Survival of the Sickest, Why We Need Disease

_{Salvador Cordova

April 27, 2009

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!”

This is a phrase a software engineer will use to jokingly confess his software has a defect.

When Sharon Moalem wrote the NY Times Bestseller, Survival of the Sickest: Why We Need Disease, he probably did not intend to make a joking confession of flaws in Darwin’s theory, but he succeed in doing so.

Recall the words of Darwin:

Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.

C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species — Ch#4 Natural Selection

If Darwin’s claim is true, why then are we confronted with numerous, persistent, hereditary diseases?

Can it be that Darwin was wrong? The obvious answer is yes. But in the face of an obvious flaw in Darwin’s ideas, Moalem argues that what appears to be a flaw in Darwin’s theory is actually an ingenious feature! Moalem extols the virtues of disease, and since disease is virtuous, natural selection will favor it.

It is accepted that sickle-cell anemia persists because of natural selection, but what about other diseases? Moalem explores many other diseases like diabetes, hemochromatosis, high cholesterol, early aging, favism, obesity, PANDAS, CCR5-delta32, xenophobia, etc. showing how natural selection incorporated these “virtuous” diseases into our species.

Moalem is not alone in arguing that natural selection creates through the process of destruction. For example, Allen Orr suggests that natural selection is the cause of blindness in Gammarus minus. In the world of Darwin, what happened to Gammarus minus isn’t the loss of vision, it is the creation of blindness. And since selection favors blindness in Gammarus minus, blindness is a functional improvement! Once again, Darwinism is immune to any testability through the process of constantly redefining what is considered “good”.

The net result is that Moalem’s book becomes an unwitting critique of Darwinian evolution. It highlights numerous empirical examples of how natural selection actually goes against Darwinian ideas of constant progress, and instead demonstrates how natural selection can be an agent of demise.

Comments

Clive: Your comments about evolutionary psychology appear deeply incoherent to me, a trained evolutionary psychologist. What exactly are you trying to assert about evolutionary psychology, and upon what empirical evidence are you basing such assertions? And please be patient, I'm slow and need all of the logical steps filled in...Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Clive asks:
"...how do we, by successive gradations, produce the ought from what was and is?"
We do not, neither by successive gradations nor by sudden, large leaps. That is, one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is".Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Darwin's expression of "horrid doubt" was specifically about the idea that we might find that humans and monkeys use essentially the same kinds of mental processes. Rather than causing most primatologists "horrid doubt", this idea presents an interesting and testable research hypothesis (which, BTW, has been mostly – but not entirely – refuted by their research).Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Clive: Apparently I was insufficiently clear; what I meant to infer was that religion has been explained by several anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists as a side-effect of an "innate intentional agency detector/algorithm" that produces multiple false positives, not false negatives. That is, the tendency to infer agency in objects/processes in which such agency does not, in fact, exist (not the other way around). There is, of course, yet a third possibility: that our "innate intentional agency detector / algorithm" did indeed evolve via non-guided processes, but that once in place it made it possible for us to detect what would otherwise be undetectable: God/the Intelligent Designer. This third alternative would probably satisfy those who enjoy irony and what appears to be the very twisted sense of humor on the part of an Intelligent Designer who would put so much effort into creating beetles, but so little effort into creating roses that we had to finish the job for Her).Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Clive:
Take the first part of your sentence that reads “So good is this detector that it very rarely produces false negatives (i.e. it very rarely mistakes intentional agents for non-intentional processes)”, which is contradictory to Darwin’s claim that events such as the dog noticing the wind moving the parasol and mistakenly thinking it was an agent moving it, and through more of the same error produced religion in an ongoing false negative until the world’s religions were hard-wired into us.
You seem to be confusing false positives with false negatives.R0b_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Sal Gal, Nope. Nothing is being expected except looking at ordinary nature. No sings or visions, just good ol' natural processes. Signs are, by definition, deviations from the natural account. Do you really think that's what ID is about? Miracle detection?Clive Hayden_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, And secondly, using this line of thinking “In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation,” I can see why Darwin had his “horrid doubt” that his thoughts were invalid, because they were the end result of dog-like thinking. This line of thinking, of course, includes this line of thinking. It becomes self-refuting. It is, itself, subject to the same doubt that hangs about any of the other “false” thinking that it supposedly produces. It sounds like special pleading to me. And, to be honest, all of evolutionary psychology’s supposed answers for the wrong-ness of any developed thought, that somehow do not also apply to those thoughts, is a perpetual special pleading.Clive Hayden_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Clive says,
That’s true, but we should also remember that Paul told us that the natural world speaks to God’s design, and that all know God through it, so that all are without excuse.
A slide presentation of Bob Marks reminds me of this passage from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians:
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ...
I see ID as a program of "wise" identification of "miraculous signs." In my opinion, the scientism of ID contributes to spiritual ills, rather than remedies them.Sal Gal_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, “So good is this detector that it very rarely produces false negatives (i.e. it very rarely mistakes intentional agents for non-intentional processes), but it does so at the price of many false positives (i.e. paranoia/pareidolia, and – perhaps – ID).” Take the first part of your sentence that reads “So good is this detector that it very rarely produces false negatives (i.e. it very rarely mistakes intentional agents for non-intentional processes)”, which is contradictory to Darwin’s claim that events such as the dog noticing the wind moving the parasol and mistakenly thinking it was an agent moving it, and through more of the same error produced religion in an ongoing false negative until the world’s religions were hard-wired into us. Of course, you’re right, we don’t produce such false negatives, as you pointed out, so Darwin’s theory about more of the same false negatives accounting for religion is not likely, for if it were continued, as he thought it was, the false negative would have become more acute, if it really was more of the same. No, somewhere along the line, even taking such a ridiculous idea at face value, humans did an about face, and started acting the opposite in producing false negatives and correctly not seeing agency when there was none, so Darwin's idea of the infancy and growing stages of religion (which are based on false negatives) is shabby. Remember, Darwin said “In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation.” And as far as the second part of your sentence “but it does so at the price of many false positives (i.e. paranoia/pareidolia, and – perhaps – ID)” is to beg the question, for the question at hand is whether ID is recognizable–and that is an ongoing debate, to answer it in the negative and assume it a finished question is not an answer. And, I'll ask you again, pertaining to Darwin's quote above, how do we, by successive gradations, produce the ought from what was and is?Clive Hayden_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

But I have invoked here at UD a theorem that students learn in a first course in the theory of computation, and have sketched a simple proof that there is no algorithm to decide if the function of a program is designed. No IDer has challenged my argument.
I'm inclined to agree that, "no algorithm to decide if the function of a program is designed" in ALL cases. It does not mean we can't detect design in some cases. If we find bit patterns that are copies of known designs, we have detected designs. The Explanatory Filter does not detect all designs:
Masters of stealth intent on concealing their actions may successfully evade the explanatory filter. But masters of self-promotion intent on making sure their intellectual property gets properly attributed find in the explanatory filter a ready friend. Bill Dembski Mere Creation
There is reason I have staked a lot on the question of analogies and metaphors rather than some hypothetical algorithm that can universally detect intention or design. Given that "masters of stealth" can evade detection, I would agree that "no algorithm to decide if the function of a program is designed" in ALL cases.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Sal Gal, Pardon my intrusion, but I just read your post about Rice's Theorem you linked to. ID in general and the explanatory filter in particular don't claim to be able to sort design from non-design perfectly: they fail when designed objects appear to be not designed (false negatives), and can theoretically fail on a false positive (therefore ID is falsifiable), although no known example of a false positive has been shown. Therefore, the explanatory filter just claims to be highly reliable, not a formally complete method of sorting objects into two classes. Just my two cents. Thanks for your contributions, btw, I enjoy them. AtomAtom_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

But this is precisely the point: how (in the absence of direct or indirect empirical observation of the action of a designer) can we say this
To clairfy, this is an assertion of "design" in the common sense that a biologist might refer to the "design" of an organ. It makes no formal claim that the origin was intelligence. ID offers the falsifiable assertion that only intelligence makes certain designs. The assertion is not provable, but is falsifiable in principle for various specific artifacts. To claim "D" (design) that a design of some sort exists can often have broad agreement even by opponents of ID. It is customary to refer to the "design" of the cell, etc. There are somethings where we can't agree if something has a design. For example, certain parts of "junk DNA". You are correct to say that the claim of "ID" (as opposed to just "D") is merely an assertion. The claim of "ID" is not a provable assertion, but it is falsifiable at least with respect to specific artifacts (i.e., the genetic code). I suppose in that sense ID can be labeled scientific, but you won't see me make that case vigorously. So I recognize your concern that the claim of "ID" is a merely an assertion of a hypothesis, it is not a proof of a hypothesis. In otherwords, I agree with you.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Sal Gal, "It seems that Jesus never proved a theorem or tested a hypothesis." That's true, but we should also remember that Paul told us that the natural world speaks to God's design, and that all know God through it, so that all are without excuse.Clive Hayden_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Salvador says,
It seems to me we computer engineers at UD and the ID movement look at life and think to ourselves: “Genius, the designer is a computer genius!” while others are less astonished.
But I have invoked here at UD a theorem that students learn in a first course in the theory of computation, and have sketched a simple proof that there is no algorithm to decide if the function of a program is designed. No IDer has challenged my argument. I feel wonder at the physical universe, including life, and choose to attribute the existence of all to a Creator. But I must oppose claims that one person can prove to another that design is a property of the cosmos. There are modes of understanding that are more valuable, in terms of individual human experience, than math and science. It seems that Jesus never proved a theorem or tested a hypothesis.Sal Gal_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

It is likely that this detector is a combination of analog processors (i.e. “hard-wiring”) and digital programs (i.e. algorithms), the overall output of which is an almost effortless identification of potentially intentional “agents” in our environment. So good is this detector that it very rarely produces false negatives (i.e. it very rarely mistakes intentional agents for non-intentional processes), but it does so at the price of many false positives (i.e. paranoia/pareidolia, and – perhaps – ID).
Unlike some of my colleagues, I take no offense that you might suspect there are physiological causes that incline some toward accepting ID than others. This almost seems blatantly apparent by the over-representation of engineers in the ID community. So I have already tentatively accepted there is a physiolgoical relation (ah, yes I've made another heretical statement for the day). When I was in flight school, aspiring pilots receive special training to ingrain in them not to trust their ordinary sensory perceptions of motion. The human mind and sensory organs can play serious tricks on one's perception, and for pilots flying at night and in clouds, the misperceptions rooted in our natural physiology could be deadly. Pilots have to learn to distrust their intuition, their physical sense of motion, and trust their instruments (made by engineers like me.) :-) So I take no offense in attempts to discern where our perceptions may be misleading. People should value the inquiry. The question then is whether the engineering mindset would be an asset or liability in assessing if something is designed. One might argue, it would be a liability since an engineer would be more inclined to describe things in terms of design. But the problem is that engineers are a respected discipline that share close kinship with empirical scientists. Even if you were to prove conclusively that engineers might have physiological dispositions, it would be hard to convince them that their perceptions of design are completely wrong. So what is the resolution? I have attempted, informally, to argue for the importance of analogies and metaphors. At least these are somewhat more amenable to empirical investigation. Even granting that the analogies can be scientifically demonstrated, the ultimate question of whether "God did it" is probably out of the reach of science. But the exploration of analogies and metaphorse seems amenable to empirical inquiry.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

sal asserted:
In such case, we can say something is “designed”
But this is precisely the point: how (in the absence of direct or indirect empirical observation of the action of a designer) can we say this? You have provided no empirical criteria for doing so, and neither has any other ID supporter (beyond arguments by analogy and assertion).
Asserting the above two considerations constitutes detection of specified complexity in an informal sense.
Again, this exactly the problem: asserting something doesn't make it true, especially if one is only trying to "constitute" something in an informal sense. In science we require more than assertions and arguments by analogy. We require empirical tests that unambiguously distinguish between opposing hypotheses. Until ID can provide such, it will not be considered to be science by the people who actually do science for a living and as an avocation.Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

In #48 sal pointed out:
We can scientifically say: 1. whether a physical object is analogous to a platonic ideal
Easy!
2. whether that realization of a platonic ideal is probable by unguided processes
Very, very difficult. How, exactly (and using empirical methods) can one do this, without simply arguing via analogy?Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

sal in #45:
"You’d think an engineer could articulate the reasons why they look like mahcines, but perhaps the perception seemed so intuitively obvious, that its been difficult to state formally."
Exactly, Sal! It's always the things that seem most "obvious" to us that are the most difficult to actually analyze and explain. This is one of the basic principles of evolutionary psychology: that the things we do without thinking about it are often the most complex things we do (i.e. require the most sophisticated and rapid computational resources). As just one example, it takes an immense amount of computing power to make it possible for a computer to accomplish (and accomplish badly, with many false negatives) what a nearly new-born infant can do literally without thinking about it: recognize if something in their visual field is "behaving intentionally" or not. Lots of research has gone into this, and all of it points to the hypothesis that our minds (and probably the minds of all animals, if not all living organisms) include an "innate agency detector". It is likely that this detector is a combination of analog processors (i.e. "hard-wiring") and digital programs (i.e. algorithms), the overall output of which is an almost effortless identification of potentially intentional "agents" in our environment. So good is this detector that it very rarely produces false negatives (i.e. it very rarely mistakes intentional agents for non-intentional processes), but it does so at the price of many false positives (i.e. paranoia/pareidolia, and – perhaps – ID).Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Dave Wisker in #43 and #44: Exactly! Couldn't have written it better myself...indeed, I apparently didn't write it as well as Dave did. Thanks for the clarification!Allen_MacNeill_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Regarding man imitating machines found nature, it seems that there are certain platonic forms that achieve certain functions. These constraints are defined by physics (as D'Arcy Thomspon asserted). However, the fact that physics constrains the architecture of a controlled flying vehicle to be a certain way, it does not imply the architecture will spontaneously emerge. We can scientifically say: 1. whether a physical object is analogous to a platonic ideal 2. whether that realization of a platonic ideal is probable by unguided processes I don't think we formally say intelligence was the cause, but we can assert the above two considerations scientifically. In such case, we can say something is "designed", even in the sense that an physiologist or engineer would argue something has a design or architecture. Asserting the above two considerations constitutes detection of specified complexity in an informal sense.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Quite a number of engineers in the areospace industry are sympathetic to ID. Even though much of modern aviation owes itself to immitation of nature, there is still a strong sense that birds have a design that enables them to fly. It wouldn't take a lot of deviation from that design to preclude birds from flying. Anyone who has worked in the aerospace field appreciates how tight the constraints are to create a flying machine. Not so easy.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

“what structural and functional characteristics do unambiguously designed objects and processes (such as heat-seaking missles or thermostats)
A place to start is with man-made objects. I've sometimes suggested to chemists, "make a polymer that will obviously suggest to a chemist that it is man-made". A very strong tell-tale sign is that it is realtively easy to form analogies and metaphors with other objects. Furthermore these analogies and metaphors shouldn't be the sort that arise spontaneously. It would even be better that nature would generally work against the formation of such analogies. A good example: Sand Castles. The "cell as a computer" I blogged about considerably. Flying birds, their analogy to aiplanes seems hauntingly compelling. The Wright brothers used their study of birds to create airplanes. They copied the designs of nature. It seemed that only a limited number of architectures are permissible to enable flight. So even in the case where man copies nature, the machine analogy still applies. Only certain architectures seem to work. We recognize a controlled-flying vehicle from a drop of water or a meteor dropping from the sky. The architectures have recognizable features amenable to making analogies. It is hard if not possible to project the salient features of controlled flight onto meteorites or clouds, but it is readily easy to identify systems between: 1. airplanes 2. butterflies 3. birds We have common elements of: 1. controlled propulsion 2. guidance 3. steering 4. navigation 5. sensing 6. lifting systems These concepts are completely inapplicable to most other macroscopic objects, even things that are alread airborne. Is the assessment subjective? Yes, imho. Does the subjective element invalidate it from scientic inquiry? That would appear to be a subject of debate, but I'd say, "no". The same considerations apply to whether we label something as "sickness" or "disease" or "broken". Are the labels scientifically justified? I'd say yes, although, formally speaking nothing in physics or chemistry or mathematics demands we use such anthropcentric labels. I think science would be at a standstill if we did not permit (dare I say encourage) usage of such subjective labels.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

This is why, rather than simply asserting that things are designed, I have consistently asked “what structural and functional characteristics do unambiguously designed objects and processes (such as heat-seaking missles or thermostats) have, which can then be used as criteria to determine which natural objects and processes possess such structural and functional characteristics and may therefore legitimately be considered to be the product of design?
In a phrase: "they look like machines". Other objects such as rocks, clouds, rivers, storms, hurricanes, planets, stars -- they don't look like machines. You've certainly forced me to consider why something looks like a machine. That perception certainly isn't unique to ID propoenents. Formalizing the reasons why seem difficult, but I'm sure it relates to the issue of analogies and metaphors. You'd think an engineer could articulate the reasons why they look like mahcines, but perhaps the perception seemed so intuitively obvious, that its been difficult to state formally.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

jerry writes:
This is just micro evolution and not dissimilar than what artificial selection could create with a specific gene pool.
Pretty much. However, I may differ from Allen in the following, so I don't want to be seen as putting words in his mouth. Divergence depends primarily on reproductive isolation. Once the divergence has been established, novel variation (be it mutational or recombinational) that occurs in one lineage will not occur (with rare exceptions of convergence) or be transferred to another--only to its own descendants. Clusters of closely related, recently developed lineages become higher taxa such as genera and families, and are often so similar due to recent ancestral relationships that they generate intense taxonomical debate. Even higher taxa such as orders and classes are easier to discern due to the extinction of older, intermediate lineages. That's how I see it. It's very close to what was argued in that paper on macroevolution by Charlesworth et al.Dave Wisker_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry,
But I am getting the feeling that Allen is saying that in addition to just a reshuffling of the genetic elements during punctuated equilibrium we are also getting a lot of intense variation creation to the gene pool during the supposedly punctuated equilibrium events.
Not exactly. Allen is not saying he thinks the events involve intense periods of variation "creation". He is saying he thinks relaxation of stabilizing selection allows more of the existing variation to be expressed.
And somehow this is also facilitated by the small populations and isolated gene pools which are more limited.
Not quite, as I see it. The expanded ecological opportunities (i.e., new niches) allow the variation to be segregated in these unique gene pools. It has nothing to do with mechanisms of increasing the generation of variation.Dave Wisker_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Sal: Addressing your original point about Meloim's book, NS is nothing more than the "Better Machine". What I mean is this: put something in the machine, it scours for a slight improvement, then amplifies it, producing in the end---its output---something that is "better". With endless repititions of this cycle, ALL THINGS are possible. So, if I compare A and B, for me to say that NS is involved only two things are necessary: First, that A and B are alive, since being alive means, as with all living organisms, it can replicate; and Second, A is "better" than B in some respect. In this second condition ANY aspect of organisms A and B can be considered. Let's note that under these conditions, it is IMPOSSIBLE to negate NS if a third condition is invoked: the correlation of parts; that is, if Part A becomes worse, than Part B "might" become better. It's a zero-sum game: each plus balanced by a minus, and vice versa. So, if a fish goes "blind", no problem for NS, this simply means that the organism is "better" for its environment since this "loss" is, presumably(!), balanced by a "gain" in some other, more needed function. Thus, this "Better Machine" can explain ALL things. Isn't it wonderful. You see, it's ALL-powerful, and so, we should simply bow to the majesty of NS. It's a shame we just don't get it here at UD! Alan, as to "adaptations", I've said for a long time that if Darwin's book was entitled the "Origin of Adaptations" that I would be 100% behind it. Does that mean I subscribe completely to NS? No. Why? Because I think there are "adaptionist" programs "built into" the genome that really run the show. If this is the case (which I believe, and think will eventually be demonstrated), then NS is a outcome, not a cause (per Wm. Provine). I haven't read all of the above posts, but if you want to refer me to one or the other, that's fine.PaV_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill:
In which case, your definition of “macroevolution” is so different from that used by evolutionary biologists as to be essentially useless.
LoL!!! With their use of macroevolution no one debates it!!! Therefor using it to defend some position is deceptive at best.Joseph_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

In #27 sal wrote: The neutralists (like Nei) have suggested the apperance of design is merely an artifact of our imagniation, a postdictive projection. Thus, in their mind, there nothing that is need to be explained in the first place. This is very close to Shermer’s view. It is also very close to mine. However, if this position is the most warranted, given the evidence available now, this means that the core of both ID and the core of the “modern synthesis” – that all significant evolution is adaptive – is gone, and all that remains is descent with modification, about which most of us agree.
Allen, In the event I'm pulled away from this thread because of other committments, I hope we can resume this fruitful discussion. It has been a delight! Let me relate an experience that has enlightened me toward your view of the the ID/EB debate. I had studied classical piano performance before changing my undergraduate degree to the engineering disciplines. I was listening to my piano teacher playing Bach, and I thought to myself, "what a mindless conglomeration of sounds". I'm sure my teacher would be horrified, as well as many Bach enthusiasts for my heretical view of Bach. To this day, I fail to hear any semblence of genius in certain Bach pieces. Yet to others, what strikes me as mindless randomness, is divine Genius! In contrast when my teacher played Wagner-Lizt's Liebestod, I thought "Genius!". Here is an interesting anectdote about Joshua Bell playing Bach in the Subway on a 3.5 milliion dollar violin. This proverbial story is very applicable to the ID/EB debate. It seems to me we computer engineers at UD and the ID movement look at life and think to ourselves: "Genius, the designer is a computer genius!" while others are less astonished. I think getting others to view ID though the lense of an ID-sympathetic engineer is like getting me to learn to appreciate Bach (yes, I know that is heresy for a classical musician like myself to admit). I have stated that the strongest circumstantial case for design is in the area of computational and information processing systems involved in the Origin-of-Life. I'm not as versant in the fields of biological evolution that are of interest to you. And I will concede that I cannot articulate a defense of ID in the area of convergent evolution and protein-protein binding sites to a degree I feel comfortable with. Suffice to say, it is an idea think is true, but hold more tentatively than the ideas I put forward regarding OOL.scordova_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

“The theory of evolution cannot even explain the evolution of the eye/ vision system…”
This is a baseless assertion.- Allen MacNeill
Geez then all YOU would have to do is demonstrate otherwise. However I can offer the following: Andrea Bottaro said the following over at the panda’s thumb:
Eyes are formed via long and complex developmental genetic networks/cascades, which we are only beginning to understand, and of which Pax6/eyeless (the gene in question, in mammals and Drosophila, respectively) merely constitutes one of the initial elements.
IOW the only evidence for the evolution of the vision system is that we have observed varying degrees of complexity in living organisms, from simple light sensitive spots on unicellular organisms to the vision system of more complex metazoans, and we “know” that the first population(s) of living organisms didn’t have either. Therefore the vision system “evolved”. Isn’t evolutionary “science” great! I say the above because if Dr Bottaro is correct then we really have no idea whether or not the vision system could have evolved from a population or populations that did not have one.Joseph_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Sal, consider: Is design part of reality, a phenomenon, an observable event? Yes (Let's just all agree to this and not have a silly argument about semantics or metaphysics.) Can design be detected? Yes, if one accepts the utility of the scientific method. To say that it can't be is to put a strange and sad limitation on science. Should design be limited to humans? Ironically, if one is an hard-core Darwinian one should insist on a big, loud "no". After all, if man developed an ability to design via evolution what would keep some other life form? Dolphins, maybe, or sea otters LOL. Does ID succeed in ascertaining design for certain complex objects and events? That's the question to discuss.tribune7_{April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply