Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Reductionist Predictions Always Fail

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

 Rod Dreher writes:

Time and time again, an experimental gadget gets introduced — it doesn’t matter if it’s a supercollider or a gene chip or an fMRI machine — and we’re told it will allow us to glimpse the underlying logic of everything. But the tool always disappoints, doesn’t it? We soon realize that those pretty pictures are incomplete and that we can’t reduce our complex subject to a few colorful spots. So here’s a pitch: Scientists should learn to expect this cycle — to anticipate that the universe is always more networked and complicated than reductionist approaches can reveal.

…Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, once divided the world into two categories: clocks and clouds. Clocks are neat, orderly systems that can be solved through reduction; clouds are an epistemic mess, “highly irregular, disorderly, and more or less unpredictable.” The mistake of modern science is to pretend that everything is a clock, which is why we get seduced again and again by the false promises of brain scanners and gene sequencers. We want to believe we will understand nature if we find the exact right tool to cut its joints. But that approach is doomed to failure. We live in a universe not of clocks but of clouds.

Comments
Freelurker_: I will be happy to read your further comments. About Behe, I suppose you refer to DBB and the concept of irreducible complexity. Still I don't understand the emphasis on engineering or not, but I will try just the same to answer, also to clarify further the terminology. IMO, what Behe is doing in DBB is the following: a) Analyzing a couple of biological machines (the famous flagellum, and the clot cascade), and commenting in detail about what they do, how they work, and how their function is due to the fact that they are made of assembled parts, each of them complex, which contribute to the general function because they are assembled that way. This discussion is the same as what you call "determining the design", and is equivalent to what an engineer does, according to your definitions, when he analyzes how some software works and how its function is implemented. To be more precise, I think we should call this part: verifying and analyzing the functional specification. In that sense, the word "specification" is more correct, because it refers to an observable property of the object we are studying, and does not in itself imply the design inference. IOW, the object could still appear specified without having been designed, if its complexity is low. b) That done, Behe discusses the causal model for those biological objects, and in particular the common model of RV + NS. And he argues that the specific property elucidated in the previous analysis, being made of complex structured parts which are all necessary to generate the general function of the object, a property which he calls irreducible complexity, is in itself a valid empiricsal argument against the usual causal model of RV + NS. That derives from the fact that the necessity part of the model (NS) can operate only when the function is present, and the modular nature of the function makes that explanation completely unlikely for those kinds of objects. That means applying a concept derived from the engineering analysis of the object (how it works, how it is structured, its modular function, the irreducibility of that function) to invalidate an existing (and vastly accepted) causal model. The design inference, then, follows implicitly according to the general model outlined by Dembski in the explanatory filter: as the objects observed are specified (in this case, functional specification); as they are complex (made of many different proteins, each of them extremely complex); and as there is no known necessity model which could credibly generate the whole object (that's where the Behe analysis comes in, in disproving the generally accepted credibility of the NS necessity model); then design is the best explanation. This second part (inferring design) is not probably what engineers usually do, because engineers usually know for certain that the software they are analyzing is designed. But, if an engineer were called to answer the question: is this string of bits a designed software?, then he would act in the same way: first he would try to analyze if the string is a software at all (analyze if it has function, and how that function is implemented). IOW, verify if the string is functionally specified. Then, he would probably infer design, but before doing that he should ask himself if there is any credible model where that string could have arisen by chance, necessity, or a mixture of the two. For that task, the concepts of complexity and, if present, of irreducible complexity, are used.gpuccio
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
I wonder if Clive has something against bornagain....Phaedros
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
Thanks Clive, sorry for misspelling your name Petrushka.bornagain77
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
bornagain77, It's Petrushka, not Petruska or Peruska. Clive Hayden
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
Petruska, the morphologies of ancient bacteria are surprisingly stable: AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST: Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms. http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html Thus as far back in time as we can collect fossilized bacteria they look exactly the same as their modern day counterparts (save for some may be a little larger). As with metazoans, there is never a "transition" to be documented, save of course for the transitions found in the imaginations of neo-Darwinists such as yourself. That neo-Darwinists would expect a large amount of "genetic drift" all the while allowing for the morphology to remain exactly the same is a affront to reason. Thus that Vreeland would find the DNA sequences to be almost exactly the same as modern is actually to be expected if one were judging solely from morphological considerations of the ancient and modern bacteria. As for your other "evidence" of which you cited none, it is typical of neo-Darwinists who come on this site to try to rationalize away the evidence. But alas, you can plead for more time, for more evidence, or for whatever, but the fact is that neo-Darwinists have always had, and will always have, nothing but the smoke and mirrors of deception to back there delusions up, whereas ID can rest its foundation on the sure foundations of the second law of thermodynamics and conservation of information. Myself I can't see any reason why evolutionists are so enamored with a philosophy that promises them nothing but death and has been the root cause of so much needless suffering in the world. Shoot the materialistic philosophy, which is falsified by "non-local quantum mechanics by the way, can't even compare to the promises I find in Christ, who is very much alive by the way. Kutless: Promise of a Lifetime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wgA93WQWKE Awake and Alive” – Skillet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw20o0gOorI further note: Odd Geometry of Bacteria May Provide New Way to Study Earth's Oldest Fossils - May 2010 Excerpt: Known as stromatolites, the layered rock formations are considered to be the oldest fossils on Earth.,,,That the spacing pattern corresponds to the mats' metabolic period -- and is also seen in ancient rocks -- shows that the same basic physical processes of diffusion and competition seen today were happening billions of years ago,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100517152520.htm Ancient Fossils That Evolutionists Don't Want You To See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzFPhRzhMGs THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient "living" fossils that have not changed for millions of years: http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 Fossils Without Evolution - June 2010 Excerpt: New fossils continue to turn up around the world. Many of them have an amazing characteristic in common: they look almost exactly like their living counterparts, despite being millions of years old,,, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201006.htm#20100618abornagain77
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
@gpuccio - I am going to read this whole thread again and put together a comprehensive response. I will specifically address your latest comment. It may take a day or two. Meanwhile, let me ask a couple of questions that may get to the heart of the matter: Is Michael Behe doing engineering? Why or why not? These questions are addressed to all IDist engineers.Freelurker_
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Peruska, I ain’t going to waste my time walking you through it again.
I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I'm simply asking why you are intrigued by DNA that appears to be old. I haven't seen any analysis of the ancient yeast genome, but everything I've been able to find indicates it's significantly different from modern yeast. In fact, that's a selling point for the beer being brewed from it. We would expect really ancient DNA to be different from anything modern. Either because the lineage has changed, or because the ancient DNA has degraded. I haven't found anything to contradict the assumption that the "unchanged" 250 million year old DNA represents contamination. Unfortunately, this is the one claim that hasn't been verified or replicated independently. I'm betting that as samples of ancient DNA are verified and the methodologies verified, we will find differences consistent with evolution.Petrushka
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
Peruska, I ain't going to waste my time walking you through it again.bornagain77
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
I don't see that you've addressed the problem. You argue that DNA is old because it's different from any current DNA. At the same time you argue that DNA that is not different is old. I don't see any journal articles describing the successful sequencing of DNA from ancient amber. Perhaps you have a link. From my searches it looks like the claims on both sides are unsettled.Petrushka
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Petruska, the fact is that Vreeland is verified by two lines of solid evidence, the recent 450 million year old study and the Cano study of ancient Amber sealed bacteria. That you would cite the very subjective molecular clock test, a test which is not derived from empirical tests in the first place, and as well a very subjective "genetic drift" guesstimate (poisson distribution), a test which is also not derived from a empirical basis but from imposed human interpretations of how the sequences "should look" if evolution is true, only strengthens the falsification of neo-Darwinism by this line of evidence!bornagain77
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Petruska, that is old news.bornagain77
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Studies of ancient DNA have attracted considerable attention in scientific journals and the popular press. Several of the more extreme claims for ancient DNA have been questioned on biochemical grounds (i.e., DNA surviving longer than expected) and evolutionary grounds (i.e., nucleotide substitution patterns not matching theoretical expectations for ancient DNA). A recent letter to Nature from Vreeland et al. (2000), however, tops all others with respect to age and condition of the specimen. These researchers extracted and cultured a bacterium from an inclusion body from what they claim is a 250 million-year (Myr)-old salt crystal. If substantiated, this observation could fundamentally alter views about bacterial physiology, ecology and evolution. Here we report on molecular evolutionary analyses of the 16S rDNA from this specimen. We find that 2-9-3 differs from a modern halophile, Salibacillus marismortui, by just 3 unambiguous bp in 16S rDNA, versus the approximately 59 bp that would be expected if these bacteria evolved at the same rate as other bacteria. We show, using a Poisson distribution, that unless it can be shown that S. marismortui evolves 5 to 10 times more slowly than other bacteria for which 16S rDNA substitution rates have been established, Vreeland et al.'s claim would be rejected at the 0.05 level. Also, a molecular clock test and a relative rates test fail to substantiate Vreeland et al.'s claim that strain 2-9-3 is a 250-Myr-old bacterium. The report of Vreeland et al. thus falls into a long series of suspect ancient DNA studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734907Petrushka
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Petruska, read it again,,,, the 450 million year old sequences, which confirmed Vreeland's methodology, no longer exist period! The 250 million year old sequences almost matched exactly. The small change that is noted is verified to be due to Genetic entropy by Cano!bornagain77
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
I find it interesting that your sources argue on one hand that ancient DNA has not changed at all, and on the other hand, argue that contamination was excluded because the DNA had changed.Petrushka
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Petruska, It is funny I cite hard facts to back up my position and you state blind faith to back up your position.bornagain77
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
But the word "achieve" is nonsensical in this context. Populations either survive or they don't. they aren't trying to achieve anything.Petrushka
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution.
Except for jumping from one species to another. And except for evolving withing an individual victim faster than the victim can develop defences.Petrushka
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
So you expect bacteria to change in their genome sequences while they are searching for a new sequence Petruska??
Genomes are changing all the time, although change is slow in human perception. The search metaphor is not very useful. Evolution doesn't search. The record of established populations finding "solutions" to changing ecosystems is not good. Most large and rapid changes to ecosystems result in extinction rather than adaptation.Petrushka
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
...whether or not evolution is just about specific targets or just change is irrelevant when we want to discuss already existing structures and proposed evolutionary sequences.
It makes no sense to calculate the odds against something that's already happened. Now if you had a time machine and could demonstrate the the E.coli flagellum originated through some history that did not include the accumulation of small changes, perhaps you could talk about probabilities. But the evidence is that flagella and cilia have many variants and employ many variations and many subsets of the proteins used by E.coli. Not only that, but many of the proteins can have functions unrelated to locomotion. In short, there is strong evidence that the flagellum is not isolated by a sea of non-viability. There is nothing in nature that requires a flagellum to exist. Either there are many pathways leading to its evolution, or it's a lotto winner. Either way, ID would have to demonstrate that all paths involve dead zones before having a case.Petrushka
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Petruska you state: "It is, however, possible for large populations having short reproductive cycles to explore many point mutations. Hence the interest in bacteria in research. It’s probably why bacteria don’t go extinct and are difficult to eradicate." So you expect bacteria to change in their genome sequences while they are searching for a new sequence Petruska?? Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence. The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 Evolutionists were so disbelieving at this stunning lack of change that they insisted the stunning similarity was due to modern contamination. Yet the following study laid that objection to rest by verifying Dr. Vreeland's methodology was not introducing contamination: World’s Oldest Known DNA Discovered (419 million years old) - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: But the DNA was so similar to that of modern microbes that many scientists believed the samples had been contaminated. Not so this time around. A team of researchers led by Jong Soo Park of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, found six segments of identical DNA that have never been seen before by science. “We went back and collected DNA sequences from all known halophilic bacteria and compared them to what we had,” Russell Vreeland of West Chester University in Pennsylvania said. “These six pieces were unique,,, http://news.discovery.com/earth/oldest-dna-bacteria-discovered.html This following study also corroborated Vreeland's work:: Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart,(thus ruling out that it is a modern contaminant, yet at the same time confounding materialists, since the change is not nearly as great as evolution's "genetic drift" theory requires.) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/268/5213/1060 30-Million-Year Sleep: Germ Is Declared Alive http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFD61439F93AA25756C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 In reply to a personal e-mail from myself, Dr. Cano commented on the "Fitness Test" I had asked him about: Dr. Cano stated: "We performed such a test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative "ancient" B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the amber isolate.": Fitness test which compared the 30 million year old ancient bacteria to its modern day descendants, RJ Cano and MK Borucki Thus, the most solid evidence available for the most ancient DNA scientists are able to find does not support evolution happening on the molecular level of bacteria. In fact, according to the fitness test of Dr. Cano, the change witnessed in bacteria conforms to the exact opposite, Genetic Entropy; a loss of functional information/complexity, since fewer substrates and fatty acids are utilized by the modern strains. Considering the intricate level of protein machinery it takes to utilize individual molecules within a substrate, we are talking an impressive loss of protein complexity, and thus loss of functional information, from the ancient amber sealed bacteria. Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "Fitness Test" - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolutionbornagain77
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Irreducible complexity**Phaedros
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
But Petrushka that's exactly what Behe showed. Even organisms that reproduce at great rates take many years to explore those point mutations. Also, petrushka whether or not evolution is just about specific targets or just change is irrelevant when we want to discuss already existing structures and proposed evolutionary sequences. Those do require specific changes, that's the point of irreducible. You hinder science because instead looking for the required changes you say well i just happened because look! It happened! Well that's neither interesting or adequate as a scientific explanation.Phaedros
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
You’ve already been corrected on this upthread in 65, 66, and elsewhere.
There's nothing relevant to my argument in 65 or 66. Just about every element of a genome changes over time. ID argues that specified changes are unlikely, but evolution doesn't go in specified directions. It doesn't wait for just the right mutation. It doesn't search for a target. Things just change. The argumnet that a specific sequence of change, or a specific collection of changes is improbable is simply irrelevant. No serious biologist argues that a specified change will occur within a reasonable time. It is, however, possible for large populations having short reproductive cycles to explore many point mutations. Hence the interest in bacteria in research. It's probably why bacteria don't go extinct and are difficult to eradicate.Petrushka
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Moreover DNA sequences, and the protein machinery that replicates this DNA, is found to be vastly different in even the most ancient of different single celled organisms: Uprooting The Tree Of Life - W. Ford Doolittle Excerpt: as DNA sequences of complete genomes have become increasingly available, my group and others have noted patterns that are disturbingly at odds with the prevailing beliefs. http://people.ibest.uidaho.edu/~bree/courses/2_Doolittle_2000.pdf Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? - Koonin Excerpt: However, several core components of the bacterial (DNA) replication machinery are unrelated or only distantly related to the functionally equivalent components of the archaeal/eukaryotic (DNA) replication apparatus. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/27/17/3389 There simply is no smooth "gradual transition" to be found between these most ancient of life forms, bacteria and archaea, as even this following "evolution friendly" article clearly points out: Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? Excerpt: In particular, the detailed mechanics of DNA replication would have been quite different. It looks as if DNA replication evolved independently in bacteria and archaea,... Even more baffling, says Martin, neither the cell membranes nor the cell walls have any details in common (between the bacteria and the archaea). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html?page=1 Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009) Excerpt: Even among higher organisms, “the problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,”,,,“despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.” ,,,,Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observed that these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,, “We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin's) tree of life.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1.html#more A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_3.html#morebornagain77
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation? Fazale Rana http://www.reasons.org/evolution/evolutionary-trees/repeatable-evolution-or-repeated-creationbornagain77
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
"Evolution is about change, not goal seeking...Calculations of probabilities for specific sequences of change are irrelevant" You've already been corrected on this upthread in 65, 66, and elsewhere. Never let a good misrepresentation go to waste, eh Petrushka?Upright BiPed
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Petruska and why can’t you look them up?
I searched on "Dr. Rana" and didn't find any published articles. It is a fact that convergent evolution does not involve repeating a sequence of mutations. Behe is correct in asserting that any specified long sequence of mutations is not likely to happen. This particular assertion has no implications for evolution, however. Evolution is about change, not goal seeking. Calculations of probabilities for specific sequences of change are irrelevant.Petrushka
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Freelurker: Let's put Dembski aside for a moment, will you? Just let's speak simply about this point: a) You say engineers figure out how something works (determine the design). That's fine. I just say that IDists too are very much interested in "determining the design". To define that something is functional, you must certainly understand its function, and how that function is implemented. To go back to my example of myoglobin, we have to know what myoglobin does, and how it does it. That is a task which has to be accomplished, and if you say that such a task is more specific of an engineer's approach, that's fine with me. But that task is a fundamental part of the ID discourse. b) Then there is the causal part. ID does not stop to "determining the design". It says that the function, if present and complex, can be attributed to intelligent intervention. But what would an engineer say? The same thing. If an engineer determines a functional design, say in a software, will he doubt that a programmer wrote that software? No. Unless the function is so basically simple that it could be only an example of pseudo-design. IDists and engineers are not two separate classes of people. The only important class of people is: people who can reason correctly about design and causation. Going back to the "complement": I will no certainly speak for Dembski, but for me it is obvious that, of we are speaking of causal factors, regularity, randomness and design are three different causal explanations of things we observe. But the meaning of "design" is always the same: something is designed if an intelligent agent designed it. In that sense, it did not originate form random systems or form laws of reguilarity. The only important concept here is that the causal intervention of a conscious intelligent agent makes the difference, and that that difference can be marked by a kind of output (CSI, dFSCI or any other equivalent definition) which is never observed when an intelligent agent is not implied. So, I still don't unbderstand where is the equivocation. We IDists attribute sone forms of information (like the sequence of a protein) to design when: a) we can determine function in it: we understand that it works and how it works, engineer-like. b) we recognize that the above function is comnplex enough so that it cannot be attributed to regularity and/or chance. In that case, we know from empirical observations that it can be safely attributed to the causal intervention of a conscious intelligent agent. To me, that's very clear, and there is no equivocation. So, to sum up, it's perfectly correct to say that a piece of software has an object-oriented implementation of fucntion, which means that it is functionally specified. And, if it is also complex enpough, attribute its causation to design, the complement of regularity and chance.gpuccio
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
I said:
The point is that, in ID, “design” does not mean an arrangement of parts. This is most clear in Dembski’s definition of design, which is “the complement of regularity and chance.”
gpuccio said:
No, that’s not correct. In ID, like in any other context, design means that something has been designed, IOW that it is the intentional and purposeful product of an intelligent conscious being. There is no coubt about that. That’s what design means, nothing else.
The above is indeed Dembski's definition of design. You can see it in his book The Design Inference. Link. It may not be your definition, but you cannot deny that it is Dembski's. As discussed earlier, what "design" means to Dembski and Behe is not what it means in an engineering context. In engineering, a design is an arrangement of parts. It would make no sense to say that a piece of software has an object-oriented complement of regularity and chance. The thing being reviewed at an engineering design review is an arrangement of parts, not a complement of regularity and chance. The distinction I'm talking about is important because it is the distinction that is lost by IDists when they equivocate between (1) figuring out how something works ("determining the design") and (2) attributing something to intelligence ("detecting design"). This equivocation shows up when IDists (perhaps not you) try to say either that engineers do what IDists do or that IDists do what engineers do.Freelurker_
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
Freelurker: In nature, IDists are trying to detect purposefulness without detecting purposes, i.e., they are trying to detect “free-floating purposefulness.” I appreciate this discussion, but I believe that still you have not completely got my point. If you look at my definiton of dFSCI, you can see that dFSCI can be defined and measured in proteins using the specific known function of that protein, or protein family, as the marker of specification. The function, in this case, ir rather explicit, so much so that it can be found in any database of proteins on the internet. So, ID detects purpose in a specific protein, and a very explicit purpose too! Let's make an example: if you look for "myoglobin, human" (just to stay with a very siomple case) on the UNIPROT site, you can find, in the pertinent page for record P02144, the following data: Function: Serves as a reserve supply of oxygen and facilitates the movement of oxygen within muscles. Biological process: Oxygen transport, Transport Ligand: Heme, Iron, Metal-binding Therefore, we have very good information not only on the generic function (reserve supply of oxygen), but also on the specific way that function is biochemically implemented (through the heme ligand and iron). Where is your “free-floating purposefulness"? The protein is specified, because a very explicit function can be defined for it. That's specific purpose, specific function. We only have to compute the final complexity to have a measure of the dFSCI (that can be done, for instance, by the Durston method for protein families). If the dFSCI is above some conventional threshold we agree upon, we can conclude that myoglobin sequences exhibit dFSCI. If no specific pathway based on necessity is known which can explain the emergence of those sequences, we can infer design as the best explanation. No “free-floating purposefulness". Just a simple method, explicit and clear.gpuccio
June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply