Engineer says, the atom has a designer. Trolls disagree.

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 15, 2012

Design inference, Engineering, Intelligent Design, News}

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

In “Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet” ( Ann Arbor News, May 24, 2012), engineer Lakhi Goenka, grieving the death of his son, reflects,

Atoms are machines that enable the physical, electromagnetic (including light), nuclear, chemical, and biological (including life) functioning of the universe. Atoms are a complex assembly of interacting particles that enable the entire functioning of the universe. They are the machine that enables all other machines. It is virtually impossible to explain the structure, complexity, internal dynamics, and resulting functionality of the atom from chance events or through evolutionary mechanisms. The atom is a machine that provides multiple functions, and every machine is the product of intelligence. The atom must have a designer.

Trolls respond here. Usual nonsense.

See also The strongest argument against design

Comments

KF,
Even when you see synthesis of ribosomes, you cannot seem to make the connexion that this is a case of intelligent design, which points to the possibility of just such design of the cell, along with say the pattern of engineering of genes, the rise of nanotech and Venter’s startup of a living cell by manipulating components.
I agree there is a possibility it was designed but I don't think the case has been made yet.
Similarly, something is blocking your ability to see that say the DNA-RNA-Ribosome mechanism is an instance of coded, digital, algorithmic process involving FSCO/I.
I don't believe I denied that. I don't agree it required an agent to develop.
In short asserting a weird sort of vitalism does not allow you to properly avoid the question of the known source of FSCO/I.
I don't think I evoked any kind of vitalism. I think FSCO/I can arise via the evolutionary process i so I would consider it a known source as well.
As to the attempted turnabout on islands of function, that is actually inadvertently revealing. As we know from many many cases, functionally specific organisation and the need to get to correct configs is a common characteristic starting with writing sentences in English or codes in computers. The deleterious nature of the vast majority of mutations — and our fear of radioactivity — is a simple and revealing consequence.
I'm not attempting a turnaround, I'm merely restating the evolution inference that all existing life forms are on the same 'island' of functionality. Again, I agree with you regarding inanimate objects. And obviously some mutations are deadly to their life forms. But some are not. I'm not sure what radioactivity has to do with it: until fairly recently humans had no way of detecting it or linking it to its effects.
The fact that the actual fossil record is one of “sudden appearance,” stasis, and disappearance or continuity to the modern world, and so forth all point in the same way.
As only a small fraction of all the life forms that ever existed have left fossils it's going to have lots and lots of discontinuities. But absence of fossil is not evidence of absence of life forms. It's just a lack of fossils.
We can add how all OBSERVED variation is well within the body plan limit, with the note that the credible amount of fresh DNA info to get to a body plan is 100,000+ bits for first unicellular life and 10 -100+ mn bits for more complex body plans. Just 500 bits makes for a hopeless blind search on the gamut of the solar system, and 1,000, the observed cosmos. All of this has already been reviewed with you and has been insistently ignored or brushed aside without even a semblance of serious consideration of alternatives.
You seem to think when I disagree with you that I haven't heard. I know your argument, I just don't find it compelling. In this case because evolutionary theory explains why it's not necessary to do a blind search of a huge sample spaces for functional body forms. I don't know why you continue to push that point. No 'Darwinist' is saying the body plans suddenly arose from nothing.
And, you are setting a challenge you know has not been as yet met — ignoring the point of the evidence we do have in hand that points to the feasibility of intelligent design — while ignoring material components that are sufficient to warrant the conclusion.
I agree intelligent design is feasible. But you haven't proved the existence of a designer or offered any arguments regarding 'his' methods, motives or timing. ID, in its current state, lacks explanatory power and does not have multiple lines of supporting evidence.
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary [adequate] evidence”; and adequacy is to be judged based on what we have reasonable access to, in light of the significance of the issue that forces a decision on what evidence we do have. If we do not face a forced, momentous choice across live options then informed agnosticism and presentation of strengths and limitations of schools of thought is more than good enough. Which BTW is Joe’s point that you are plainly missing.
I'm happy to be agnostic about certain things. I've said as much about the OoL. But it seems to me ID is NOT being agnostic, it says natural processes are inadequate therefore design. At least some versions anyway.
We are by no means forced by evidence to hold to an evo mat view so there is no reason to allow it to censor science praxis and publication, or sci edu, or personal worldviews. Indeed, given the wider logical, epistemological and ethical — thus civilisational — challenges of materialism, a prudent and informed thinker would steeply discount its credibility.
I'm not trying to convert anyone or change their minds. I just thought some open and honest dialogue would be illuminative.
In further defence of that, you are asserting that a patently inadequate mechanism is able to do what you wish to dismiss a known adequate mechanism as doing: create FSCO/I.
I don't dismiss intelligence. I just haven't see proof one was around at the time. You're willing to assume there was one. I'm not. We'll just have to disagree on that point.
I must return to the national crisis that will tip one way or another in the next 48 hours.
Okay. Good luck!! I'll be away from home for about a week starting in a couple of days anyway and probably won't be able to contribute for a while.
As to the insinuation that I have been belligerent in the teeth of civility, that is patently over the top
If I insinuated that then I apologise.
At some point, I did take time to speak to snide and smearing remarks at Anti Evo, in a context that celebrates your foray here as in effect an exercise in laughing up your sleeve.
Nothing to do with me. I looked at the conversation when you linked to it but I do not participate on that blog.
I do appreciate the fact that you have not been overtly abusive, but that does not change the fact that there are identifiable and correctable flaws in your arguments, some of which have been highlighted. Do, please correct such.
Well, a lot of other people reason in a similar fashion to me so I kind of doubt I'll chance anytime soon.
I am not arguing to “prove” to you that the design view is right — scientific reasoning has been known to be inescapably provisional since the days of Newton — but that there is reasonable warrant for someone to hold such a view, and indeed it is superior to the Darwinist mechanisms on an inference to best current explanation in light of observational evidence basis.
I just think the evidence supports Darwinism but I'm not ruling out design as an explanation.Jerad_{June 25, 2012
June
06
Jun
25
25
2012
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
We know mutations happen. We know selection happens. We extend that into the past.
Mutations and selection are part of ID.
We know design happens but requires an agent. We don’t know there was an agent around hundreds of millions of years ago.
The DESIGN says there was an agency around. That is how it works.
But that’s not what ID is saying. ID is saying: natural processes are incapable, design is so we should go with design. ID asserts it’s the best inference.
AGAIN- natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins, which science says it had.
I’m sorry you chose not to answer my questions regarding evidence even though you claimed I had none.
I am still waiting for YOU to produce some positive evidence for your position. As it stands you don't even know how to test your position and can't even produce a testable hypothesis for it. And again your position can refute ID just by stepping up and supporting its claims. Strange that no one can do so...Joe_{June 25, 2012
June
06
Jun
25
25
2012
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

PS: On tone. I did not make up the names of the relevant fallacy, question-begging. As to the insinuation that I have been belligerent in the teeth of civility, that is patently over the top. Over several weeks others and I have tried to walk you through a range of evidence but in so doing, a pattern of errors in reasoning on your part has emerged. It is that which I have highlighted, using fairly standard terminology for fallacies, save that I have given my own descriptive term for what Greenleaf called "the error of the skeptic." At some point, I did take time to speak to snide and smearing remarks at Anti Evo, in a context that celebrates your foray here as in effect an exercise in laughing up your sleeve. I do appreciate the fact that you have not been overtly abusive, but that does not change the fact that there are identifiable and correctable flaws in your arguments, some of which have been highlighted. Do, please correct such. And, do notice, I am not arguing to "prove" to you that the design view is right -- scientific reasoning has been known to be inescapably provisional since the days of Newton -- but that there is reasonable warrant for someone to hold such a view, and indeed it is superior to the Darwinist mechanisms on an inference to best current explanation in light of observational evidence basis.kairosfocus_{June 25, 2012
June
06
Jun
25
25
2012
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Jerad: Pardon, but you are indeed tilting at strawmen. Even when you see synthesis of ribosomes, you cannot seem to make the connexion that this is a case of intelligent design, which points to the possibility of just such design of the cell, along with say the pattern of engineering of genes, the rise of nanotech and Venter's startup of a living cell by manipulating components. Similarly, something is blocking your ability to see that say the DNA-RNA-Ribosome mechanism is an instance of coded, digital, algorithmic process involving FSCO/I. That the cell happens to be alive does not change that, no more than it changes the applicability of organic chemistry. In that context, the wider mechanism of self replication is similarly algorithm-driven and uses digital codes. Indeed we are looking at a von Neumann self-replicator, full of FSCO/I. In short asserting a weird sort of vitalism does not allow you to properly avoid the question of the known source of FSCO/I. As to the attempted turnabout on islands of function, that is actually inadvertently revealing. As we know from many many cases, functionally specific organisation and the need to get to correct configs is a common characteristic starting with writing sentences in English or codes in computers. The deleterious nature of the vast majority of mutations -- and our fear of radioactivity -- is a simple and revealing consequence. The existence of deeply isolated protein fold domains in the space of AA sequences is a further indication. The fact that the actual fossil record is one of "sudden appearance," stasis, and disappearance or continuity to the modern world, and so forth all point in the same way. We can add how all OBSERVED variation is well within the body plan limit, with the note that the credible amount of fresh DNA info to get to a body plan is 100,000+ bits for first unicellular life and 10 -100+ mn bits for more complex body plans. Just 500 bits makes for a hopeless blind search on the gamut of the solar system, and 1,000, the observed cosmos. All of this has already been reviewed with you and has been insistently ignored or brushed aside without even a semblance of serious consideration of alternatives. In short, you are here recycling already cogently answered talking points. (Onlookers cf here on for a 101 level review.) In the case of Dawkins, as the just linked intro page of IOSE summarises, he played a bait and switch, with targetted, intelligently controlled hill-climbing being used to illustrate the power of blind incremental search. If that had been a stock promotion scheme, he would still be in gaol on a fraud charge. And, you are setting a challenge you know has not been as yet met -- ignoring the point of the evidence we do have in hand that points to the feasibility of intelligent design -- while ignoring material components that are sufficient to warrant the conclusion. Frankly, you now remind me of the objector of some years ago who in effect said in another online discussion that absent time travel or a video of the resurrection of Jesus, he was unwilling to accept any historical evidence. That is, you are being selectively hyperskeptical in defence of an a priori position. FYI: "extraordinary claims require ~~extraordinary~~ [adequate] evidence"; and adequacy is to be judged based on what we have reasonable access to, in light of the significance of the issue that forces a decision on what evidence we do have. If we do not face a forced, momentous choice across live options then informed agnosticism and presentation of strengths and limitations of schools of thought is more than good enough. Which BTW is Joe's point that you are plainly missing. We are by no means forced by evidence to hold to an evo mat view so there is no reason to allow it to censor science praxis and publication, or sci edu, or personal worldviews. Indeed, given the wider logical, epistemological and ethical -- thus civilisational -- challenges of materialism, a prudent and informed thinker would steeply discount its credibility. But, sadly, you seem content to argue in a wholly inadequate evo mat circle, replete with begged questions and selective hyperskepticism directed to anything that is not well within the Darwinist plantation's fences. In further defence of that, you are asserting that a patently inadequate mechanism is able to do what you wish to dismiss a known adequate mechanism as doing: create FSCO/I. All of this SHOULD open your eyes to stop and genuinely re-think. For some weeks now, it has not. But, at least, onlookers can see that if so intelligent and informed a defender of the Darwinist position has to use rhetorical resorts like that, the game is pretty much over. I must return to the national crisis that will tip one way or another in the next 48 hours. G'day KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2012
June
06
Jun
25
25
2012
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

Joe,
YOURS is the argument from ignorance. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
We know mutations happen. We know selection happens. We extend that into the past. We know design happens but requires an agent. We don't know there was an agent around hundreds of millions of years ago.
BTW I am OK with saying “we don’t know”- THAT is what we should be teaching the kids.
But that's not what ID is saying. ID is saying: natural processes are incapable, design is so we should go with design. ID asserts it's the best inference.
You haven’t shown any such thing. Not only that nature cannot be responsible for nature.
Doesn't sound like you're saying 'we don't know' at all. I'm sorry you chose not to answer my questions regarding evidence even though you claimed I had none. I am trying to have a dialogue so I can gain some insight. Nor did you chose to address any of the explanatory issues I brought up. Perhaps it's time for me to stop talking. KF,
Why do you insist on repeatedly setting up and knocking over strawmen, using the same talking points over and over despite cogent correction?
Am I? I'm trying to find different ways to get at the same point. I disagree with you so I'm not likely to be 'corrected'. You keep bringing up islands of functionality without reconsidering the notion for living replicators and common decent; not addressing what evolutionary theory is really saying. And, as I've said, no one is requiring you to respond. Least of all me. I appreciate that you do when you're busy but I'd completely understand if you didn't. Especially if you feel you've made your point multiple times.
To date — after years of asking — neither you nor others on your side of the fence can offer more that speculative hypotheses, gross extrapolations and dubious examples that do not stand scrutiny in attempted opposition.
Perhaps. What about all of the new data being published on a daily basis? in 2009 synthetic ribosomes were created. Joe asserts they were not fully functional but they certainly were a step in that direction. What about Lenski's ongoing research? What about the continuing examinations of the human clotting system? The bacterial flagella? Are you keeping up with the research? I could say that ID continues to refuse to add explanatory details to its implied assumption that there was an agent around hundreds of millions of years ago. I feel that I have laid all my cards on the table, will you do the same and address the when and how and why? What has ID added in the last decade? Aside from Dr Behe's last book what new arguments and support has ID gained in the last decade?
on abundant evidence FSCO/I generally comes in islands of functional configs amidst vast seas of non-functional ones.
Yup, it's true for inanimate objects. I completely agree there. No doubt. But not for living systems that came about by common descent.
Variation and selection may be plausible for varying in an island, but it has no power to explain the crucial issue, getting there to the island.
Common descent says all life forms are on the same island. Why do you think that's not possible? How do you KNOW existing life forms are on different islands of function? What is your proof? And I've always agreed that the OoL issue is far from being resolved. No question. Which is why I'm making no claims about it.
Similarly, it is on the face absurd to expect complex, functionally specific — and notice how you repeatedly duck that part — codes, symbol systems, algorithms and implementing machinery to originate by chance variation and reward of success. DNA, RNA, the ribosome and supportive molecular nanotech are just such a system.
I agree the DNA contains functionally specific codes. I just don't agree it had to arise by intelligent agents. Do what Dawkins did to show the power of cumulative selection: write a program that generates a simple body plan and then generates a new generation with variation. Arbitrarily select one or more of the offspring and se what they generate on the next step. Select again. Etc.
Please, pause and think again, laying aside some very big begged questions.
I really have thought about the issues you've brought up. Why would I be spending my time here discussing it with you if I didn't want to understand? I'm sorry I don't, in the end, agree with you. I didn't expect us to agree. I did think we could work towards greater understanding of each other's point of view. I don't know why you and others feel like you have to change my mind. I'm not being rude or belligerent. I'm not calling names or forcing my point of view on anyone. I am being honest and open about my opinion and questions. Even if we disagree we can work at greater understanding. I think that's a good thing surely.Jerad_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Jerad: Why do you insist on repeatedly setting up and knocking over strawmen, using the same talking points over and over despite cogent correction? I do not have time to spend on going round and round the merry go, so I will not. I simply point out that we have a known, routinely observed and analytically supported explanation of FSCO/I, design. To date -- after years of asking -- neither you nor others on your side of the fence can offer more that speculative hypotheses, gross extrapolations and dubious examples that do not stand scrutiny in attempted opposition. Indeed, the weird form of vitalism now being touted is itself a case in point: the replication and reproduction systems of life are riddled with FSCO/I. (And it is telling that somehow Paley's time-keeping, self replicating watch seldom if ever gets seriously discussed by those who object to his key point.) Your variation plus selection objection simply begs the question that I responded to in as much detail as the crisis on my plate allows: on abundant evidence FSCO/I generally comes in islands of functional configs amidst vast seas of non-functional ones. Variation and selection may be plausible for varying in an island, but it has no power to explain the crucial issue, getting there to the island. Varying cabbages do not begin to explain getting to flowering plants. Similarly, it is on the face absurd to expect complex, functionally specific -- and notice how you repeatedly duck that part -- codes, symbol systems, algorithms and implementing machinery to originate by chance variation and reward of success. DNA, RNA, the ribosome and supportive molecular nanotech are just such a system. But, to one locked into the evo mat circle of begged questions exemplified by Lewontin et al, the eye of materialist faith is obviously all the evidence required to lock out the only empirically warranted explanation of FSCO/I. And in the end, that is the impression, sadly, that you are leaving. Please, pause and think again, laying aside some very big begged questions. G'night KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Jerad:
But your argument is: it’s too complicated therefore it’s designed.
Nope. Complicared stuff arises without agency involvement.
An argument from ignorance.
YOURS is the argument from ignorance. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. BTW I am OK with saying "we don't know"- THAT is what we should be teaching the kids.
Well, I think I have shown that nature and time are all that is required.
You haven't shown any such thing. Not only that nature cannot be responsible for nature.Joe_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Joe,
Only when we figure out how to program them.
Well, I suspect we'll have an answer in our lifetimes. Exciting time to be alive eh?
Mother nature and father time existed too. And in some cases we know humans existed because of artifacts. And just because humans existed doesn’t mean they could do it.
Of course. But without evidence of another intelligent and capable life form around at the time . .. And we don't want to fall into the von Daniken mind set either: ancient humans were too stupid to do something.
But no one then says “mother nature didit”. Even if they don’t have a suspect they can still dtermine someone was required to produce the effect observed.
Of course. My point was that design inference is valid when there's a know being available with the capacity to create the design. You can't just infer one out of thin air. Contraflow!!
Please explain what you mean by “independent evidence”. The design is usually evidence enough for most people. And again YOU could just step up and demonstrate that mother nature and father time are all that are required, but you don’t, why not?
Well, I think I have shown that nature and time are all that is required. But you don't. So, what would you consider evidence? Eyewitness testimony? The processes we're discussing take hundreds, thousands, millions of years. And even then you'd ask me: how do I know the mutations were random? You tell me what you would accept as evidence.
Umm, as I have been telling you, the design inference extends beyond biology, which means life-forms are NOT the only evidence.
Okay but how do you know the universe is even tuneable? How do you know there could be any other values to the fundamental constant?. It's all very well and good saying they must have been proscribed but that's like saying I won the lottery it must have been mandated. Perhaps the fundamental constants are all derived from some other value? And the fact that the moon almost exactly covers the sun during an eclipse (which it didn't quite on the last one) is kind of lame don't you think?
If that is true then tell us how to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via those observable, natural, undirected processes. Problem is you can’t even do that- what is the hypothesis?
One procedure is obvious: you take bacteria without the flagellum, isolate them and see what happens. Another obvious way is to show, as requested, a step-by-step mutational path. Which I suspect people are working on. But your argument is: it's too complicated therefore it's designed. An argument from ignorance. Not only are you assuming the only alternative is design but you are throwing up your hands just because we don't know exactly how it happened. Why not just say: we don't know but we're going to try and find out. Why jump to design? And what about other options? Maybe it's a time traveller? Could be. Maybe we're all inside a giant computer simulation. That could be too.
Rejected by people who can’t even support their position.
Your rejection of their arguments does not make them invalid.
BTW I gave you plausible mechanisms- design is a mechanism, agency involvement is a mechanism, targeted search is a mechanism, “built-in responses to environmental cues” is another.
Design and agency are fine mechanisms if there is an agent. You haven't proven there is one. Targeted search requires an agent as well. Built in response is more interesting. DNA exhibits some of that. Now you need to show there is another repository. You've got a hypothesis now try and make it stick. KF,
we do routinely see FSCO/I being created, especially digitally coded algorithmic systems. EVERY time, the source is intelligent, and we have good needle in haystack grounds for why.
Yup, we do see it created. Mostly inanimate things. And we have agents we can see who are responsible for it. You want to infer design when you don't know if there was an agent around at the time. You're going to have to get more evidence to prove your case. Something outside of DNA.
There is no evidence of noise and accidental alignments writing complex software or creating complex functional entities.
But it's not just noise: it's random variation AND selection!! Cumulative selection is powerful. You say there is no evidence but you're not very specific in your alternative. It lacks explanatory power. Design can be sub-optimal but why would they be? Why would there be lots and lots and lots of lost life forms and body plans? What was the designer doing? Why waste all that time and flesh? Evolution answers those questions; ID needs to address them or it explains nothing. It needs to establish reasons.Jerad_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Jerad: I must shake my head and conclude, there's none so blind. we do routinely see FSCO/I being created, especially digitally coded algorithmic systems. EVERY time, the source is intelligent, and we have good needle in haystack grounds for why. What minor adaptations we see in living forms do not come up to the body plan threshold, and are best explained as minor variations within existing FSCO/I based body plans. There is no evidence of noise and accidental alignments writing complex software or creating complex functional entities. G'day KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
Are you saying they will never be able to synthesise fully functional ribosomes?
Only when we figure out how to program them.
They infer to a known cause proven to exist at the time and place in question: human beings.
Mother nature and father time existed too. And in some cases we know humans existed because of artifacts. And just because humans existed doesn't mean they could do it.
If the forensics point to some crucial process happening at a time or in a place when the suspect was provably not present then the defence case is stronger or proven.
But no one then says "mother nature didit". Even if they don't have a suspect they can still dtermine someone was required to produce the effect observed.
I get that but you are assuming a cause, a designer, for which you have no independent physical evidence.
Please explain what you mean by "independent evidence". The design is usually evidence enough for most people. And again YOU could just step up and demonstrate that mother nature and father time are all that are required, but you don't, why not?
Here’s a question: if there was a designer around way back when then why is the only ‘evidence’ life forms?
Umm, as I have been telling you, the design inference extends beyond biology, which means life-forms are NOT the only evidence. Please read "The Privileged Planet"- it also responds to your anthropic claim. Then there are the writings of Walter Bradley, who also makes the case for design outside of biology.
I give an example and you say I can’t prove the mutations were random.
What example?
We’ve got a model which is not contradicted by the data, has great explanatory power and does not assume anything except observable, natural, undirected processes.
If that is true then tell us how to test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via those observable, natural, undirected processes. Problem is you can't even do that- what is the hypothesis?
Which is why the ID inference is generally rejected.
Rejected by people who can't even support their position. BTW I gave you plausible mechanisms- design is a mechanism, agency involvement is a mechanism, targeted search is a mechanism, "built-in responses to environmental cues" is another. And by sticking with what you got, you have a mechanism that is observed to break stuff, not make stuff.Joe_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Joe,
Church’s team had just a small part of the ribosome being synthetic- and it didn’t function properly- it just cranked out ONE functional protein.
Okay, fair point. But not exactly non-functional. Are you saying they will never be able to synthesise fully functional ribosomes?
And I guess archaeology and forensics also boil down to “we can’t figure out how this came about so it must have been designed”.
Hardly. They infer to a known cause proven to exist at the time and place in question: human beings. In fact, that's part of the point isn't it? If the forensics point to some crucial process happening at a time or in a place when the suspect was provably not present then the defence case is stronger or proven.
Again the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
I get that but you are assuming a cause, a designer, for which you have no independent physical evidence. You can keep saying you're making an inference to known causes but not specific enough causes. Here's a question: if there was a designer around way back when then why is the only 'evidence' life forms? Most of which are no longer with us? Why haven't we found the contraflow you point to? Where are the workshops, machines, labs, etc? Or, if the designer wished us to know of 'his' presence, why are there massive physical indicators saying, clearly, I WAS HERE.
And if there is ever any evidence that random mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to that we say is designed then you will have something.
We've been here before. I give an example and you say I can't prove the mutations were random. BUT you, as of yet, have no evidence or even plausible hypothesis of where your extra programming exists or how it got into the system. Yet you decide to throw out another model (well, you keep saying ID is not anti-evolution but you also say there is no evidence for evolution so I'm not sure what you are saying really), the evolutionary model, because you don't accept that the mutations are random. Can you prove they aren't random? If not then aren't you making a gross assumption?
But today you do not have anything but the refusal to accept the design inference and a pocket full of promissory notes.
We've got a model which is not contradicted by the data, has great explanatory power and does not assume anything except observable, natural, undirected processes.
Unfortunately the science of today cannot wait for what the future may or may not uncover.
I agree. Which is why the ID inference is generally rejected. And why I shall withhold judgement on your extra programming notion. When you've got a plausible mechanism and some evidence then I suggest you shout it from the highest tower. But I'll stick with what I've got 'til then.Jerad_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Using the bacteria E. coli, Church and Research Fellow Michael Jewett extracted the bacteria’s natural ribosomes, broke them down into their constituent parts, removed the key ribosomal RNA and then synthesized the ribosomal RNA anew from molecules.
Got that- just part of the ribosome was synthetic...Joe_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Jerad- Church's team had just a small part of the ribosome being synthetic- and it didn't function properly- it just cranked out ONE functional protein. Their efforst are paying off- for Intelligent Design. And I guess archaeology and forensics also boil down to "we can’t figure out how this came about so it must have been designed". Again the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And if there is ever any evidence that random mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to that we say is designed then you will have something. But today you do not have anything but the refusal to accept the design inference and a pocket full of promissory notes. Unfortunately the science of today cannot wait for what the future may or may not uncover. And the design supports the view that a designer existed.Joe_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Joe,
Synthetic ribosomes do not function. If ribosomes were reducible to matter and energy then synthetic ribosomes should function as biological ribosomes function.
Are your sure? I've seen you say this before yet
Church’s team built a functional ribosome from scratch, molecule by molecule. Ribosomes are molecular machines that read strands of RNA and translate the genetic code into proteins. They are exquisitely complex, and previous attempts to reconstitute a ribosome from its constituent parts – dozens of proteins along with several molecules of RNA – yielded poorly functional ribosomes, and even then succeeded only when researchers resorted to “strange conditions” that did not recapitulate the environment of a living cell, Church said [Nature blog]. Next, the researchers want to produce man-made ribosomes that can replicate themselves.
This from 2009. Sounds like even then they were making progress. I'd hate to bet that their efforts will never pay off.
Then there is ATP synthase- another structure your position cannot account for beyond saying “Lookie there!”
I'm not saying all the bits have been worked out. Maybe I have 'faith' that they will be figured out. But aren't you just as guilty of not having evidence of a being around at the time with the capabilities you assert? You are making an assumption that something/being existed when there is no physical evidence to support that view.
As I keep telling you, if your position had some positive evidence then ID would fade away. So it is very telling that ID is here and going stronger.
I guess we'll just have to disagree then. Reasonable people do that sometimes. I'm not convinced ID is getting stronger. Aside from lots of supporters continuing to point at complicated cell mechanics and chemistry and saying: we can't figure out how this came about so it must have been designed. Is it scientific to throw in the towel and assume the negative: that it couldn't have happened via strictly natural and unguided processes?Jerad_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

KF,
I suggest you take a look at Newton’s rules for reasoning in science, especially the uniformity principle. It is quite clear that the issue is not evidence but the logic of empirically based inference to best current explanation.
Well, I'd say that based on what processes we observe in operation today (no designer) the best inference is evolutionary theory. You always want to invoke a 'being' which you have no evidence exists now or way back when. I just don't buy that. And it's hardly uniform with actual, observed processes we see in operation today. I don't see how you can just 'create' a designer by inference.
First, many designs are sub-optimal, period — e,g. MS Windows and MS Office or the usual case of an emerging new technology, cf why we are stuck with QWERTY keyboards.
If you agree that some of my examples are sub-optimal then you have to explain why the designer created them that way. Was 'he' experimenting? Learning what worked and what didn't? Changing his mind? Just playing? That's part of a theory having explanatory power. You dodge the issue. Why are things designed the way they are?
Second, our criteria of evaluating optimality may manifest sub-optimisation, i.e. we may be missing other relevant purposes and factors — the tradeoff and the requisites of robustness problems, where that which is optimal can be brittle against environmental shifts or needs of adaptability.
Fair point. But do you think that humans not being able to synthesise vitamin C fits that category? Lots of other mammals can so why not us? Again, a theory must have explanatory power.
Third, you are posing talking points on cases that have been seriously discussed elsewhere in ways that show that there is more than one side to the story, in a context where I have a national crisis to deal with and simply cannot spare time to deal with all the rabbit-trails and side tracks.
I know you're busy and you are certainly not obligated to reply. Certainly not in the middle of a crisis. Please feel free to deal with your stuff. I won't think the less of you I promise. Life goes on!!
Similarly there is NO, repeat, NO, bio-geographic or fossil evidence that shows origin of BODY PLANS by Darwinian mechanisms, starting with Darwin’s own struggles with fossils in general and the Cambrian revolution in particular.
None at all. Are you sure? How can you see the origins of body plans? If they come from incremental changes to existing plans? You're never going to get a fossil from every species that ever existed. Like forensics evidence in a court case evolutionary theory has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt with multiple lines of evidence and extrapolation from observed and exiting processes. And it has great explanatory power.
Your reported satisfaction with the evidence is patently not based on the actual balance of such evidence — cf. here for a first correction — but on a one-sided review of the alternatives presented as if it were essentially unquestionable fact.
Well that's your opinion. We look at the same data and weigh it differently. But I'd be interested where you think the physical evidence contradicts evolutionary theory. What in the fossil record, the genetic data, the geographic distribution of species or comparative morphology contradicts the modern evolutionary synthesis?
Perhaps, you should reflect on the point that the true champion of bio-geographic data, Wallace, was a champion of intelligent evolution from 1869 on.
Wallace didn't have all the data we have today so who knows what he would think if he were still alive. Anyway, scientific models have to be updated and modified as new evidence comes in. And scientists get things wrong sometimes. It happens. Doesn't mean you throw out everything they had to say or the theory.Jerad_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Jerad- Synthetic ribosomes do not function. If ribosomes were reducible to matter and energy then synthetic ribosomes should function as biological ribosomes function. That says ribosomes are IC because they are NOR reducible to matter and energy. Then there is ATP synthase- another structure your position cannot account for beyond saying "Lookie there!" As I keep telling you, if your position had some positive evidence then ID would fade away. So it is very telling that ID is here and going stronger.Joe_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

PS: I see too that you want to suggest cases of allegedly bad design in your estimation as evidence of no design. This fails triply. First, many designs are sub-optimal, period -- e,g. MS Windows and MS Office or the usual case of an emerging new technology, cf why we are stuck with QWERTY keyboards. Second, our criteria of evaluating optimality may manifest sub-optimisation, i.e. we may be missing other relevant purposes and factors -- the tradeoff and the requisites of robustness problems, where that which is optimal can be brittle against environmental shifts or needs of adaptability. Third, you are posing talking points on cases that have been seriously discussed elsewhere in ways that show that there is more than one side to the story, in a context where I have a national crisis to deal with and simply cannot spare time to deal with all the rabbit-trails and side tracks. Similarly there is NO, repeat, NO, bio-geographic or fossil evidence that shows origin of BODY PLANS by Darwinian mechanisms, starting with Darwin's own struggles with fossils in general and the Cambrian revolution in particular. Your reported satisfaction with the evidence is patently not based on the actual balance of such evidence -- cf. here for a first correction -- but on a one-sided review of the alternatives presented as if it were essentially unquestionable fact. Perhaps, you should reflect on the point that the true champion of bio-geographic data, Wallace, was a champion of intelligent evolution from 1869 on.kairosfocus_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Jerad: Kindly think about the inconsistency in warrant you have just given. The living cells embed subsystems that manifest FSCO/I and so are cases in point. This -- and BTW PALEY pointed to this in Ch II of his book where he discusses what would reasonably be inferred on seeing a self-replicating time-keeping watch (there has been a massive strawman distortion all along) -- includes the components of cellular self replication and the embryological origin of complex body plans. Further to this, such FSCO/I generally shows the island of function pattern already discussed with you over and over with onward links. The empirically well warranted inference is that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design. And so there is good reason for drawing the conclusion that systems with such characteristics are designed. In the case of the cell this includes algorithms, coded strings to effect such and associated execution machinery. That points to language predating cell-based life, and to purpose and design by knowledgeable and skillful designers. (We are probably within 100 years of that stage, given Venter et al.) I suggest you take a look at Newton's rules for reasoning in science, especially the uniformity principle. It is quite clear that the issue is not evidence but the logic of empirically based inference to best current explanation. G'day KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2012
June
06
Jun
24
24
2012
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

KF, Sorry, we were replying to the list at the same time and I didn't notice immediately that you had added to the conversation. I do apologise, I am not refusing to answer nor am I shunning you.
The mere fact that living forms exhibit FSCO/I is precisely a reason to see a significant point of comparison to other systems that exhibit same. In particular the protein synthesis mechanism is a digital information controlled, algorithmic process of fabrication. It also happens to be pivotal to the self repairing, self replicating powers of the living cell.
I don't see why living systems should be held to the same standards as non-living ones in this matter. I agree with the fact that the system is digital and significant, obviously so on both counts.
We therefore have every empirically warranted epistemic right to infer that such FSCO/I is a reliable sign of such design. And, by now you know just why that is so.
I cut out some of your statements but interested readers can scroll back to find out what they are. Again, I agree with you for non-living systems. I don't believe you can just assert that living systems, of necessity, have to have the same cause. And I think the physical evidence (the fossil record, the genetic data, comparative morphology and the biogeographic distribution) uphold this.
Now, back on track, please show us how organised living systems — per empirical cases as observed — do not fit this general pattern of well-matched, properly placed and connected parts to make a functioning whole. Every evidence I can see suggests to me that living systems exemplify just that, starting with the hip’s ball and socket joint on down.
Why do you/did you have wisdom teeth? Why does the laryngal nerve go through such a detour? Why could your prostate 'explode' and kill you? Why can't humans synthesise vitamin C like many mammals can? Why do whales have vestigial hind legs? Why do men have nipples? Why can't some human digest lactose? Why do up to one third of conceptions naturally abort? Why are human beset with fallen arches, arthritis, cancer, bad backs, etc? Why are our reproductive organs and our elimination organs so close together? Why do we breath out of the same orifice as we drink and eat allowing for choking? There's lots of examples of ways lifeforms could be easily 'improved'. And just saying 'we don't know the intentions of the designer' is not explaining why things are the way they are. AND the evolutionary process does explain why all those things are the way they are. So, I still conclude that evolutionary theory is a better explanation of the how, when and why of life forms. And, as far as I can discern, ID explains none of them. Or chooses not to.Jerad_{June 23, 2012
June
06
Jun
23
23
2012
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Joe,
Pretty much the same way archaeologists and forensic scientists do- it is not the same for every thing.
Well, can we pick an example? Like DNA? Or the human immune system?
“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
Is that not just the anthropic principle? I.E. if the conditions weren't right we wouldn't be here to notice?
“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
The moon is receding from the earth and will not perfectly cover the sun at some point. Why isn't this just lucky coincidence? And how is this a gift from the creator showing the cosmos is designed for us?
“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
So? This is evidence the universe was designed just for us? Because we can see almost perfect eclipses? I've heard all the arguments before. But none of what you're saying specifies when the designer acted and therefore is not very explanatory. Let alone the how and why. Which I will leave.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
Do you have proof of that? What are your examples of irreducible complexity? Like Darwin, I think something that truly is irreducibly complex would scuttle the theory of evolution absolutely.
IOW just as archaeologists claim that artifacts require an artist and just as forensic scientists claim a murder requires a murderer, ID claims that CSI requires a designer.
Absolutely. But archaeology and forensics have a known agent to infer to. One with known capabilities and known to exist at the pertinent time. What agent are you inferring and at what time? I think the form of the argument is very sound IF you have a known agent and a specified time. We'll leave out motive for now. I also agree that science asks: How did it come to be this way? And I think it asks WHEN and WHY. What are ID's answer for any of those, more specific than just: the designer did it? There's nothing wrong with ID as a scientific hypothesis. It could be true. But the hypothesis has no explanatory power because it can't (or won't) address the how, specifically, or when or why. You can keep saying that more research needs to be done but no one can say, specifically, what research needs to be done so that particular answers can be given. A lot of work needs to be done until ID will be accepted as a plausible scientific hypothesis let alone a theory. It might get there. But I don't think it's there yet. And I don't see how you can test it in the lab 'til you have more particular guesses to check. As you say, checking cause and effect relationships is good. Which ones? What relationship are you proposing? You need to be more specific.Jerad_{June 23, 2012
June
06
Jun
23
23
2012
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

PS: And BTW, the cited examples were to show cases of the commonly observed, general pattern of how complex functionally organised systems exemplify what has been described as islands of function. In reply you tried to appeal to vitalism of an odd sort. That is why I have corrected that side-track objection. Now, back on track, please show us how organised living systems -- per empirical cases as observed -- do not fit this general pattern of well-matched, properly placed and connected parts to make a functioning whole. Every evidence I can see suggests to me that living systems exemplify just that, starting with the hip's ball and socket joint on down. [Today, someone was describing how he was "air ambulanced" out to St Croix, where doctors re-synchronised his heart, so it beat in proper order, saving his life.)kairosfocus_{June 23, 2012
June
06
Jun
23
23
2012
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

J: I am still busy elsewhere. The mere fact that living forms exhibit FSCO/I is precisely a reason to see a significant point of comparison to other systems that exhibit same. In particular the protein synthesis mechanism is a digital information controlled, algorithmic process of fabrication. It also happens to be pivotal to the self repairing, self replicating powers of the living cell. That the cell is living has not turned off the significance of the patterns of how algorithmic digital info systems work or come about, any more than theyturn off the significance of how atoms interact chemically, and how molecules come about as a result. The cel is USING these properties, materials and forces of nature, and it is adding a new dimension, one that in our uniform observation reliably traces to design. We therefore have every empirically warranted epistemic right to infer that such FSCO/I is a reliable sign of such design. And, by now you know just why that is so. Good day. KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2012
June
06
Jun
23
23
2012
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Jerad:
How would you test the cause and effect relationships for the design inference?
Pretty much the same way archaeologists and forensic scientists do- it is not the same for every thing.
What other evidence have you found or hope to find??
All the evidence presented in "The Privileged Planet"- for example: “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.” “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.” “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.” ID claims that the universe and living organisms are designed: What is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.-- William A. Dembski
Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
IOW ID claims that Complex Specied Information, not Shannon's "mere complexity", is an indicator of agency involvement. IOW just as archaeologists claim that artifacts require an artist and just as forensic scientists claim a murder requires a murderer, ID claims that CSI requires a designer.
Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be crashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- Wm. Dembski page 148 of NFL
In the preceding and proceeding paragraphs William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information. In the paper "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", Stephen C. Meyer wrote:
Dembski (2002) has used the term “complex specified information” (CSI) as a synonym for “specified complexity” to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity. This review will use this term as well.
So science asks the question: "How did it come to be this way?" and ID claims that agency involvement was required.Joe_{June 23, 2012
June
06
Jun
23
23
2012
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Joe, Yes, exactly like archaeologists and forensics scientists!! How would you test the cause and effect relationships for the design inference? What other evidence have you found or hope to find?? (I'm agreeing with you, just want more specifics.) I'll skip the Darwinism lying acquisition if you don't mind. We'll just have to disagree about that I think. If ID could support its claims it could certainly damage Darwinism. Depending on what those claims are of course. What are ID's claims?? And Joe, I do appreciate your taking the time to respond. I'd like to think we might at least identify what our specific claims are. It's me that's just not sure of ID; you seem pretty well versed in evolution.Jerad_{June 23, 2012
June
06
Jun
23
23
2012
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
How do you propose to test the claims of ID in the lab?
By testing cause and effect relationships- pretty much as archaeologists and forensic scientists do now.
I won’t ask about the designer but, surely, a core part of ID is when; when did the designer intervene. That at least should be answerable.
We answwer that by first detecting and then studying the design and all relevant evidence, just as is done in archaeology and forensics.
That is the core difference isn’t it: Darwinism says: the ‘gaps’ were bridged by natural, observable processes.
Darwinism lies as there aren't any observable processes that can bridge any gaps. If there were such evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion. And again your position has all the power, meaning if you could support your claims ID would fall.Joe_{June 23, 2012
June
06
Jun
23
23
2012
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

lastyearon, Thanks. I really am interested in exactly what ID is saying. If I could just get someone to give some particular cases of design intervention it would give us some specifics to talk about. kf,
Have you ever had to get a very specific car part that had to fit just so or a vehicle was down and out? Have you ever seen a program fail because just one character was wrong? Have you ever seen a misplaced letter garble a message? And so forth? The blatant fact staring you in the face is that islands of functional configs amidst seas of non-functional ones are a reality.
I have seen all of those things. And all those examples have to do with inanimate objects. How about this: Look at a hippo and a whale. It's not hard to see how small, incremental changes (quite a few I know) could convert one into the other and the intermediate life forms would still be functional. There is no need for a random search to hit a narrow island of function. That would be, as you correctly point out, exceedingly improbable. As I've said before, we'll just have to disagree.
can you show us observational evidence that demonstrates novel body plans coming about strictly by chance plus necessity?
It depends on how 'novel' you mean. I'd say the difference between a Great Dane and a bulldog is pretty dramatic, albeit all the same parts are there. Come to think of . . . all the same parts are there for all mammals. :-) Just more of that morphological support for common descent!! The difference between the brassicas is very dramatic and was brought about by artificial selection which points out that the random mutations are capable of varying body plans by quite an enormous amount. Come to think of it roses vary greatly too and they all came from a simpler wild stock. Not a bad example. I'd also say to you that you have no observational evidence that a designer has interfered in the natural processes. Has cut any corners so to speak. You have lots of current examples, all non-living, but you have no eye-witness testimony that there was any design implemented when . . . when are you saying there was a design implemented by the way? Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to answer that question, no one seems to be willing to offer an opinion on that. Too bad, it would help make the case for ID having explanatory power. Someday maybe. I've answered lots of questions, some put repeated. It would be nice if someone answered mine. Oh well.Jerad_{June 22, 2012
June
06
Jun
22
22
2012
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

PS: can you show us observational evidence that demonstrates novel body plans coming about strictly by chance plus necessity? We can show, with billions of cases in point, that the only empirically warranted source for FSCO/I is design. We can back that up with relevant analysis closely parallel to that which grounds the statistical form of the second law. We can show that living creatures brim over with such FSCO/I, and that to get to the embedded von Neumann self replicator, you are looking at more of the same. All of this makes an inference to design on empirically warranted sign quite reasonable.kairosfocus_{June 22, 2012
June
06
Jun
22
22
2012
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Jerad: Pardon, I have a boiling over crisis in hand. But I passed by and see you trying to twist about the issue of islands of function. Have you ever had to get a very specific car part that had to fit just so or a vehicle was down and out? Have you ever seen a program fail because just one character was wrong? Have you ever seen a misplaced letter garble a message? And so forth? The blatant fact staring you in the face is that islands of functional configs amidst seas of non-functional ones are a reality. And, for just 500 bits worth of info, the sampling theory results show that the resources of the solar system are grossly inadequate to hit on islands of function by non-intelligent processes. I obviously cannot force you to acknowledge the weight of the evidence all around us. But I sure can point out the unreasonableness -- even, pardon if this sounds harsh, outright absurdity -- of the positions you have to take up to hold to your views. G'day KFkairosfocus_{June 22, 2012
June
06
Jun
22
22
2012
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Don't feel too bad, Jerad. I think you are making a valiant effort to clarify things, to understand where you and UPB differ, to understand what exactly Intelligent Design means. But, you know what they say... "Never ask for clarification from a man whose soul depends on not being clear."lastyearon_{June 22, 2012
June
06
Jun
22
22
2012
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

UBP, I'll have another go through, just to attempt to be clear in my position.
And these evolutionary scientists convinced you that the symbolic control of protein synthesis arose by evolutionary processes? Is that why you won’t accept it as an observable material artifact?
I believe there is no need for the design inference. That the existing natural processes are adequate. Why do you keep asking?
You are probably hearing that because there are some things that natural processes cannot do. Such a claim seems reasonable to me. Are you suggesting that the proper antidote is to assume a priori that natural processes can do all things? If so, how shall we re-classify those things that are the result of artificial input?
Obviously natural processes cannot do all things. But they can handle all observed and inferred evolutionary events.
Can you highlight for me an ID proponent’s methodology that posits a discontinuity in natural law in order reach an inference to design? I’ve read a few of them; I simply do not remember such a case.
If the designer intervened by introducing new genetic strands to create a new life form then that introduces a discontinuity in the natural progression as there would be a non-step by step transition from one phenotype to another. KairosFocus insists that there are islands of functionality that natural processes cannot bridge so a designer is required to create new body plans. Such intervention would be a discontinuity in natural law. If I am wrong about my perception of what the designer would do it's only because no one will give me a hypothesis about what the designer actually did. I hear natural processes aren't capable and am left with my own guesses as to what people are thinking. Please enlighten me. And sometimes I fell like I'm being made fun of.
Yet, as you’ve pointed out, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the question I asked: Would you accept symbolic control over protein synthesis as a potential artifact of design? Given that we agree ‘genetic variation’ doesn’t impact the question asked, your mentioning of it here must serve some other purpose.
I do not accept symbolic control over protein synthesis as handled by DNA as an artefact of design. In a more general sense I think it could be an artefact of design depending on the context and the nature of the symbolic system.
Are you asking for a waiver? Would you like to come to UD and pepper the participants with questions, while having your position held above question?
Nope, not asking for a waiver. I don't mind doing my best to defend my position. But generally the questions seem rhetorical in that, knowing I support the modern evolutionary synthesis you know what my answers are going to be. Perhaps I should stop answering since lots of my questions, sincerely put, go unanswered.Jerad_{June 20, 2012
June
06
Jun
20
20
2012
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply