|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10297 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Genomicus writes: Not sure if you're referring strictly to DNA as a molecule here, in and of itself, or the whole genetic code. Because when it comes to the genetic code, there's plenty that's similar to it -- phenomena which we know are the products of agency. The canonical genetic code is a code in a very real sense -- this isn't metaphorical language employed by biologists. And codes and data transmission -- complete with error-correcting mechanisms, parity structure, etc. -- are known to be the products of intelligence. Arcs of electricity are known to be the product of human intelligence and design. That doesn't mean that lightning is the product of design. Just because humans make certain things does not mean that they can't be produced by nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2194 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
What we also need to remember is how unreliable appearances are. At one time, the Sun appeared to move about the Earth instead of the Earth moving about the Sun. I can look up into the sky and find clouds that have the appearance of ducks or dragons. That doesn't mean there are dragons flying through the air. I get your point, but IMHO it's a bit of stretch to equate perceived phantasmagoria in the clouds with what we see in biology. When we say that cells have molecular machines, we actually mean that they have machines. This isn't metaphorical language -- and the same is true for genetic codes. But let me add a bit more nuance to this. To take your example of dragon-like clouds: what happens when we hone in on those images in the clouds in more depth? The images start looking less like dragons and more like ordinary masses of atmospheric gases. In other words, under higher resolution, the appearances fall away. But this isn't so for life. When we look at life under increasingly higher resolutions, the deeper the engineering analogy becomes. There are actual machines with discrete, modular parts. At a core, basal level, there are systems that smack of rational design -- systems and machines that are not reflective of hodge-podge, jury-rigged Neo-Darwinian co-option mechanisms. This doesn't mean we immediately say that life is intelligently designed. It certainly does not mean that we introduce such material in high school classrooms. But it does mean that it makes sense to be suspicious that teleology has played a role in the origin of life. We can then take that as a working hypothesis, further refine it, and see where the hypothesis' predictions and explanatory powers takes us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2194 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Arcs of electricity are known to be the product of human intelligence and design. That doesn't mean that lightning is the product of design. Just because humans make certain things does not mean that they can't be produced by nature. That is correct, yes. However, I was responding to Percy's line of argument:
We *know* that humans manipulate flint, we know what it looks like, and we recognize it when we see it. But when we look at DNA there's nothing similar to compare to that we know was designed by intelligent beings. I daresay most molecular and computational biologists would disagree with this assessment that DNA (if we mean a genetic code, and not just the molecule itself) doesn't strongly resemble anything we know to be designed by intelligence. And, of course, any explanation -- teleological or non-teleological -- for the origin of the genetic code must ultimately rest in historical evidence. After all, we know that we're very good at conjuring evolutionary pathways that never existed in reality: John McDonald's narrative for how the apparently irreducibly complex mousetrap could have "evolved" from simpler precursor stages demonstrates this rather succinctly. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10297 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Genomicus writes: I get your point, but IMHO it's a bit of stretch to equate perceived phantasmagoria in the clouds with what we see in biology. When we say that cells have molecular machines, we actually mean that they have machines. This isn't metaphorical language -- and the same is true for genetic codes. You could just as well claim that clouds are lightning machines, or that the Sun is a fusion machine.
But let me add a bit more nuance to this. To take your example of dragon-like clouds: what happens when we hone in on those images in the clouds in more depth? The images start looking less like dragons and more like ordinary masses of atmospheric gases. In other words, under higher resolution, the appearances fall away. Humans also produce masses of atmospheric gases. So does this mean that all masses of atmospheric gases are made by an intelligence?
But this isn't so for life. When we look at life under increasingly higher resolutions, the deeper the engineering analogy becomes. There are actual machines with discrete, modular parts. At a core, basal level, there are systems that smack of rational design -- systems and machines that are not reflective of hodge-podge, jury-rigged Neo-Darwinian co-option mechanisms. That is true of any chemical reaction. You can label oxygen and hydrogen molecules as machines, and call them water machines when they are in the presence of enough energy to catalyze the reaction that leads to water.
But it does mean that it makes sense to be suspicious that teleology has played a role in the origin of life. We can then take that as a working hypothesis, further refine it, and see where the hypothesis' predictions and explanatory powers takes us. We already did that. ID lost. ID can't explain basic observations in biology, such as the fossil record, observed morphological phylogenies, or patterns of genetic divergence. Evolution can explain these things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10297 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Genomicus writes: I daresay most molecular and computational biologists would disagree with this assessment that DNA (if we mean a genetic code, and not just the molecule itself) doesn't strongly resemble anything we know to be designed by intelligence. Based on what arguments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2194 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
You could just as well claim that clouds are lightning machines, or that the Sun is a fusion machine. Sure, but those metaphors won't take you very far in terms of making sense of these phenomena. Meteorology does not borrow the terminology of engineering. Molecular biology does -- and does so extensively. Why?
Humans also produce masses of atmospheric gases. So does this mean that all masses of atmospheric gases are made by an intelligence? My statement was regarding whether your hypothetical cloud-dragon would still look like a dragon under higher resolution, not whether those clouds were intelligently designed. Of course, concluding that all clouds are made by intelligence because humans produce some atmospheric gases is to commit a major slip in logic.
That is true of any chemical reaction. You can label oxygen and hydrogen molecules as machines, and call them water machines when they are in the presence of enough energy to catalyze the reaction that leads to water. Again, calling oxygen and hydrogen "water machines" doesn't actually help us make sense of chemistry. Sure, you can call them "water machines" as an odd literary device, but that's about all. Why don't chemists talk about an oxygen-hydrogen circuit that shuttles oxygen to hydrogen? And why do molecular biologists use such -- ostensibly engineering-based -- language when describing protein interactions and pathways in cells? It is only biology, it seems, that requires engineering language in order to shed more light on various biological systems and phenomena. This language, again, is not metaphorical as it pertains to biology. It is literal. And it has proven tremendously useful to the field. Why? Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2194 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
We already did that. ID lost. ID can't explain basic observations in biology, such as the fossil record, observed morphological phylogenies, or patterns of genetic divergence. Evolution can explain these things. A hypothesis of agency in the origin of life need not conflict with the modern evolutionary synthesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 664 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Genomicus writes:
Wouldn't that hypothesis have to explain how the "agency" evolved?
A hypothesis of agency in the origin of life need not conflict with the modern evolutionary synthesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Genomicus writes: A hypothesis of agency in the origin of life need not conflict with the modern evolutionary synthesis. But does it add anything at all other than unsupported assertions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2194 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Wouldn't that hypothesis have to explain how the "agency" evolved? I don't see why it would have any obligation to that end, inasmuch as the Neo-Darwinian theory of common ancestry need not explain how life first arose on Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2194 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Based on what arguments? Most molecular biologists -- I suspect, based on what's been published in the scientific literature -- would comfortably assert that the genetic code resembles human-designed codes and data transmission systems. I could provide a litany of relevant quotes from the literature, if you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"Imagine that in 1957 a clairvoyant biologist offered as a hypothesis the exact genetic code and mechanism of protein synthesis understood today. How would the proposal have been received? My guess is that Nature would have rejected the paper. 'This notion of the ribosome ratcheting along the messenger RNA three bases at a timeit sounds like a computer reading a data tape. Biological systems don’t work that way. In biochemistry we have templates,where all the reactants come together simultaneously, not assembly lines where machines are built step by step.'" From: Hayes, B. The Invention of the Genetic Code. American Scientist. Surely the paper would actually have been rejected because clairvoyance is not an accepted form of scientific inquiry. When people produced actual evidence, where was the pushback from people saying "you must be wrong because biochemistry doesn't work that way"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 664 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Genomicus writes:
But the Theory of Evolution does have to dovetail with any explanation we do have or will have about how life first arose. A hypothesis that's isolated from all existing theories has little value.
... inasmuch as the Neo-Darwinian theory of common ancestry need not explain how life first arose on Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10297 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Genomicus writes: Most molecular biologists -- I suspect, based on what's been published in the scientific literature -- would comfortably assert that the genetic code resembles human-designed codes and data transmission systems. What do they base these assertions on? For example, you don't stop a computer program by folding the hard drive into a 3 dimensional structure like a stem loop. However, that is how DNA works. You also don't make programs where programs are turned on by the ability of one part of the hard drive to physically bind to another part of the hard drive, and yet that is exactly how DNA works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10297 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Genomicus writes: A hypothesis of agency in the origin of life need not conflict with the modern evolutionary synthesis. We aren't talking about the origin of life. We are talking about modern species.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024