the aft deck. An electrical safety pin should still have prevented an accidental firing of a Zuni rocket. However, apparently unbeknownst to the officers serving on the WCB, these safety pins, which had colored streamers connected to them so that they could be easily identified by the flight deck crew, were sometimes blown off in high winds. This is apparently what had happened on July 29, 1967. When the pilot of a waiting F-4B Phantom switched his aircraft to internal power it caused an electrical surge, which then accidentally launched a rocket, which in turn hit a fully fueled A-4E Skyhawk on the other side of the deck. The resulting chain reaction of fires and exploding bombs killed and injured hundreds of young sailors and nearly sunk the ship. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/rocket-causes-deadly-fire-on-aircraft-carrier The point is the designers had good reasons for designing safety redundancy into the Zuni rocket launcher and procedures. The ignorant users, who thought they knew better than the designers, ended up causing a disaster. (And this is only one of many examples of this kind of thing.)john_a_designer_{May 22, 2017
May
05
May
22
22
2017
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

@LocalMinimum & john_a_designer It's unclear how pointing out you're equivocating is repeating myself. I'm referring to limits on resources available to the designer when actually designing and implementing that design, not limitations on the operation of the designed thing thing itself. These are two different things, are they not? Do you have any criticism of that? Again, a design that costs more to manufacture currently will cost sigicnatlly less in the future because we will have created new knowledge. For example, that's why we will be able to design organisms in the future and we cannot now. For example, 3D printing is just in its infancy. More advanced designers will have even more efficient, ways to manufacture things and those limitations will be greatly mitigated. What was expensive to build today will no longer be the case in the future. Not to menton that this supposed designer is abstract, so it has no customers, budgets, limits on resources, etc. Surely, if you think this is the case, then why not add those limitations to the theory? I won't be holding my breath. IOW, apparently, you think the designer is just like us except "better" in some vague way that cannot be quantified. And, it supposedly shares out motivations, etc. But none of that is explicitly spelled out in supposed scientific theory of ID. Hmm.. why might that be? As for the specific route serving a purpose, I did not say it could not. I said it was a reflection of being based on a useful rule of thumb, not explanatory knowledge which only people can create. Detecting cancer would be useful wherever the nerve was run, so it's unclear how it's any more beneficial having it there, rather than somewhere else.critical rationalist_{May 22, 2017
May
05
May
22
22
2017
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

@UB I don't have much time to respond. However, experience does not come with a label that tells you what that experience is. It is not a infalable source of kowlege. We guess what our experience tells us about reality (assuming you are a realist), then we set about to test those guesses. What you seem to be apealing to here is the idea that we experience ourselves using induction. But, again, That is not "out there" for us to experience. That we are using induction starts out as a guess. Furthermore, there are known problems with induction which are far older than I am. One of which is that the future is unlike the past in a vast number of ways and induction doesn't give us any guidance as to which our experience will continue. So, if you're using induction "correctly" and I'm just trying to "justify not addressing observable evidence", then what steps have you performed to determine which part of our experience will continue? Should you attempt to put your money where your mouth is you will find yourself with a missing step that you cannot fill in or you will retreat to describing something other than induction.critical rationalist_{May 22, 2017
May
05
May
22
22
2017
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

... is it just impossible for you to maintain a thought in your head that isn’t molested by your theories?
Very well stated. A sentence I wish I could have made.Origenes_{May 22, 2017
May
05
May
22
22
2017
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

"A dying materialistic narrative"... Dying it is indeed. Max Born pointed to this as early as in 1968 [paraphrase mine]:
The time of materialism has gone; the physico-chemical aspect is by no means sufficient to model life, let alone consciousness. "Physics in my generation".
EugeneS_{May 22, 2017
May
05
May
22
22
2017
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

re you simply hoping no one will noticed that is a loaded question?
Are you hoping that no one will notice that your preferred explanation is not physically possible, while that of ID is the only source known to be causally adequate to the physical evidence? Is it any wonder why you continue to refuse to address that evidence?
Since you have no response, attempt to paint it as molesting?
No response to "explanations have reach"? No response to "non-explanatory knowledge"? No response to your remaining suite of justifications for not addressing the observable evidence involved? My response is plainly evident; they are irrelevant to that evidence.
Since when do you limit your sources to what we’ve observed creating knowledge (demonstrated)?
The goal is to find that which is causally adequate to the physical evidence. To that end, it is appropriate to study the system and let that serve as a guide. Do you have a causally adequate source of semantic closure you'd like to propose and demonstrate? And to be equitable, would you like to now acknowledge that causally adequate sources are indeed valid propositions, subject to the quality of the evidence? In this instance, part of the evidence is its sole adequacy at the microscopic physical descriptions of the system and it universality in that regard.Upright BiPed_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

@UB
Good grief CR, is it just impossible for you to maintain a thought in your head that isn’t molested by your theories?
Are you simply hoping no one will noticed that is a loaded question? Since you have no response, attempt to paint it as molesting?
The source that ID infers is the only source that can actually be demonstrated as causally adequate to the task at hand. This is our universal experience.
Since when do you limit your sources to what we’ve observed creating knowledge (demonstrated)? If the only possible sources you’re willing to entertain are those we’ve observed, then you’re out of sources. Specifically, the only source that have been actually “demonstrated” to have created knowledge are human beings and they could not have designed themselves. You haven’t even demonstrated that there are other sources other than human beings. When should I expect you to get around to that? IOW, why isn’t this our universal experience as well? Because, as I’ve pointed out, induction is impossible. If I ask you to explain the specific steps in which you chose which particular aspect of our universal experience will continue, you will find with a step you cannot fill in. Or you’ll describe something other than induction. Furthermore, ID claims the source we have observed is so improbable that it had to be designed. So, it’s unclear how even a source like us, which we haven’t observed, is the most probable source for the biosphere. Wait.. you say some other kind of source? How can you calculate the probably of some other source we haven’t observed? Perhaps you could explain the steps for that as well?critical rationalist_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

CR @ 39: You have essentially repeated yourself. My response would be to repeat myself. Clearly, neither of us can change the mind of the other with respect to this particular point; and I believe any third party should have sufficient material to consider our variances on this point. john_a_designer @ 38: The response I wish I could have made. Thanks!LocalMinimum_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

CR: Darwinism is the theory that knowledge in organisms grows via variation and selection.
Please define the terms you are using. What is ‘knowledge’? Is it material? What is an 'organism'? Is it something over and beyond fermions and bosons? If so, in what way? If not, what is solving problems and why?Origenes_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Good grief CR, is it just impossible for you to maintain a thought in your head that isn't molested by your theories? The issue at hand is the physical system that enables information to be encoded in a transcribable memory. The source that ID infers is the only source that can actually be demonstrated as causally adequate to the task at hand. This is our universal experience. You, on the other hand, infer a source that actually requires the very system you are attempting to explain. This is the reality that you continue to avoid, preferring instead to post irrelevant and often weird bafflegab (#37) in its place.Upright BiPed_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

@localminimum Equivocation abounds in your response. To make this explicit I'll reword: Why wouldn't a designer who possesses the explantory knowledge of how to safely route a nerve in fish not also know how to safely reroute them in humans or giraffes? Did the designer who possessed the explantory knowledge of how to route nerves in fish on earth get transferred to design fish-like creatures in Alpha Centauri, leaving the designers of humans and giraffes with only useful rules of thumbs that limits them to making small tweaks without breaking everything? You'd think advanced designers would have advanced documentation procedures in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening, wouldn't you? As for limitations, I'm referring to IDs designer, not what it supposedly designed. From another comment elsewhere...
The problem with this is that ID’s designer is abstract. Reuse saves us time and money because we have limited time and resources. However, ID’s designer has no such limitations. As such it has no such motivation to reuse anything. Why should it bother? To follow your analogy, it could completely change the entire set of APIs for an OS, then update all applications that use it instantaneously, without any concern for time, money, resources, if they were deployed, had legacy data, etc. Are there installations with incompatible data in the field? No problem, it could migrate all of the data and update every install everywhere instantaneously, as the very same time. In fact, it could change the all of these things, on the fly, without needing to interrupt the user while they are actively using the application! The entire program could be reimplemented and deployed in completely different ways every second while the application is in use and translate data formats interactively! Car manufactures do not create entirely new vehicles every year because the engineering and testing resources required would drive the product cost too high for customers to pay. But this would be no problem for ID’s designer because it has no paying customers or limitations on what resources or time is possessed. It could design completely new vehicles every year, every month, day or even every second with completely new parts that share nothing with previous models. In fact, since it has no defined limitations it could instantaneously upgrade all cars on the fly, while people are driving them! Nor would it neeed to perform lengthy crash tests to know if a new design or modification is safe. IOW, human beings are good explanations for human designed things because we are concrete designers that have defined limitations. The intelligence you referrer to is applied to mitigate those limitations. However, IDs designer has none to mitigate. Furthermore, customers want new vehicles that are cheeper and updated more often. In the future, we will create completely unique vehicles for customers using advances in computers to design and test them cheaply and quickly, and advances in 3D printing technology to build them inexpensively, yet on demand. These new models will not need to share any parts at all. In fact, you’ll be able to design your own completely unique vehicle online and have it printed in your garage using totally custom printed parts. Better yet, in the distant future, this printing system will be able to use your existing vehicle as raw materials when building a new model. And we'll be able to use more powerful computers than we have to day to completely simulate an entire vehicle design as it's being designed, which means we won't need to worry about those lengthily safety tests either. So, even if the analogy you’re appealing to didn’t fail today, which it does, it simply will not hold in the future. Note: this is why I keep saying that ID proponents grossly underestimate the role that knowledge plays in design. In this case, this argument assumes we will not create new knowledge that will have a fundamental impact on their own argument, and a transformative impact on design, in the future. Apparently, ID proponents think designers in the future will resemble designers in the past. Just as the suppoosd unseen designer of the distant past would resemble designers in the present. But that simply doesn’t hold up.
critical rationalist_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

One of the very last projects that I worked on before my retirement was the redesign of an air intake system for a new auxiliary engine that was to be used on a street sweeper, which was an improved evolution of earlier design. As it turned out my “new” design required a circuitous “Rube Goldbergish” rerouting of the system. I could try to explain to you why I designed it the way I did but the explanation would become quite technical and involved. However, what looks complicated turned out to be the simplest and most cost effective way to redesign the system. Yes there were ways I could have ways designed the air intake system so that it was simpler but those designs would have required a major redesign of the whole machine which would have been much more costly. In other words, we traded off more cost and a less optimal design for the air intake system so we could save on the overall cost for the entire machine. So could there be good reasons recurrent laryngeal nerve? The following article argues that there are:
Thus far, we've seen that the arguments of intelligent design (ID) critics based that the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is an "imperfect design" fail for a variety of reasons. These include: (1) There is evidence that supposed fundamental evolutionary constraints which would prevent loss of the circuitous route of the RLN do not exist. This implies that there is some beneficial function for the circuitous route. (2) The path of the RLN allows it to give off filaments to the heart, to the mucous membranes and to the muscles of the trachea along the way to the larynx. (3) There is dual-innervation of the larynx from the SLN and RLN, and in fact the SLN innervates the larynx directly from the brain. The direct innervation of the larynx via the superior laryngeal SLN shows the laryngeal innervations in fact follows the very design demanded by ID critics like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins. Various medical conditions encountered when either the SLN or RLN are damaged point to special functions for each nerve, indicating that the RLN has a specific laryngeal function when everything is functioning properly. This segregation may be necessary to achieve this function, and the redundancy seems to preserve some level of functionality if one nerve gets damaged. This dual-innervation seems like rational design principle.
In other words, despite its name the RLN has more to with than just the larynx and, furthermore, the circuitous route it takes may be the result of redundancy designed into the system. Indeed, that’s the view of neurosurgeon Michael Egnor.
To add another reason, pro-ID professor of neurosurgery Michael Egnor has suggested that the RLN may have a medical function which gives the organism a warning that it is sick, and needs to heal from an internal infection or disease originating in the chest area. Dr. Egnor offered me some insightful comments about function of the design of the RLN pathway from his vantage as a doctor and professor of medicine: “There is actually a design advantage to the course of the recurrent nerves, if one wishes to pursue this line of argumentation. The course of the nerves brings them through the mediastinum, where the heart and lungs meet. There are many lymph nodes there, and enlargement of these lymph nodes from processes such as cancer or infection (e.g. tuberculosis) often irritates these nerves and causes hoarseness or coughing. The course of the nerves reveals disease in an otherwise hidden part of the body (deep in the chest) by interfering with a process (speech) that is readily evident. It serves as an early warning to get medical care (or, with infectious diseases, as a warning to others that this person is ill), and this early warning has saved many more lives than the redundant course of the nerves has cost lives. The risk/benefit ratio needs to be examined comprehensively before one claims that the course of the nerves is biologically disadvantageous.”
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1507 My point is that from a the perspective of a real life machine designer it is important to look at the overall optimization of the entire machine and not just focus on the apparent sub-optimization of one subsystem. In the same way, from a design perspective, there appear to be good reasons why the RLN was designed the way it was. (And what is referenced above are just a few of the reasons.) What it does prove that people who are married to the idea that some mindless evolutionary process is behind everything we see in the biosphere are unwilling to think the problem through honestly and objectively. In other words, they are motivated by an ideology not a scientific quest for the truth.john_a_designer_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

@UB,
As has already been pointed out to you CR: saying that an intelligence put it there explains the necessary and highly contingent organization which is fundamental to it being there.
Except, it’s not, as illustrated by the following hypothetical thought experiment. You’re at home and hear a noise in the garage. You go in to investigate and, to your surprise, your cars are in the driveway and a washing machine size box is sitting in the middle instead. As you approach it, a screen on the front lights up, displaying a timer counting down from 5 minutes and a cover flow-like horizontal scrolling interface with pictures of different species from our biosphere. The currently selected picture is a bear. When you put your finger near the “Start” button, an animation depicts a single cell dividing exponential speed, then the camera zooms out to reveal a bear cub. While they are cute when little, adult bears don’t exactly make great house pets, so you look for an off switch, but cannot find one. Nor can you just “unplug it” because it doesn’t seem to use external power. Since the timer is counting down, you quickly start scrolling to find other options, then remember you were planning to get a chocolate lab next week. You swipe up to reveal a tree interface, find canines, select a chocolate lab, then hit the start button. A grey “dust” comes out the box and form what appears to be a semi-transparent box on a opaque stand, which quickly fills with liquid. A screen forms on one side, which displays the number of days, hours and minutes remaining, along with depicting the formation of single cell in the wake of more grey dust. Having knowledge of biology, you realize it is a fertilized egg and the box is an artificial womb. A few minutes later, the clear box becomes opaque, the screen shows the cell divide and the timer starts counting down. Before it could employ what appears to be nano machines to build a single fertilized Labrador cell, the box must have contained the knowledge of what transformations of matter should be applied to result in that cell. And that box must have also possessed the knowledge of what transformations the individual cell should perform to make a copy of itself, as it would have to had put them there when it constructed the cell out of raw materials. Otherwise, where did that knowledge come from, right? In this thought experiment, while you selected what kind of organism and initiated the copying of that information into a cell, some organisms, as opposed to nothing, would have been always constructed, regardless if you hit “Start”. Even then, the knowledge of how to actually perform that copy was in the box, not in you. How are you, as an intelligent agent, an explantion for for the resulting lab puppy that will eventual emerge from the artificial womb? Now imagine two months have passed and you seem to recall that the gestation period for a dog is an average of 65 days. However the display shows 160 days remaining. Maybe the artificial womb takes longer, you think. So you decide to wait it out. When the timer reaches zero, the artificial womb recedes into the base, exposing a bear cub. What happened? Labradors are only formed when the requisite knowledge of what transformations of matter required to construct them out of raw materials are present there. And, apparently, there was some mistake in the data which resulted in the knowledge for how to construct a bear being swapped for how to construct a Labrador. Despite being an intelligent agent, did your belief that you had selected the knowledge to build a Labrador, rather than a bear, cause the box to build a Labrador instead? No, it did not. Nor did your intent, will or desire to have that outcome cause some other outcome than a bear? So, choice, belief and intent are also insufficient to explain the bear cub that emerged. The thing that needs to be explained is the knowledge contained in the box, which was simply transferred into the fertilized egg. You merely triggering the box doesn’t really add to the explanation for that knwoege, as even that was an unintended side effect. The box contains the knowledge of how to detect people.
This inference is supported by the universal experience of all observers — i.e. no contradictory observations have ever been made.
Again, induction is impossible, which is why I keep asking for an explanation. In addition to the criticism in #23….
Is it probability? But probably is only applicable when applied inside an existing theory that constrains the number of options to choose from. It’s unclear how you know what options there are for alternative theories, such as those we have yet to conceive of yet, those that you haven’t observed, etc. Furthermore, if you’re appealing to probably, how probable are other designers at the place time that this supposed act of intelligence occurred? We haven’t [experienced] any designers other than human beings and they couldn’t have designed themselves. If the only designers we know of are so improbable, how can some other designer be the probable cause of organisms? IOW, it’s unclear how you can calculate the probability that a designer did it. It’s simply not applicable in this case. Is it induction? But we’ve been over this before. Bertand Russell’s story of the chicken and the farmer not only shows that one cannot induce truth from past experience, but that it’s a myth that one can extrapolate observations to form new theories. For Russell’s chicken to reach a false prediction via induction, it must have first interpreted the farmer’s actions (being fed every day) using a false explanation, such as the farmer had benevolent feelings towards chickens. However, had the chicken first guessed a different explanation, such as the farmer was feeding the chicken so it would fetch a good price when slaughtered, then it would have extrapolated the farmer’s actions quite differently. As such, it’s unclear how one can extrapolate observations without first putting them into a explanatory framework. This is why I keep asking for an explanation, not merely an appeal to inductivism. Again, symbols in a language represent knowledge. What is the origin of that knowledge? Ruby on Rails is a framework for developing websites. But it’s not just a framework as it adds what appears to be new languages keywords to Ruby. It’s as if the Ruby language itself was extended just for developing websites. How was this accomplished? The developers of the framework took all their previous knowledge of past and current projects, along with the meta programming features of the Ruby programming language, and abstracted it into a domain specific language (DSL) for building server side web applications. When these new “keywords” are encountered by the Ruby interpreter, they are expanded and that knowable is applied. The key point being, if the developers did not possess that domain specific knowledge, they could not abstract it into a DSL. So, a language represents knowledge. And, in people, knowledge grows via conjecture and criticism.
In Ruby on Rails the domain specific language (DSL) expanding and executing a keyword can cause the interpreter to wait until an asynchronous task completes, such as a network request. That it should wait is part of the knowledge embodied in the DSL.critical rationalist_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

CR @ 32:
If it knew how safely route them in fish, then why doesn’t it know how to safely reroute them in human beings or giraffes?
I wasn't aware that the nerve was unsafe. I know many people who have led long and productive lives in spite of this dangerous condition. I suppose it's a matter of living each day to the fullest?
Any designer that had an explanatory theory about how to route nerves could have make a completely separate route for the larynx.

The nerve doesn’t need to be bundled with the vegus nerve. And given that there is another nerve that provides other larynx functionality but takes a direct route, it’s unclear why this would exhibit the problems you’re eluding too.
And so, once we change those, what else do we have to shuffle to accommodate those? You seem to lack any understanding of what is involved in modifying a highly integrated system. I've spoken to an Air Force guy who was talking about how a lot of the subsystems in the F-22 were inferior to civilian equivalents, because they could not follow up on advancements as they happen as that would involve reworking and reintegrating the whole system. I also have plenty of experience with programming that agrees with this. It also has shown that apparent easy improvements can be impossible for unforeseen circumstances that only become apparent when the rework is attempted. Also, you can assume that a better solution simply exists, but it's simply an assumption with no evidence and next to no reason.
Except, in ID theory, the designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, it doesn’t need to build a product that customers can afford, make compromises for cost, performance, reparablity, etc. Nor does it have to make a profit or have limited resources or time. Unless you want to add those limitations to the theory, those assumptions are simply not necessary.
Living organisms don't have constraints of resources or time in their self manufacture? They don't have to make compromises for cost, performance, wear and tear (because it has to operate for decades without any external maintenance)? Ugh. KF @ 28: True wisdom.LocalMinimum_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Furthermore, that knowledge is already present in cells. So, that is the proximate cause which needs to be explained. Saying some designer merely put it there doesn’t improve the problem.
As has already been pointed out to you CR: saying that an intelligence put it there explains the necessary and highly contingent organization which is fundamental to it being there. This inference is supported by the universal experience of all observers -- i.e. no contradictory observations have ever been made. When you argue that we must ignore this universal experience, you have conceded the point. When you insist that it is the result of "conjecture and criticism" (your idiosyncratic terms for evolution), you have not only conceded the point but have also failed to address the underlying physical reality, and thus, have provided no explanation at all. When you go on to repeat this claim yet again (as you've done here), you demonstrate that you will not respond to physical evidence, isolating your theory from criticism.Upright BiPed_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

@Eric Anderson
When we use the word “design”, we are talking about the word in its normal, dictionary sense. Which means it was designed by an intelligent agent using its faculties and ability to choose.
That's why I explicitly said the "appearance of design", not just "design", and gave a definition of what that was, in detail. Do you have any criticism of it? Is that one aspect we can agree on? However, as I've pointed out elsewhere, merely having the ability to make choices is insufficient, as the designer would need to possess the knowledge of what transformations of matter are required to result in organisms. Furthermore, that knowledge is already present in cells. So, that is the proximate cause which needs to be explained. Saying some designer merely put it there doesn't improve the problem.
vague references to “knowledge” somehow residing in organisms and increasing through evolution is not helpful. It is substantively no different from claiming that purely physical and material processes can produce high levels of complex specified information. So it would be most helpful to stick to understood terminology and not get off in the weeds with some strange theory about “knowledge” accumulating in organisms through evolution.
Atoms were once thought to be indivisible. That's what the world atmos literally means in Greek. Are we somehow bound to keep the idea that they are indivisible because that's what the word means? Is that really your argument? Furthermore, I have made a distinction by using the term non-explanatory knowledge to differenceate betwen explantory knowledge that only people can create. And I'm referring to a universal theory of konwelge that includes knowledge in brains, books and even genes. This represents progresss as a unification of how knowledge grows, in the same sense that as Newton presented a unification of the motions of apples and planets.
the claim that we can’t infer design in biology because we don’t know of any designers who can build such systems is becoming more and more tenuous. Anyone making such a claim needs to be intellectually honest enough to state up front that as soon as humans have the ability to use biomolecules for digital information storage or to construct functional molecular machines that they will withdraw their claim.
First, can you point out where I've said that? In fact, I'd repeadely said that the contents of theories do not come from observations, which is often appealed to by ID proponents. So, you seem to have confused a criticism of ID which take the form of pointing out excluding what you have not observed in once case, but not another, shows that induction is impossible and that ID is not merely an inference from observations. Second, I would again point out that our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge in humans falls under the same explanation. Namely some form of variation controlled by criticism. Any such human could only design organisms because they possess the necessary knowledge of what transformations of matter are required to build them from raw materials, not merely because they intend to or because any actions they take would be directed at that purpose. Furthermore, I'd suggest that in the distant future, we will be able to better design organisms that those found in nature. With the help of vastly more powerful computers than we have now, even children will be able to build a more moral and harmonious biosphere in a simulation or by proposing different laws of physics. At which time the design of our biosphere will become rather unremarkable. And this is not easily downplayed, as having designed our biosphere is something theists will no longer want to claim it as one of the achievements of their God, just as they no longer want to claim thunder. How well intelligent design theory will fare when this occurs? In additional, these same computers will allow us to design complete one off-products without reusing existing designs. We need to do so now because of our lack of knowledge, but this will inference will no longer hold in the future. Why would advanced designers that are more advanced than us be bound by the same limitations we won't have in the future?critical rationalist_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

If the recurrent laryngeal nerve is so poorly done, then why didn’t evolution fix the problem? Heck, evolution can create sonar, independently, in whales and bats, so it sure as heck could shorten a nerve, right?
Why not? Because that would required explanatory knowledge, which only people can create. Explanatory knowledge has reach beyond the problem space. New-Darwinism doesn't create explanatory knowledge. It creates useful rules of thumb with limited reach. That's why the nerve was not re-routed.critical rationalist_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

In humans, at least, the recurrent laryngeal nerve has stops all along the path it takes, which is the same path (if longer) in the giraffe. So, it doesn’t really go out of its way at all.
Any designer that had an explanatory theory about how to route nerves could have make a completely separate route for the larynx. Or it could have branched it much earlier. That's because an explanatory theory of how to route nerves has reach beyond the initial problem scope.
So, it would be “trivial” to change the path of the nerve? So we know that the embryology, a complex of interdependent recursive processes, can be modified to path the nerve along a shorter route that isn’t hazardous? We know that the longer path doesn’t simplify or accommodate parallel developmental structures and processes in a way superior to any other potential pathway?
Where did I say "we"? You're the one claiming some other designer designed organisms. And that implies said designer possessed the explanatory knowlege of how to route nerves. If it knew how safely route them in fish, then why doesn't it know how to safely reroute them in human beings or giraffes? Why doesn't that knowelge extend beyond the original problem scope?
We’re only looking at the length of the nerve, as if that’s the only variable in the equation? Would a shorter path, traveling closer through the center volume, interfere with other structures? In movement? Is the nerve not making use of the surrounding structure, perhaps even the Aorta, to achieve a path parallel with the musculature, perhaps to offer structural support, or remove shear stress? Does the nerve experience less stress/wear due to movement for being longer as its deflection per length is less, and it experiences compressive rather than tensile stresses?
The nerve doesn't need to be bundled with the vegus nerve. And given that there is another nerve that provides other larynx functionality but takes a direct route, it's unclear why this would exhibit the problems you're eluding too.
You’re eyeballing a machine beyond what any industry we know can produce, and saying you know no one actually built it, because you think you see ways to make it better without even knowing how it can be built in the first place?
Again, see above. Furthermore, I'm trying to take your theory seriously, in that a person was the designer. Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent someone from accomplishing it is knowing how. Since there is another laryngal nerve that takes a direct route, it's not prohibited by the laws of physics. And a designer would posses not just a useful rule of thumb but an explantory theory, which would extend beyond the problem space.
Here’s an easy experiment: Go into your car’s engine compartment, and identify all the wires that take the shortest possible path to their destination.
Except, in ID theory, the designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, it doesn't need to build a product that customers can afford, make compromises for cost, performance, reparablity, etc. Nor does it have to make a profit or have limited resources or time. Unless you want to add those limitations to the theory, those assumptions are simply not necessary. And good luck getting theistic D proponents to accept them as doing so would exclude their preferred supernatural designer.
Nit-pickety sub-optimality, without a well traveled optimality landscape, is an appeal to ignorance at best.
I'm not nickpicking. I'm trying to take your claim seriously for the purpose of criticism. You want to be taken seriously, right? Again, a designer more advanced that us would still be a person. And people create explanatory theories about how the world works, as opposed to just utilizing useful rules of thumb. Our relatively recent preference for explanatory theories is the explantion for our relatively recent rapid growth in knowledge. Yet, apparently, you think future designers would use non-explanatory knowledge to build organisms? How would that work exactly?critical rationalist_{May 21, 2017
May
05
May
21
21
2017
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist @23: Thank you for your detailed thoughts and comment. I appreciate your effort to find common ground and points of agreement. I'm sorry I can't reply more in detail right now, but just two quick things that jump to mind: 1. When we use the word "design", we are talking about the word in its normal, dictionary sense. Which means it was designed by an intelligent agent using its faculties and ability to choose. One of Michael Shermer's rhetorical ploys in debates was to catch his intelligent design opponent off guard by agreeing that biological systems are "designed", but then triumphantly exclaiming, "But they were designed by evolution." That is nothing but a word game. Let's be clear: arising by purely natural and material processes means not designed. 2. I know you have put forth the theory about "knowledge" arising through evolution before. It didn't make any sense to me previously, and you didn't explain it on the other thread when I asked you to. You're welcome to lay out what you mean in a comprehensible way so that we can actually critique it (and I might even promote to an OP for discussion), but vague references to "knowledge" somehow residing in organisms and increasing through evolution is not helpful. It is substantively no different from claiming that purely physical and material processes can produce high levels of complex specified information. So it would be most helpful to stick to understood terminology and not get off in the weeds with some strange theory about "knowledge" accumulating in organisms through evolution. ---- Sorry, one more: You are missing part of the point about how the design inference works. This is basic and straight forward. The inference to design comes before we start asking questions about how or by whom or when or why. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether we know if people were around at the time. Your position simply demonstrates that you are willing to accept the design inference in other fields, but not in biology. Perhaps because the latter is uncomfortable philosophically? On a related note, the claim that we can't infer design in biology because we don't know of any designers who can build such systems is becoming more and more tenuous. Anyone making such a claim needs to be intellectually honest enough to state up front that as soon as humans have the ability to use biomolecules for digital information storage or to construct functional molecular machines that they will withdraw their claim.Eric Anderson_{May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Seversky @20:
As I have written before, I do not deny that Christianity played a significant role in fostering science in Europe or that many of the world’s scientists have held – and been inspired by – strong religious beliefs. Quite clearly, it is possible to hold such beliefs and practice good science.
Agreed. Well said.
Problems can and do arise, however, where there is a perceived conflict between scientific theory and religious belief. The one that has, perhaps, most concerned contributors to this blog has been pressure from within the evangelical Christian community to either have the theory of evolution removed from the school science curriculum or to have Biblical creationism included as if it were a theory of equal standing within the scientific community. That movement has not succeeded formally but there is evidence that some high school science teachers do not mention evolution by name for fear of criticism by students and parents and some even openly teach creationism. That trend should be resisted.
I agree that this is a legitimate concern. I would certainly not be in favor of completely removing evolutionary theory from the science curriculum or of including Biblical creationism in the science curriculum. (Personally, I would like more about evolution taught: the underpinnings of the theory, the various definitions, the underlying and unspoken assumptions, the interesting debates and challenges in the scientific literature.) But I'm wondering if the general impression of concern is a bit skewed. There have probably been a small number of cases of efforts to completely remove evolution from the curriculum or to include Biblical creationism, but in the great majority of the cases I have seen (including the recent flap in Oklahoma), what we are instead dealing with is a strong Darwin-only lobby that actively misrepresents and mischaracterizes any rational attempt to objectively teach evolution as though it were an effort to remove evolution from the curriculum or to include Biblical creationism. For every teacher who is, as you say, afraid to mention evolution by name, there are more who are afraid to question evolution in the classroom. And the latter have much better reason for their concern, given the existing curriculum, recent history, and the legal threats from our friends at the ACLU, NCSE and others.Eric Anderson_{May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

Rvb8@12 biological design is rather less than intelligent https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/05/molecular-machines-reach-perfection/es58_{May 20, 2017
May
05
May
20
20
2017
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply