Questions in evolution: How do jellyfish, crustaceans and beetles just suddenly appear?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 3, 2008

The Design of Life}

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

Animals suddenly appear … and after that nothing much happens. Why? How?

Read the latest post, linked above, at The Design of Life blog and help me think about this. (Currently, I am learning to cope with the fact that Alley Oop has been lying to me for, like, tens of thousands of years, so I can use the help wth thinking.)

The comments facility has been enabled, but for best results, read the blog FAQs first.

Comments

We have experience only of human beings and other animals, some of whom can design things.
A designing agency is a designing agency. Designing agencies can do things that nature, operating freely, could not or would not do.
To suggest that something besides living animals might be able to somehow design and build life forms is a speculation in need of evidence, not something we accept based on first-hand experience.
If we had first-hand experience then we wouldn't have a design INFERENCE! However we don't need first-hand experience in all cases- that is where science comes in.
To say that agency is something that transcends “nature operating freely” is a metaphysical speculation that has no scientific support.
Except that we have first-hand accounts of agencies tracending nature, operating freely. IOW no speculation required.
As far as we know, human beings could well operate as part of “nature operating freely”.
That is why when someone demonstrates that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes ID will be falsified.
Maybe there is a non-material component of mind, and maybe there is not, but it is not the case that “reality demonstrates” this sort of extended ontology.
But reality does demonstrate that it matters to an investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency or nature,operating freely. There are investigative venues that demonstrate this fact. You can either continue to ignore that fact or you can show that it doesn't matter to an investigation how what is being investigated came to be the way it is. IOW in every instance in which IC and CSI are observed and the cause known, that cause has always been some agency.
I think that you are defining “agency” as the ability to create CSI/IC.
I have already defined agency, ie intelligence, as that which can create counterflow Archaeologists rely on the ability to separate artifact from nature, operating freely. Much of that ability comes via experience. Forensic science also relies on the ability to diffeentiate between nature, operating freely and agency involvement. Fire investigators in So. California determined arson during the recent fires- via experience.
None of these specialists ever actually infers anything about “nature operating freely”, nor do they ever infer anything about “intelligent agency” in the abstract.
That is EXACTLY what they do. Do you think they flip a coin?
The only thing they ever infer is if a human being has been involved in some event. Obviously we have a lot of knowledge about human beings and other animals.
We also need to know what nature, operating freely is capable of. Otherwise there is nothing to contrast against/ with.
have never believed that Darwinian principles are sufficient to explain living structures; I think something essential is missing from our understanding. What is it? I do not know. But when you say it is “intelligence” or “design”, this tells me precisely nothing.
Who cares what it tells YOU? It tells me quite a bit. For example it tells me that perhaps the genomes are readable codes- just like the codes humans design.
I’ve spent my life studying intelligence, and even though I am not a “Darwinist”, I can’t make heads or tails out of what ID folks mean when they offer this explantion of “design”.
What about when an archaeologist offers an explanation of design? Does that make Stonehenge more understandable? Can you make heads or tails out of that structure now that it has been determined to be an artifact?
In my view, “nature operating freely” may be much stranger than we imagine, and perhaps stranger than we can imagine (to echo Eddington). But to imagine that saying the word “design” or “intelligence” somehow captures what is behind the structure of life (and the universe) seems very mistaken to me.
It's a place to start our investigation. IOW once design is inferred the investigation starts in that light. One wouldn't investigate a murder if natural causes were found.Joseph_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

(magnan:) You ignore the obvious fact of intelligent (human) design always present in human technological breakthroughs, even though each creative inventor of course utilizes the collective creative output of his predecessors I think what you ignore is the necessity of time and energy for these things to take place. The human brain is a machine which enables its posessor to internally model the external world such that he can make predictions about the external world to a certain degree of accuracy. You have the collective brains of humanity operating over a period of time to produce artifacts consistent with the basic needs of man, and there is no centralized control over these brains to account for the emergence of these artifacts. The increase in complexity of artifacts is due to time and energy. NDE has no creative integrative insight. Do the individual neurons of your brain have integrative insight? You use the Wright brothers as an example. Would a stochastic process somehow have the insight and creativity to put together the availability of internal combustion engines, their suitability (with modification) to power heavier-than air flight, and the growing knowledge of aerodynamics (much from their own research) to produce the first successful airplane? Not sure about stochastic processes, but some sort of physical process can accomplish these things, because that's what man is, a physical process. I don't know, to me the model of design is incremental refinements over time, with each new participant adding a little bit more. As far as individual contributions doesn't it always come down to labor, actual real physical expenditure of energy over time, consistent with a specific comprehensible goal. I'm sure the Wright brothers spent hours and hours doing nothing more than laborious observations of birds in flight. For all I know, a chimp could see a bird get away from him, and on some level say to himself, "I wish I could fly!" If it had a brain large enough maybe chimp society could be such that a few of them could sit around for hours watching birds and try to figure it out, and maybe after thousands and thousands of years, maybe they would. Out of curiosity, do you attribute transcendent nonphysical attributes to a chimp? Don't you attribute a chimp's behavior to basic physical drives and the brain capacity he has to model the external world? Just because this interests me, I'll mention it was in the news this week that it is now known that chimps fashion spears, stripping off leaves and sharpening the ends of branches and then going off to hunt animals with them. I can do better than this, believe me. I just wanted to give you some sort of response at this time.JunkyardTornado_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

To suggest that something besides living animals might be able to somehow design and build life forms is a speculation in need of evidence, not something we accept based on first-hand experience. So does than mean that whatever built the lifeforms of this earth was a living animal. I guess you would say that life wasn't designed, but isn't a hill shaped or "designed" by wind and erosion and whatever other natural causes to which we attribute its shape. Later you say, I would call evolutionary processes “intelligent”, for example - they just aren’t intelligent enough (in my opinion) to generate eyeballs and flagella So presumably you would call the sum total of physical causes that created life intelligent enough but earlier you said that it only living animals could design and build life. (So is whatever designed an built life a living animal.) Just an observation. I agree with several things you said however, for example ID's flaw being its dependence on dualism and asserting that intelligence has something to do with transcending physical causation.JunkyardTornado_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Joseph, Wrong again. Ya see we have experience, first-hand accounts, with designers creating parameters for their design. We have experience only of human beings and other animals, some of whom can design things. To suggest that something besides living animals might be able to somehow design and build life forms is a speculation in need of evidence, not something we accept based on first-hand experience. And reality demonstrates that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency or by nature, operating freely. To say that agency is something that transcends "nature operating freely" is a metaphysical speculation that has no scientific support. As far as we know, human beings could well operate as part of "nature operating freely". Maybe there is a non-material component of mind, and maybe there is not, but it is not the case that "reality demonstrates" this sort of extended ontology. In other words, dualism is not a scientific fact, and cannot currently be supported by scientific evidence. If the truth of ID is predicated on the truth of dualism, then ID is a metaphysical speculation. (Note that valid scientific theories are predicated neither on metaphysical dualism nor physicalism). IOW in every instance in which IC and CSI are observed and the cause known, that cause has always been some agency. I think that you are defining "agency" as the ability to create CSI/IC. In that case, what you are saying is that CSI/IC is always created by something that has the ability to create CSI/IC. This doesn't seem very helpful. If you have another way to define agency, please describe what that is, and how we can apply a test to determine when something is an agency or not. Archaeologists rely on the ability to separate artifact from nature, operating freely. Much of that ability comes via experience. Forensic science also relies on the ability to diffeentiate between nature, operating freely and agency involvement. Fire investigators in So. California determined arson during the recent fires- via experience. None of these specialists ever actually infers anything about "nature operating freely", nor do they ever infer anything about "intelligent agency" in the abstract. The only thing they ever infer is if a human being has been involved in some event. Obviously we have a lot of knowledge about human beings and other animals. Chance, necessity and design. You can’t understand the design if you leave it out and only have “chance & necessity”. You develop a skitoma and therefore only see what you want to see- is it a rabbit or a duck? I have never believed that Darwinian principles are sufficient to explain living structures; I think something essential is missing from our understanding. What is it? I do not know. But when you say it is "intelligence" or "design", this tells me precisely nothing. I've spent my life studying intelligence, and even though I am not a "Darwinist", I can't make heads or tails out of what ID folks mean when they offer this explantion of "design". I would call evolutionary processes "intelligent", for example - they just aren't intelligent enough (in my opinion) to generate eyeballs and flagella. So please spell it out for me: What does it mean to "intelligently design" something? To you, it apparently means transcending physical causation, operating outside of "nature operating freely". And what does "nature operating freely" mean? It means (apparently) nothing except "without intelligence"! And how can we decide when something is intelligent? Because then it can create CSI/IC! All of this seems hopelessly circular. In my view, "nature operating freely" may be much stranger than we imagine, and perhaps stranger than we can imagine (to echo Eddington). But to imagine that saying the word "design" or "intelligence" somehow captures what is behind the structure of life (and the universe) seems very mistaken to me.aiguy_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

junkyard tornado (#29): "Since when has the sudden appearance of something indicated design? What human design process works that way?" If some of your posts have been moderated out, I can understand why. If a complicated machine suddenly appears cleverly incorporating a number of technologies that had humanly "evolved" separately, the complex specified information of that integrated machine design had to come about through some process. You ignore the obvious fact of intelligent (human) design always present in human technological breakthroughs, even though each creative inventor of course utilizes the collective creative output of his predecessors. You also ignore the obvious activity of human creative ingenuity in originally inventing the separate precursor technologies. Like Benz in inventing the internal combustion engine. Integrative creative insights were required throughout human technological evolution. NDE has no creative integrative insight. You use the Wright brothers as an example. Would a stochastic process somehow have the insight and creativity to put together the availability of internal combustion engines, their suitability (with modification) to power heavier-than air flight, and the growing knowledge of aerodynamics (much from their own research) to produce the first successful airplane?magnan_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

I'll assume that mods are the only ones seeing this. What do you have against me? Do other people put up with this for days on end (whatever this is) before finally being allowed into the club. For the record, at this point in my life I would desribe myself as a theistic evolutionist (for lack of a better term.) As a Christian I would ask, if Man is the endpoint of creation, then why does the rest of the universe exist if it had nothing to do with our coming into existence? If stellar energy sustains life on this planet, making possible all creative activity of man, then why could stellar energy not be responsible for our existence, i.e. by creating the probabilstic resources under which life ultimately emerged in a vanishingly remote little corner of the universe called the planet Earth. (Dembski's calculations notwithstanding.) I accept God's existence as a given, but that affirmation by me or anyone does little to explicate the process by which Man came into existence. I think God's eternal existence was in effect a passive resource, dictating what is viable in life and what is not. Someone who has immense knowledge does not have to give careful attention to trivial tasks, and for the eternal God, even the biological world is a trivial task. I do believe in his personal involvement at least in the form of Christ. However, if you read the Old Testament Law, it at times seems as if God is not even all that familiar with the particular details of his own creation as far as animals are concerned. I know this is way off topic, but I get the impression that at this point all you really want to know is who I am.JunkyardTornado_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

JunkyardTornado, The sudden appearance of anything of itself means nothing. It is when a complex functionally organized entity appears out of nowhere that it is best explained by design.jerry_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

JunkyardTornado, You have posted a lot of posts for someone who claims their posts are being moderated.jerry_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

In programming there are timer functions and setInterval events. Programmers have functions set to execute after a given amount of time and when certain variables are present. When a function is called, all of the data/instructions which already exists within that function, is actualized. Scott - are you a Mod? I assume that's why your post is in white. Is your comment intended to explain why you're removing my posts from this thread? Are my posts still not being seen except by moderators?JunkyardTornado_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

junkyardTornado: In programming there are timer functions and setInterval events. Programmers have functions set to execute after a given amount of time and when certain variables are present. When a function is called, all of the data/instructions which already exists within that function, is actualized.Scott_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

OK Here is my original comment from memory. If a person rejected this, then could you please give me some feedback, e.g. "We just felt like it was covering old ground." or SOMETHING, so I'll have some guidelines for the future. ----------- Since when has the sudden appearance of something indicated design? What human design process works that way? If someone waves a a magic wand and a rabbit instantaneously appears, we call it "illusion". But if the same thing is said to happen in nature we call it "design"? Certainly the Cambrian Explosion only indicates our ignorance of causal precursors, not their absence. As far as human designs, they emerge over millenia as the result of numerous individual working completely independently. The Wright Brothers didn't invent steel, fabric, wood, bicycles or the internal combustion engine or any of the other myriad precursor technologies their invention was dependant on. So it is civilization collectively that "designs" things in a haphazard, incremental process extending centuries. And furthermore technologies are preserved, not because any one person necessarily understands their causal history or why they're optimal but rather merely because they work (i.e. natural selection.) The inventors of metallurgy didn't know it would one day be crucial for watchmaking. -----------JunkyardTornado_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

To the mods: I didn't ask for you to post my personal correspondence to you on this thread. Is that what you think I wanted? I wanted to know why my original post disappeared after a few hours, and then after I reposted it with a polite note to you asking why it was rejected, you merely ignored me and removed my original post again (and as I said, now I've lost track of it). What's the deal with posting my personal correspondence to you on this thread? I just want to see my original comment.JunkyardTornado_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

The "wall of silence" is simply the moderators being busy. And I'm not sure what comment you're referring to since UD's system does not keep a log.Patrick_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

I have already reposted my original comment to this thread and merely asked for an explanation regarding its rejection. Now I have lost track of my original comment, and have recieved NO feedback of any kind from you people. I merely asked whethere it was a person who rejected it, or an automated process, but you can't be bothered to say ANYTHING to me. You have my e-mail if you want to respond that way. Did you understand that NONE of my posts are being accepted? My original comment most certainly did not have abusive language in it, and in requesting an explantion for its rejection I am met with nothing but a wall of silence. I simply do not understand your mentality at all. WHAT IS GOING ON??????????????JunkyardTornado_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

ari-freedom: I have a lot of respect for Dr Behe. But I don’t want to see ID as just another ‘trick’ to choose from a whole bag of tricks. As Paul Nelson once said ID is another tool in the (science) toolkit. (see video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life") Chance, necessity and design. True the "necessity" part may be (and probably was) designed, but chance always appears to be present. Evolutionists already have a whole bag of tricks to play with. Gradualism here, punk eek there. Gene selection here, sexual selection there. Common descent here, convergence there… Designed to evolve vs evolved by purely stochastic processes. If we’re going to make a serious contribution to biology we need to make our view of the patterns of life simpler, not more complex. If ID is the correct inference then genomes are intelligible and readable codes. That is ID's serious contribution because only by looking for a "message" (ie the instruction set and how it is imprinted onto DNA) can we find a message. Right now our approach, to me, seems like trying to read & understand the computer program by probing the data bus(ses) and watching the ones and zeros fly by. And we take that approach because the living organisms are thought to be reducible to matter & energy. It is a failed approach in an unrealistic scenario.Joseph_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

So I think what you really mean is “only intelligent agents generate significant CSI and IC”. The problem is that in order to see if that proposition is true, you need some method to determine what is or is not an intelligent agent that is independent of the ability to generate CSI/IC. But there is no method with which to do this.
Experience. IOW in every instance in which IC and CSI are observed and the cause known, that cause has always been some agency. Archaeologists rely on the ability to separate artifact from nature, operating freely. Much of that ability comes via experience. Forensic science also relies on the ability to diffeentiate between nature, operating freely and agency involvement. Fire investigators in So. California determined arson during the recent fires- via experience. The design inference- in biology and the universe- is made due to our experience- that is we have a good grasp on what nature,operating freely is capable of and we have observed many intelligent agencies use nature for their purpose and leave behind evidence and we couple that knowledge. And as with every inference it can be either confirmed or refuted with incoming data. For example ID will be refuted if it can be demonstrated that living organisms are reducible to matter & energy. And seeing that reality demonstrates that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency or by nature, operating freely, the design inference may help us better understand living organisms. "Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change." (anonymous) Chance, necessity and design. You can't understand the design if you leave it out and only have "chance & necessity". You develop a skitoma and therefore only see what you want to see- is it a rabbit or a duck?Joseph_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

And these unknown laws “just are” (the way they are)? Geez stochastic processes can’t even explain the laws we know about… Right. But this seems analogous to ID positing a designer who “just is (the way it is)”, so I’d say structuralism and ID are both very vague at this point. Wrong again. Ya see we have experience, first-hand accounts, with designers creating parameters for their design. And ID is about the design, not the designer. IOW your response fails on those 2 points. But if ID says nothing at all about what “intelligent agents” are and how they manage to generate functional complexity, then we aren’t really learning anything when ID says that life is caused by intelligent agency. ID is about the design, not the designer:
The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe

As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution
Ya see aiguy the only way to make any determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation, is by studying the design in question. And reality demonstrates that it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agency or by nature, operating freely.Joseph_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

BarryA wrote: While all living things exhibit CSI and IC, only man actually generates significant CSI and IC. Does that mean that birds building nests are not creating CSI? Or chimps creating twig tools to fish termites? Or whale songs?ellazimm_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

BarryA, You are focusing on the wrong thing. The science of ID does not study intelligence per se. It studies effect caused by intelligent agents. There is a huge difference between studying an effect and studying a cause. It seems to me that the effect here is just what we all observe - complex living machinery. We know that complex living things exist, and you and I agree that it is unlikely that random variation and natural selection accounts for this. But if ID says nothing at all about what "intelligent agents" are and how they manage to generate functional complexity, then we aren't really learning anything when ID says that life is caused by intelligent agency. While all living things exhibit CSI and IC, only man actually generates significant CSI and IC. If by "man" you mean "human beings", then I don't think you mean what you said literally (since I'm guessing you believe a non-human designer was involved in designing life on Earth, no?). So I think what you really mean is "only intelligent agents generate significant CSI and IC". The problem is that in order to see if that proposition is true, you need some method to determine what is or is not an intelligent agent that is independent of the ability to generate CSI/IC. But there is no method with which to do this. The fact that we know beyond the slightest doubt that the only known cause of CSI and IC is intelligent agency adds immeasurably to our understanding of where CSI and IC comes from. Well, I disagree. The one and only thing we know about ID's designer is that it can do whatever is required to design life. Can it consciously reflect on its beliefs and desires? Does it use mental imagery? Is this "intelligence" itself something that proceeds by fixed law and chance? We may have opinions on these matters, but I can't think of any way to support them empirically. So to use "intelligent agency" as ID's explanation for how life was caused, in the end, means nothing more (scientifically at least) than "something that could cause life". I'm guessing you will take issue with (among other things) my question about whether ID's designing intelligence could itself operate according to fixed law and chance. But as far as science goes, this question is completely open: Nobody knows whether or not mental causation is ontologically distinct from physical causation.aiguy_{January 4, 2008
January
01
Jan
4
04
2008
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

aiguy, again I disagree. You write: "Again, I would ask how “design” constitutes a theory in this sense. Scientists who study intelligence consider it to be a mystery we are trying to explain, and not something that can be used to explain other things." You are focusing on the wrong thing. The science of ID does not study intelligence per se. It studies effect caused by intelligent agents. There is a huge difference between studying an effect and studying a cause. ID posits that certain effects are best explained as the result of acts by an intelligent agent. It does not go further than that to study the intelligent agent itself. Therefore, to say that ID has no idea what intelligence is is beside the point. You write: "Even granting arguendo that IC and CSI are reliably measurable, it is not actually “intelligence” or “agency” per se that we observe generating these things; rather, it is “living organisms”." Huh? I have written this comment. I have observed myself, an intelligent agent (OK everyone; stop snickering; it's unbecoming), generate CSI of an order of magnitude that is beyond the universal probability bound in the short time I have been tapping away. While all living things exhibit CSI and IC, only man actually generates significant CSI and IC. The fact that we know beyond the slightest doubt that the only known cause of CSI and IC is intelligent agency adds immeasurably to our understanding of where CSI and IC comes from.BarryA_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

Jerry, Yes, I've seen Dembski mention Kauffmann etc. and complain that these ideas lacked any details at all. I agree, but it seems to me that ID does not supply any details either, at least at this juncture. Joseph, And these unknown laws “just are” (the way they are)? Geez stochastic processes can’t even explain the laws we know about… Right. But this seems analogous to ID positing a designer who "just is (the way it is)", so I'd say structuralism and ID are both very vague at this point. BarryA, 1. We are discussing theories here. You enter: “some unknown set of physical laws and properties somehow cause life forms to emerge.” This is just another way of saying, “We have no idea.” "We have no idea" is not a theory that competes with design and NDE. It is an admission of ignorance. It is not a theory at all. Again, I would ask how "design" constitutes a theory in this sense. Scientists who study intelligence consider it to be a mystery we are trying to explain, and not something that can be used to explain other things. Nobody knows how human beings manage to creatively solve problems and design things, so we label these mysterious behaviors "intelligent", and we label our mysterious ability to exhibit these behaviors "intelligence". There is no theory of intelligence per se; it too is a label for our ignorance. So, one person might say "I have no idea how life arose, but whatever caused it, it was unintelligent", and another person might say "I have no idea how life arose, but whatever caused it, it was intelligent". I don't think either of these qualifies as a theory in any reasonable sense. 2. There is plenty of positive evidence for design. What is the sole known cause of irreducibly complex machines? Intelligent agents. What is the sole known cause of complex specified information? Intelligent agents. Therefore, when we see irreducible complexity and complex specified information, it is positive evidence for design. Even granting arguendo that IC and CSI are reliably measurable, it is not actually "intelligence" or "agency" per se that we observe generating these things; rather, it is "living organisms". The observable fact that animals (including us) can generate complex form and function does not constitute a theory of how complex form and function is created in general, and merely labeling this ability "intelligence" does not add anything to our understanding.aiguy_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

I look on NDE or the modern synthesis as part of ID and I believe it is the smart thing to do because it matches the data. Genomes have been designed so that adjustments to it can be made by natural processes. This does not mean that unlimited changes can be made to a genome or the population gene pool but that enough changes can be made to help the population adapt to various environments and increase the richness of life and ensure that species last longer. The construction of life via the 4 nucleotide DNA sequence that allows life to adjust via the occasional mutation is an amazing design. Doesn't everyone think it was set up that way to be flexible. So any of the things that are supposed to accompany the modern synthesis are just elements of great design. So look at ID with a more holistic view than just occasional intervention or elaborate front loading and you get a better picture of the true design. Do not be afraid of accepting the modern synthesis; just be emphatic about its limitations on what it can do. Then ID will be operating from stronger position than current evolutionary biology.jerry_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

joseph I have a lot of respect for Dr Behe. But I don't want to see ID as just another 'trick' to choose from a whole bag of tricks. Evolutionists already have a whole bag of tricks to play with. Gradualism here, punk eek there. Gene selection here, sexual selection there. Common descent here, convergence there... If we're going to make a serious contribution to biology we need to make our view of the patterns of life simpler, not more complex.ari-freedom_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

aiguy writes: Another idea would be what is sometimes called “structuralism” - that some unknown set of physical laws and properties somehow cause life forms to emerge. Nothing is really known (scientifically at least) about either of these options; both are speculations without any positive, independent evidence." I disagree with both of these statements. 1. We are discussing theories here. You enter: "some unknown set of physical laws and properties somehow cause life forms to emerge." This is just another way of saying, "We have no idea." "We have no idea is not a theory that competes with design and NDE. It is an admission of ignorance. It is not a theory at all. 2. "Nothing is really known (scientifically at least) about either of these options; both are speculations without any positive, independent evidence." Not at all. There is plenty of positive evidence for design. What is the sole known cause of irreducibly complex machines? Intelligent agents. What is the sole known cause of complex specified information? Intelligent agents. Therefore, when we see irreducible complexity and complex specified information, it is positive evidence for design.BarryA_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

I think this view of “chance and necessity” vs. “design” as an exhaustive dichotomy lies at the heart of much of the miscommunication and misunderstanding between ID proponents and their critics. That is why Dr Behe said:
Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism. Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.
Let’s take for granted that evolutionary mechanisms can’t account for what we see. It's "blindwatchmaker-type, ie stochastic, processes, can't account for everything we see. Another idea would be what is sometimes called “structuralism” - that some unknown set of physical laws and properties somehow cause life forms to emerge. And these unknown laws "just are" (the way they are)? Geez stochastic processes can't even explain the laws we know about...Joseph_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

aiguy, In the Design of Life, Dembski and Wells consider four categories of massive changes to the genome as explanations for naturalistic change. These are 1. Non biogenic formation which would include what you are suggesting, namely, changes arise from law and chance and would include such things as Kaufman's self organization theories. 2. Symbiogenic reorganization or the melding of two different genomes to produce a new one. 3. Biogenic reinvention which is a major morphological change during the organism's life and subsequent offspring. 4. Generative transmutations which means that the offspring are vastly different from the parent. They dismiss each one but certainly each could be discussed in more detail for likelihood of occurrence or if there are other ways that genomes could change substantially.jerry_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

"Some features could have been front-loaded to express on certain environmental cues" yes but probably very limited, to account for some cases of micro-evolution. Keep in mind: we see stasis for millions and millions of years despite all the environmental changes that must have occurred. Some of the other claimed cases of evolution in the fossil record (for example, changes in snail shells, harder teeth, etc) may be the result of the environment acting on the development of the phenotype and nothing to do with any genetic change.ari-freedom_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Mike1962, both of the examples you use are "design" examples. If you are going to suggest there is a third way, you should give us an example that involves neither design (in whatever way) nor Darwinian evolution.BarryA_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

"Living things were either designed or they were not designed. That is a discrete function. There is no middle ground or third way." Some features could have been front-loaded to express on certain environmental cues, which might lead to a spectrum of variant species. Designed to evolve. And some features could have been added ad hoc by intelligent agency via viruses, quantum level manipulation or some other means. I don't think it's either/or in a strict traditional creationism sense.mike1962_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

BarryA, "Living things were either designed or they were not designed. That is a discrete function. There is no middle ground or third way. ... Therefore, data that refute Darwinian evolution – such as sudden appearance followed by stasis – necessarily tend to support ID." I think this view of "chance and necessity" vs. "design" as an exhaustive dichotomy lies at the heart of much of the miscommunication and misunderstanding between ID proponents and their critics. Let's take for granted that evolutionary mechanisms can't account for what we see. Still, there is more than one remaining idea that might prove to be true. One idea would be "design" - that some unknown being with a mind somehow constructed life forms. Another idea would be what is sometimes called "structuralism" - that some unknown set of physical laws and properties somehow cause life forms to emerge. Nothing is really known (scientifically at least) about either of these options; both are speculations without any positive, independent evidence. But neither of these vague hypotheses can be supported simply by discounting evolutionary theory.aiguy_{January 3, 2008
January
01
Jan
3
03
2008
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply