Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Do ID theorists have any predictions about finding life on other planets?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Reader Randy writes me to say,

Given the hooplah over ice being found on Mars, Titan and other places, I wonder if any of the ID guys have come out with predictions that we will not find ancient lifeforms trapped there? Expelled and other venues make much hay out of the odds for randomly chaining amino acids into enzymes and then proteins, and “The Privileged Planet” for the seemingly unique position Earth is in for having life. If those numbers are anything like accurate it would seem absolutely safe money to bet that the next planet over never managed hitting that jackpot. So is anyone using ID to make just that prediction?

One could easily postulate a designer who liked creating life on many planets and thus get around this if extinct life is found on one or both or many planets or moons, but then what is the point in making such a fuss about the odds, if the designer routinely flaunts them?

I offered to start a discussion on it at Uncommon Descent, but replied on my own account:

Strictly speaking, I don’t know that ID predicts that life cannot be found elsewhere than on Earth. For all we know, life actually got started on Mars and came to Earth.

ID would predict that random chaining of molecules will not produce life for the same reason that scattering Scrabble pieces will not produce a novel. In both cases, design is required to arrive at a specific target.

That said, a designer might very well produce life on different planets for the same reasons as a novelist might very well write different novels.

But we usually find that works by a given novelist in a specific genre have key similarities. William Faulkner’s novels are easily distinguishable from those of Ernest Hemingway.

So an ID theorist would probably expect to see that life on other planets shares many characteristics with life on Earth – that is, there will be a similarity of themes and styles (assuming there is only one intelligence involved, but most theists will assume that of course).

See also:

So what if fossil bacteria are found on Mars? Polls show many Americans expect Star Trek!

Water? On the moon? And what else?

Water inferred on Mars

The image of life on Mars is from NASA.

Other recent Colliding Universes posts:

How important did people think Earth was before Copernicus and Carl Sagan came along and set us straight?

Chance – you mean, it isn’t really a “thing”?

Life does not defeat chaos, but outwits it by wisdom (or information)

Comments
Avonwatches You obviously aren't cut out to be an evolutionist. The improbability of life being accidently transported from one planet to another is no obstacle to evolutionists. Nothing is too unlikely when it comes to fabricating stories to support accidental creation. Process structuralism you see discounts chance as the creative force behind life, the universe, and everything and replaces it with highly constraining natural laws. As law becomes more constrained and specific it tends to make people think there was a creator with a purpose behind those laws. Nothing is too absurd if it contests that horrible thought. The height of the absurd lengths they'll go to is seriously speculating about the existence of 10^500 different universes, all spawned by accident, all with different laws that govern how they operate, and we just happen to be in one where the laws were such that life was possible. Therefore I predict that, should DNA based life be found on Mars, contamination will be given precedence over structuralism as the best explanation. Normally they'd go for the standard contrivation - convergent evolution. If you rewound the tape on chance evolution, don't you know, it wouldn't come out the same way again. Except in cases where it does come out the same way again, then we call that convergent evolution. Chance, you see, explains everything. I'm beginning to think that "chance" is just the word atheists use for "God". Instead of saying "God did it" like religious folk they say "chance did it" and don't capitalize "chance" to hide the fact it's an object of worship for them. DaveScot
August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
True. Except I am unsure how bacteria/DNA/anything organic would surive intact, let alone fragments, when having to transit through the Earth's atmosphere (apparently the friction gets pretty hot), and impact, that sort of stuff. I don't understand how organisms/etc could transit from planet to plant (by accident), except with enormous difficulty. Tell me I'm wrong if I'm wrong though - I did believe humans came from apes prior to this year.Avonwatches
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
AvonWatches If life were found on Mars and it was based on the same genetic code as life on earth that wouldn't really bolster ID nor would it detract from it in my opinion. It would add weight to non-Darwinian theories of evolution such as process structuralism and similar theories where life is constrained to limited forms by physical law. The most likely explanation I think would be that Mars was contaminated with life that first appeared on the Earth. The notion that life is inevitable wherever conditions are marginally suitable has become quaint - good stuff for science fiction plots but not in the real world.DaveScot
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
That said there's certainly a lot of knowledge that ID proponents use that do weigh on the question. In the book "Life Itself" (1981) Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning discover of DNA) wrote:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
Nothing has changed since 1981 that diminishes Crick's statement. In fact, in light of knowledge gained since 1981, the difficulties in chemical evolution are far greater than Crick knew. Crick had a hard time believing that even the earth could have been the place where life began. For reasons that are tangentially related to ID I think Mars, the rest of our solar system, and anywhere else we'll ever be able to look are as sterile as Pasteur's flasks. This is a radical change in opinion for me as I used to take the Copernican Principle of Mediocrity as gospel. But an honest man must go where the evidence leads. SETI has found nothing but a sterile universe after 40 years of looking. 55 years after Miller-Urey managed to create three of 22 amino acids in vitro there's really no significant progress in experimental demonstration of chemical evolution. The Copernican Principle of Medicrity now appears to me to be wrong. Unlike many people I had no religious experience or conversion that changed my thinking in this regard. It's entirely due to what science has discovered (or failed to discover as the case may be).DaveScot
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
If life is found on Mars ID can tell us if it exhibits hallmarks of design. Until then ID doesn't weigh for or against the possibility. ID examines patterns to determine if they are the result of design vs. the result of law & chance. Until there's a pattern to examine there's nothing for ID to work with.DaveScot
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Eric, The question was about ID Theorists, not ID. And as I stated above (see comments 16 & 18) from "The Privileged Planet" we can get at least one prediction- that is the factors that allow for our existence will be present for another planet with intelligent life.Joseph
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
bFast- Until you or anyone else can start accounting for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimmps and humans via genetic differences, then you have nothing but speculation based on the assumption of UCD. Convergence explains similarities just as well as divergence- and that is within the UCD paradigm. Common mechanism could readily explain that. That is similar sequences of DNA are subject to similar mutations. We are not dealing with “similar” mutations here, we are dealing with identical mutations. There are only 4 nucleotide possibilities. And similar mutations would include identical mutations. If you compare the chimp and human genes side by side, there will be some differences, but there is a clear alignment. No one has done that yet. When a particular gene has say 300 nucleotide bases, and exactly one is hit with a particular change, the chance of that happening randomly is very small. Nonsense. We know there are mutational "hot spots". And what is the testable hypothesis for UCD? How about UCD via genetic accidents? It was also nice of you to avoid the rest of my post: ID does NOT say that random effects are not present. And ID does NOT say that disease causing mutations cannot occur. And your point mutations only support UCD if you have already assumed it. Until you can account for all the differences observed it is obvious yours is a position of speculation based on the assumption. It is untestable and unfalsifiable. Ya see bFast, as I posted in comment 42, sexual reproduction put an end to UCD. That is because half of each genome is discarded and there isn't any guarantee that any mutation- not matter how beneficial- will get passed on. IOW reality does a good job of refuting UCD.Joseph
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Sorry Joseph, I missed your earlier response.
Common mechanism could readily explain that. That is similar sequences of DNA are subject to similar mutations.
We are not dealing with "similar" mutations here, we are dealing with identical mutations. If you compare the chimp and human genes side by side, there will be some differences, but there is a clear alignment. Where point mutations are conserned the alignment is really easy to find. Where insertions and deletions occur, it gets a little more difficult. However, on many of these genes there are only point mutations. When a particular gene has say 300 nucleotide bases, and exactly one is hit with a particular change, the chance of that happening randomly is very small. However, you do have a testable hypothesis. If your hypothesis, that paraticular specific locations in the DNA are vulnerable to specific mutations, this should be testable. What happens when this unlikely hypothesis is tested and found wanting?
However why would natural selection keep 800 disease causing mutations over all the alleged generations?
First, all of these point mutations are in ressive genes. In resessive genes, a destructive point mutation has very little evolutionary pressure because it only shows in the phenotype when two individuals carrying the same mutation get together. Therefore, for the most part, these drift in the genome very like random drift. The genome is very poor at purging desctructive point mutations. Additionally, there are hundreds of disease-causing point mutations that exist in humans and not in chimps. There are hundreds that exist in chimps and not in humans. Of both of these varieties, the point mutation also exists in gorillas. The conclusion drawn is that the mutation existed prior to the CA of the gorilla and the human/chimp lineage, and that the mutation was purged from the human or chimp lines respectively. With reguards to these disease causing point mutations, they seem to me to do a good job of following the expectations of chance in the genome, and they do a good job of supporting common descent. Specifically, they do a good job of supporting common descent above common design.bFast
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
The OOL question. A problem for both natural and artificial (ID) abiogenesis btw. How does one assemble a living cell from scratch?
I take it that you have never designed anything in your entire life. I say that because anyone who has, has the understanding that they know what they are designing and what it takes to get it done.Joseph
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
bFast- please read comment 31- I answered your challenge in that post. To Tom MH- Amd in the ID scenario the tRNA knows what it is doing. That’s anthropomorphizing. No, that is telling it like it is. Unless you wish to maintain that tRNA posesses awareness? It does. It posesses the awareness that was programmed into it. The awareness to grab the proper amino acid, bring it to the right place and then let it go, all at a given time. What's your explanation? tRNA just does what it does... And how do cells get there from a cold start? By design. Duh...Joseph
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
DaveScot,
My point is that both DNA and the ribosome must agree on the assignment of codons to amino acids. Of course. That’s Information Theory 101.
Agreed, it was not a particularly profound insight. I was trying to get to the question of whether or not the codon-aa pairing of the genetic code was biochemically constrained, or optimal in some sense, or could it be arbitrarily assigned. If alien DNA used the same coding, that might reveal some clues, but it seems to me that the question could pursued in the absence of handy ETs to test.
The real chicken/egg problem is which came first, DNA or protein?
The OOL question. A problem for both natural and artificial (ID) abiogenesis btw. How does one assemble a living cell from scratch? Cells have no off state, or boot procedure. Everything is currently in place and doing its thing. How does one get there from a cold start? joseph,
Then I had Tom MH tell me that I am anthropomorphizing just because I told him how it is.
I was responding to this comment:
Amd in the ID scenario the tRNA knows what it is doing.
That's anthropomorphizing. Unless you wish to maintain that tRNA posesses awareness? Reference, please.Tom MH
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Joseph, back in post #29 I present a challenge to the common design hypothesis. You have skipped over this challenge. Please explain a common design interpretation of diseases caused by point mutations which are common between humans and chimps.bFast
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
BTW Garamond- The muscle difference is a perfect example of common design with modification. IOW common design is at least as scientific as common descent- same type of tests....Joseph
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Let's see- we have Garamond spouting off about competition and then he comes back and says that a physically inferior individual not only survived but thrived. The modern synthesis is a wonderful idea in which anything can happen. I will leave you to your untestable fantasy. Then I had Tom MH tell me that I am anthropomorphizing just because I told him how it is.Joseph
August 6, 2008
August
08
Aug
6
06
2008
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Garamond The simplest way to engineer perfect replication is to make sure that any deviation from perfection is lethal. That would require a perfectly replicating error checking mechanism. Therein lies the problem - the mechanism that does the error checking is itself subject to imperfect replication. If it gets corrupted then what? This is a constant problem in my line of business - information processing systems. While you can design in redundancy (an error checking mechanism that checks the error checking mechanism or guards to guard the guards) in various ways to acheive acceptable data integrity for any practical length of time, increasing entropy is in an inescapable law of nature and it will always prevail in the long run.DaveScot
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
TomMH My point is that both DNA and the ribosome must agree on the assignment of codons to amino acids. Of course. That's Information Theory 101. The transmitter and receiver must have a language of some sort in common. Just as we must agree on the meaning of words in order to communicate here so must the DNA transmitter have a language in common with the ribosome receiver. The real chicken/egg problem is which came first, DNA or protein? Alien DNA might be based on some different agreement. It would be interesting to see in what ways that might be possible. Yes, it would. But if I were forced to bet on it I'd bet that our solar system (save for the earth) and all that are ever within our practical reach are as sterile as Pasteur's flasks. The only way we're ever going to see a different genetic code is through intelligent design (human intelligent design to be precise). DaveScot
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Garamond The furrow quote is from an accomplished geneticist, dummy. I suggest you refrain from empty smartass retorts if you want to continue commenting here. DaveScot
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
The "furrow of its destiny"? I thought we were discussing biology. I'll leave you to your furrow. GaramondGaramond
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Garamond, The myosin differnce could be a design implementaion. My bet is the scientists first assumed common descent and then sought out data to help confirm this. What you need is to show how mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to the number of differences observed- like upright, bipedal walking. Ya see if experience and observation has told us anything it has told us that sexual reproduction puts an end to common descent on the scale you need:
Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.
(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)
Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang. Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times. It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.—geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti in “Why is a Fly Not a Horse?”
And loss of muscle fiber is supposed to be a good thing? You will believe anything...Joseph
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
joseph
The CODE has already determined which amino acid goes with which tRNA. The meaning of DNA is held in the DNA. the tRNA is just a helper molecule to allow that meaning to be expressed.
The instructions to assemble tRNA are in DNA, but those instructions cannot be expressed without tRNA. A chicken and egg dilemma. My point is that both DNA and the ribosome must agree on the assignment of codons to amino acids. Alien DNA might be based on some different agreement. It would be interesting to see in what ways that might be possible.
Amd in the ID scenario the tRNA knows what it is doing. It does exactly what it is programmed to do.
You're anthropomorphizing. And tRNA isn't perfect. (Nor is it a computer.)
Umm the virus gets inserted into the DNA. Then that alien DNA starts churning out junk and the next thing you know it dies because of all the excess junk it made.
Yes, one dead cell. But no copies of the virus, therefore no further infection of the host.Tom MH
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Joseph, Thanks for narrowing this down to a single question, specifically "Account for those physiological and anatomical differences." Here's an example of what's out there in the literature. Stedman, H. H. et al. "Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage." Nature v428, 2004, pp415+. From the abstract: "Here, we show that the gene encoding the predominant myosin heavy chain (MYH) expressed in these muscles was inactivated by a frameshifting mutation after the lineages leading to humans and chimpanzees diverged. Loss of this protein isoform is associated with marked size reductions in individual muscle fibres and entire masticatory muscles. . . .This represents the first proteonomic distinction between humans and chimpanzees that can be correlated with a traceable anatomic imprint in the fossil record." Does your local library carry Nature? It's just a 4-page article, but even if you have to pick it up by interlibrary loan I think it'd be worth it. Best, GaramondGaramond
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
The simplest way to engineer perfect replication is to make sure that any deviation from perfection is lethal. More nonsense. Deviation could be programmed in.Joseph
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
“First you have to show that the differences in DNA can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed.” And yet no court considers this information relevant in establishing relationships using DNA. Neither do I. Neither does Behe. There is a HUGE difference between establishing relationships between organisms of the SAME species and then extrapolating that into universal common descent. The FACT remains that neither you, Behe, nor anyone else on this planet can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed. “Who said these life forms would be competing for the same resources? There could be many resources available to each population.” Would the population have a positive growth rate? If so, how many generations would pass before competition began? Think “reproducing like rabbits”. Cooperation rules exitence on this planet. Think. “Then how does the MS explain all the error correction that goes on inside of cells?” MS not only offers an explanation as to the existence of error correct, it also explains how it ends up being so highly conserved and why it doesn’t end up continuing to improve. Nonsense. MS doesn't explain it. Biologists might but the MS had nothing to do with it. Alberts’ _The Molecular Biology of the Cell_ covers this in great detail, and it’s very readable. I splurged for the reference edition, but whatever you can find at the library will probably be fine. Is it testable? IOW can someone start with an imperfect replicator and then have error correction just appear? I doubt it. I appreciate your eagerness in wanting to take part in this discussion, but I think you’d be better served by reading up a bit on biology first. Been there, done that. And that is why I know that universal common descent via blind watchmaker-type processes is total nonsense. If there’s a specific point you’d like me to address, let me know, but this format isn’t particularly well suited to long replies for several questions. Account for those physiological and anatomical differences. Otherwise you don't have a clue about biology.Joseph
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Hi DaveScot, You're far too modest. The simplest way to engineer perfect replication is to make sure that any deviation from perfection is lethal. Whatever population exists would then be homogeneous. Implementing a chemical equivalent of an MD5 sum wouldn't be trivial, but that's the benefit of having an all-powerful designer. You're correct in that many biologists hold that life probably arose many times (and there's nothing in my understanding of abiogenesis research that says life doesn't continue to arise -- it just turns into somebody's lunch pretty quickly). The Tilman result concerns two contemporaneous lineages: given sufficient time, one will prove more efficient than the other and drive the other to extinction. Best GaramondGaramond
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Tom MH, I know what tRNA is. What needs to be shown is how blind watchmaker-type processes can account for it. I also know about the charges that occur that allow for the amino acid to latch onto the tRNA. Wet electricity- just another bit of evidence for ID. You said: The ‘meaning’ of DNA is held in tRNA, which determines which amino acid corresponds to which codon. The CODE has already determined which amino acid goes with which tRNA. The meaning of DNA is held in the DNA. the tRNA is just a helper molecule to allow that meaning to be expressed. Amd in the ID scenario the tRNA knows what it is doing. It does exactly what it is programmed to do. Alien DNA that uses different tRNA assignments would likewise code for nonsense if injected virus-like into a ‘Earthling’ cell. To use the much-belabored computer analogy, it would be like trying to run 8080-complied code on a 6502 processor. Right the system wouldn't function very well. I am sure an interupt or two would occur. Ever throw a monkey wrench into moving machinery? BTW if alien DNA used different tRNA assigments, aliens would be invulnerable to Earhling viruses. Umm the virus gets inserted into the DNA. Then that alien DNA starts churning out junk and the next thing you know it dies because of all the excess junk it made. IOW no one knows what would happen in your differing tRNA scenario.Joseph
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Joseph, "First you have to show that the differences in DNA can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed." And yet no court considers this information relevant in establishing relationships using DNA. Neither do I. Neither does Behe. "Who said these life forms would be competing for the same resources? There could be many resources available to each population." Would the population have a positive growth rate? If so, how many generations would pass before competition began? Think "reproducing like rabbits". "Then how does the MS explain all the error correction that goes on inside of cells?" MS not only offers an explanation as to the existence of error correct, it also explains how it ends up being so highly conserved and why it doesn't end up continuing to improve. Alberts' _The Molecular Biology of the Cell_ covers this in great detail, and it's very readable. I splurged for the reference edition, but whatever you can find at the library will probably be fine. I appreciate your eagerness in wanting to take part in this discussion, but I think you'd be better served by reading up a bit on biology first. If there's a specific point you'd like me to address, let me know, but this format isn't particularly well suited to long replies for several questions.Garamond
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Tom MH says: The ‘meaning’ of DNA is held in tRNA, which determines which amino acid corresponds to which codon. Reference please.
Plenty of web-based resources are available; try searching 'transfer RNA' in Wikipedia, or just google it. While searching, be sure to look up Francis Crick's 'Adapter Hypothesis'. To get a little closer to primary literature, try the RCSB Protein Data Bank: www.pdb.org/pdb/home/home.do
tRNA just “grabs” the corresponding amino acid. But how does a “dumb” molecule “know” how to do that?
It doesn't. Charging of tRNA with the appropriate amino acid payload is done by other factors. The important thing is that tRNA must be charged with the correct amino acids or else the DNA code will be translated into nonsense. Fortunately, tRNA and the governing synthetase's and other mediating enzymes are themselves coded in our DNA. [And my meagre knowledge runs out at this point, but I think it is true that all genomes don't carry the genes for all types of tRNA, but all tRNA translates the same codons to the same amino acids. I would be glad to know if this were true or not.] Alien DNA that uses different tRNA assignments would likewise code for nonsense if injected virus-like into a 'Earthling' cell. To use the much-belabored computer analogy, it would be like trying to run 8080-complied code on a 6502 processor. BTW if alien DNA used different tRNA assigments, aliens would be invulnerable to Earhling viruses. So much for 'War of the Worlds'.
Also we shouldn’t be asking too many questions about alleged alien life until we find it.
I thought 'what if' was the premise of this thread.Tom MH
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Garamond It predicts that life will be imperfect replicators in a resource-limited environment and that variations due to imperfect replication will ultimately lead to speciation (which predicts that all life we find on a given planet will have a common ancestor). As an engineer I can't imagine a perfect replicator of any significant complexity so that's a given just based on physics. Any closed system is ultimately resource limited so that's a given based on physics too. Your first two predictions thus hold true for designed objects as well as undesigned objects. ID neither requires nor excludes common ancestry and neither does neo-Darwinian theory. There are at least a few mainstream biologists who believe that life on earth originated several times so you won't find consensus among non-IDists on that prediction.DaveScot
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Or perhaps you can tell us how to test the simple premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor.”
Well, assume no written or oral records (perhaps you’re a foundling). I claim that we have a recent ancestor in common and offer a DNA test as proof — I’m going to claim that, if we are indeed related within n generations that the differences between our DNA will be bounded by some f(n). This can be extended to any other organism.
First you have to show that the differences in DNA can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed. IOW your DNA test is flawed.
This test is different from that of common design, as common design is not constrained by similar DNA (unless you want to start putting restrictions on what the designer is allowed to do, and I’ve not seen a good justification for that.)
First you don't know what common design is constrained by. As a designer I would not go around re-inventing every little detail when what is already available works fine. I would expect a universal genetic code with many similarities in a common design scenario. However I have never seen any justification for a genetic code arising via nature operating freely. “And what happens on a planet in which life started more than once and therefore has multiple common ancestors?”
See Tilman’s work on the R* rule: “Competition for a single resource in a stable environment results in exclusion of all forms other than the one having the lowest resource requirement for zero population growth.” It’s a really cool result. Start with _Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities_, Princeton UP, 1988.
Nice non-answer. Who said these life forms would be competing for the same resources? There could be many resources available to each population. “Also you seem to be implying that if we found a perfect replicator that would falsify the MS.”
The MS is how biologists understand life, and so it predicts that other life could also be explained by the MS.
The MS doesn't explain anything. And our "understanding" of life leaves much to be desired. For example we don't even know what makes an organism what it is. And we certainly don't know if any amount of mutations can account for the diversity of life on Earth.
Finding life that lies outside of this — life having perfect replication, for example — means than the MS is no longer universal, and thus would be reconsidered for terrestrial life as well.
Then how does the MS explain all the error correction that goes on inside of cells?
In fact, finding perfect replicators that used front-loading or some such would appear (to my inexpert eye) to be designed — it’s just not a stable evolutionary solution.
Unless acquired traits are found to be more relevant than inherited traits. BTW stasis is the rule of the fossil record. Also "perfect replicators" is a misnomer. The DNA could be designed to evolve. That is the differences from generation to generation are NOT mistakes and the DNA replicated as perfectly as it was programmed to. (and DNA is much more than a replicator- life is much more than a replicator)Joseph
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Or perhaps you can tell us how to test the simple premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. My bet is that the “test” you use will be very similar to the test for common design. bfast:
I’ll take you on on that one. There are about 800 known disease causing point mutations that are common between chimp and human (citation needed). These point mutations exist in the exact same place on the matching genes in the two species. Why would a designer repeat these destructive mutations when he redesigned for humanity?
Common mechanism could readily explain that. That is similar sequences of DNA are subject to similar mutations. ID does NOT say that random effects are not present. And ID does NOT say that disease causing mutations cannot occur. However why would natural selection keep 800 disease causing mutations over all the alleged generations?Joseph
August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply