|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 236 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Ping me when you actually stop using worthless word salads.
Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2202 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Ping me when you actually stop using worthless word salads. Ping me when you've shown where I've written something that is unintelligible to most college-educated, English-speaking audiences. You'd have to do that to back your claim of "word salad." Thx.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2202 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
But when we look at life on a biochemical/molecular level, the analogy with engineering strengthens, rather than weakens. What are you seeing at that biochemical/molecular level that strengthens the analogy with engineering? You don't have proof-reading and error-correcting mechanisms in volcanology (or geology as a whole), and nor does one find codes in astronomy or chemistry. Chemists don't talk about a nitrogen-chloride circuit that shuttles chloride to nitrogen. And you will not find the scholarly literature discussing how the ocean "senses" the moon and regulates its motion in response, thereby forming tides. Communication (as defined by, e.g., De Loof in "Life is Communication") doesn't happen between the Earth and sun, with a resulting orbit. And you won't read discussions on literal machines ("complex machines," not simple machines, as defined by Bruce Alberts and others) in the discoveries of these scientific disciplines. Yet this kind of language is at the core of both molecular biology and engineering. Writes Alberts (1998): "Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like the machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. Within each protein assembly, intermolecular collisions are not only restricted to a small set of possibilities, but reaction C depends on reaction B, which in turn depends on reaction Ajust as it would in a machine of our common experience." Notably, the extensive use of engineering language in biology only began with the birth of the molecular biology and genomics revolution. While words like "machine" or "pump" were used to describe biological features like the human heart, this kind of language becomes much more useful and much more prevalent when we look at the molecular level of life. So the analogy between life and engineering -- fuzzy at best before discoveries in molecular biology -- strengthened, instead of weakened, with further understanding of the cell.
Do you know anything about engineering practices or principles? Probably.
One principle is modularity. Life is chock-full of modularity. Protein domains function as molecular modules that can be used in a wide array of biological contexts. Look 'em up.
Let's look at life. What do we see? Complexity. Extreme complexity. Even "irreducible" complexity. Is that consistent with engineering principles? Absolutely not! "Complexity" is a vague term here, so it'd be useful if you broke down exactly what you mean by "complexity" in the context of engineering and molecular biology. Redundancy, for example, is often considered a form of "complexity," and is frequently cited as an instance of poor engineering. Yet this fundamentally overlooks the nature of scaling laws as they pertain to machine components of nano-size. Thermal bond cleavage, photochemical disruption through energetic photons, and radiation damage all present challenges to the successful functioning of molecular machine components -- while they aren't particularly relevant when it comes to designing macro-scale machine systems. One solution for staving off loss of function in molecular machines due to the above phenomena is to create redundant components (generally using a random-damage model). And this, in turn, results in a significant rise in system complexity. Here, complexity is an engineering solution, so the claim that complexity is "Absolutely not" consistent with engineering principles isn't exactly correct. You have to offer a more nuanced perspective of complexity here in order to support your thesis.
Similarly, the elegance of one's design is indicative of the Engineer's skill. So then you believe that your Divine Engineer is an absolutely Schlockmeister? Well, I'm not a creationist, so you can leave the theological terminology and assumptions about me at the door. That being said, would you care to explain why so many of the molecular machines which are phylogenetically basal (e.g., F-ATPases, flagella, etc.) actually aren't hodge-podge, jury-rigged designs but instead smack of rational design? Where, exactly, is the "hodge-podge" design in the ur-flagellar core? Where's the kludginess in that bacterial system's architecture and component arrangement? Reference Alberts, B., 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists. Cell. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Genomicus writes: Robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses aren't ID hypotheses. If I had meant robust ID hypotheses, I would have said robust ID hypotheses. Idk, maybe you should consider upping your verbal comprehension game. Understanding what I wrote isn't hard, but the powers of your imagination were nevertheless able to attach your own story to it. In other words, you were perfectly clear, if you do say so yourself.
Kinda hypocritical, Percy, because you're not following your own advice. Instead of claiming how I "like to ignore the biological evidence for life's history," it would be better to just attempt to demonstrate that claim through your discussion in this thread, and then let people make up their own minds. In other words, you won't be coaxed into a defense of your ideas but will instead attack those who seek after such a defense, not in any original way, but just throwing their own criticisms back at them in ways that make no sense.
- Where have I denied the power of mutation and selection in shaping biological life on Earth? - When have I denied the unambiguous evidence for the nature of life's history on Earth? - What internally consistent armamentarium of evidence that documents the evolutionary history of life and that also supports the purported transition of non-life to biological life on Earth am I ignoring? - Where have I baldly stated that DNA couldn't have emerged naturally? It would do you well to actually read what I write instead of conjuring stuff up. Discussion abhors a vacuum. If you have a defense of your idea that life here did not arise naturally but was designed by life from elsewhere that did arise naturally, now's the time. Otherwise we're left to ponder over your meager offerings and make of them what we will.
Apparently the meaning of the word "related" escapes the scope of your lexicon. My other argument was related to theology in the origin of life, as I was discussing how theology need not be invoked in an agency-based hypothesis for the origin of biological life on Earth. But sure, go ahead and keep ignoring what I'm actually saying and letting your lack of attention to detail permeate this discussion. Gosh I'm awful. So what's your evidence again that code-based life couldn't have arisen naturally but non-code based life could? I mean, we're all intimately familiar with "Rebek and colleagues" and that "the analogs of genetic codes, bipartite complementarities found in nucleic acids, and ribosomes are hardly needed for the existence of non-biological autocatalytic systems." Why, I said as much in conversation just the other day. Or putting it another way, your italicized text quoting yourself from Message 61 isn't exactly word salad, but it has the same effect because you just dumped it out there without preamble or explanation. As I said in my reply in Message 63, if you think any of the researchers you named (Rebek, etc.) has evidence supporting your ideas then you should describe it in this thread.
You mean non-teleologically, not "naturally." If a non-biological intelligence engineered life on Earth, then it'd still be natural. We don't want to overcomplicate the discussion, though I guess we'll have to if you insist, but differentiating between designed and non-designed objects with the labels "unnatural" and "natural" is very common to both sides of the debate. I don't think we're talking about the natural versus the supernatural, so there should be no confusion.
Most* intelligent adults of sound judgment don't think it mature to draw comparisons between someone they're discussing stuff with and people like Donald Trump. But hey, you do you -- maybe you're the exception to that overall generalization of respectable adults. *Based solely on personal experience and not statistical studies. Well, just let me say that in my opinion your vocabulary is vastly superior to Donald Trump's even if your message is not. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Genomicus writes: Well, I'm not a creationist, so you can leave the theological terminology and assumptions about me at the door. You're an IDist. The guy you cited, Bruce Alberts, is cited by IDists all over the Internet, but if you read the paper (The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists) he isn't arguing for ID but for a more multidisciplinary approach to cell biology. Like most creationist and IDist citations, it misrepresents Alberts as advocating views he likely finds antithetical. Likely the same is true of other scientists you mentioned, like Margulis, Rebek and Penrose. ID has been around for a long time. It's time to move past analogy and get to the evidence.
One principle is modularity. Life is chock-full of modularity. Protein domains function as molecular modules that can be used in a wide array of biological contexts. Look 'em up. I don't think DWise1 was arguing that life possesses no modularity but rather noting the lack of strict modularity. What you might like to think of as life's modules probably leak like sieves to provide a host of other related and unrelated side effects. This is consistent with evolution providing solutions that one way or another, and often in unexpected ways, just get the job done. In contrast, a designer would develop neatly and tightly modular designs that are supportable, maintainable and extensible.
"Complexity" is a vague term here, so it'd be useful if you broke down exactly what you mean by "complexity" in the context of engineering and molecular biology. Redundancy, for example, is often considered a form of "complexity," and is frequently cited as an instance of poor engineering. Complexity is an ID argument. Mike the Wiz introduced the IDist claim that life possesses "specified complexity," and you introduced "irreducible complexity" into the discussion back in Message 33. Discussion of complexity will have to reflect what *you* mean by complexity, because in the absence of ID it would never come up. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar. Edited by Percy, : Typo. Edited by Percy, : Another typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But when we look at life on a biochemical/molecular level, the analogy with engineering strengthens, rather than weakens. ... No. As an engineer, a designer, and a partial micro-biologist (courses taken but no degree), and as the son of a biology professor that I often discussed such things with (before he passed), I can definitively say that this is wrong. There are two things engineers employ that contradict this assertion: 1. KISS -- Keep It Simple Stupid -- means no frills or "spandrels" that don't add to the structure or the function. Think of a bicycle in it's simplest form. Nothing that is not needed.
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis -- to ensure the design is cost efficient with little or no wasted time or material. So when I "drill down" to the microbiological level I see waste, and over complication, and more of the impression of systems pieced together ad hoc, jury-rigged to accomplish tasks with little control on timing.
This is a rather shoddy argument, ... The cell design is rather shoddy and make-do, rather than engineered, with a lot of duplication of effort.
... Paley's argument was that life "looks designed," and therefore was designed (by agency). ... Which, as you should know, is a logical fallacy. A → B does not mean B → A. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 672 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
Brakes are for sissies.
Think of a bicycle in it's simplest form. Nothing that is not needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2202 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
I have seen used pieces of bubble gum on the sidewalk that look more like a machine than that. I'll be responding to Percy et al. shortly, but Taq, this argument of yours is so bizarre. I'm not sure what part about the relationship between atomic theory and the molecular surfaces of nanometer-sized machine components you don't get.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Genomicus writes: I have seen used pieces of bubble gum on the sidewalk that look more like a machine than that.
I'll be responding to Percy et al. shortly, but Taq, this argument of yours is so bizarre. I'm not sure what part about the relationship between atomic theory and the molecular surfaces of nanometer-sized machine components you don't get. Well we're just on the edge of our seats - what is it about the relationship between atomic theory and the molecular surfaces of nanometer-sized machine components that says ATP is a machine? Your claim to have merely an interesting hypothesis is properly tentative since you offer nothing more than analogy and declarations that some complex molecules "look like" machines, so it makes no sense to suddenly begin arguing as if you had something resembling certainty. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2202 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Well we're just on the edge of our seats - what is it about the relationship between atomic theory and the molecular surfaces of nanometer-sized machine components that says ATP is a machine? No, my comment about atomic theory was in response to Taq's apparent surprise that the surfaces of molecular machine components are ball-and-stick-ish. Like duh, what did he/she/it expect? We're dealing with the nano-meter scale here. ATP isn't a machine, by the way. ATP is a molecule. ATP synthases are machines, however. If you dispute that, then you're more than welcome to cite a single scientific paper that argues that ATP synthases aren't machines. Go ahead. I'll be here writing up other responses while you do that little exercise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2202 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Your claim to have merely an interesting hypothesis is properly tentative since you offer nothing more than analogy and declarations that some complex molecules "look like" machines... More specifically, these molecular systems are machines. They don't just "look like" machines. But who knows? Maybe you've got publications out there in the scientific literature that argue that ATP synthases and other protein systems aren't actual machines. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
ATP isn't a machine, by the way. ATP is a molecule. ATP synthases are machines, however. If you dispute that, then you're more than welcome to cite a single scientific paper that argues that ATP synthases aren't machines. I say that they're not machines. They're actually musical instruments in the woodwind family. Prove me wrong, find a single scientific paper that argues that they aren't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2202 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
I say that they're not machines. They're actually musical instruments in the woodwind family. Prove me wrong, find a single scientific paper that argues that they aren't. Oh my gawd. It must be embarrassing to make that kind of argument. Literally every scientific paper that describes the form and function of ATP synthases is an argument against the thesis that they're musical instruments in the woodwind family. Geez.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Oh my gawd. It must be embarrassing to make that kind of argument. Quite so. And to be the originator of it should make you want to hang your head in shame.
Literally every scientific paper that describes the form and function of ATP synthases is an argument against the thesis that they're musical instruments in the woodwind family. You mean, in that they all say it's an enzyme?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Replying to both your responses to my Message 114...
Genomicus writes: No, my comment about atomic theory was in response to Taq's apparent surprise that the surfaces of molecular machine components are ball-and-stick-ish. Where did Taq express surprise at anything you're said? Seemed like all skepticism to me.
ATP synthases are machines, however. ... More specifically, these molecular systems are machines. They don't just "look like" machines. So in the space of just a few short weeks it's gone from analogy to fact? Golly gee whiz, sometimes the pace of scientific progress just makes one's head spin.
If you dispute that, then you're more than welcome to cite a single scientific paper that argues that ATP synthases aren't machines. ... Maybe you've got publications out there in the scientific literature that argue that ATP synthases and other protein systems aren't actual machines. Why would any paper argue against an appropriate analogy? Why would I? We need to hear your evidence for why evolution couldn't produce biological molecular machines like ATP synthase, that it didn't evolve but was designed. The Wikipedia article on ATP synthase briefly describes a couple evolutionary possibilities:
quote: The fact that "machine" is a convenient analog is not evidence. An analogy can be the inspiration behind your hypothesis, but it can't be evidence. That you're so insistent that the analogy is a compelling argument for design just makes more obvious the degree to which you're ignoring the only known agent of change, descent with modification followed by selection. You could even skip proving evolution insufficient if you could just produce evidence of some other agent of change. As I'm fond of saying, things that happen leave behind evidence. It is the fingerprints of evolution that are found everywhere in life, not those of some mythical alien race. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024