Help me understand Intelligent Design

wow..viva la tolerance

a bit of both, puisque je parle ces deux langues courament

quote:

---

I don't think it is correct to generalize so much. It appears to me (but I'm a bit confused by them) that some IDers accept ALL of the descent with modification of ALL organisms (even humans from "apes"). They just don't think that mutations plus selection could have done all of it. There are, they seem to say, a few places where something else had to be at play. Where those places are and why seems to shift around a lot but that's the story that I think I see.

---

I'm not familiar with ID yet, but I was attracted to it because it seems to raise a question without impossing an answer. Maybe an IDer can clarify, but that question would be, Can Evolution, based on the current data, explain the great complexity of organisms without the intervention of a Designer? Who or Whatever that Designer may be.That's an attractive question in light of scientific knowledge we have. It's a legitamite question. Which doesn't necessarely involve that everyone is going to Church tomorrow if it turns out that we're unable to circumvent an affirmative answer to that question. But some people are as extreme as to call this a "right-wing conspiracy"? Galileo in reverse all over again Now, I read the opposing arguements before even deciding to buy Behe's book, which I haven't read yet, so I'm very circonspect. However, if Irriducible Complexity or not, I find that pure random mutation due to climate or other related evolutionary factors alone, does not provide a satisfactory answer. I try to understand how that could makes sense, in light of everything we know, but I don't see it ? On the Evolution thread, I questionned the possibility of the random attribution of some highly complex "specificalities" in certain species, providing that they are clearly "advantages", which logically have a "purpose", allowing certain species to survive. Like a Leaf looking insect for example. No real satisfactory answer as it pertains to how that could have occured randomly. I mean, on The Panda's Thumb web site, Andrea Bottaro, an immunologist and molecular biologist at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, posted a response to Behe's use of Sermonti’s book, entitled “The leaf insect before the leaf”. He wrote what I guess he felt was a "definitive" response to ID. But other then pointing out Sermonti's obvious taxonomic errors, I was extremely disapointed at the way Bottaro danced around technicality while systematically avoiding to adress the real central issue. Which is, how does it look JUST LIKE A LEAF by random chance? Like, all taxonomic technicalities aside, how does it adopt, randomely, such a specific morphological mimicry of the very food it eats as it's adaptive strategy? Again, by mutation and climate and the magic stick of probability ? I mean, we all heard of: you are what you eat, but this is rather extreme? Yet, though he admits "many are amazing in their mimicry", Mr. Borrato didn't really feel it was relevant to ask why and how, so he left it at that. Maybe because his entomological expertise on the question is as questionable as he claims Behe's is? But he..just...doesn't answer or remotely adress the question..unfortunately.So when I read his, among others, very 'dance around to issue' as claim that this IS the "definite response" to ID, I was like, that's it?? And I haven't even read Behe's side of the story yet. Which in turn, got me interested to do so.Here is Borrato's "dance around" response and the dogmatic comments of atheist fanatics who for many, couldn't remain objective enough to see the obvious flaw in Borrato's response:
Page not found · GitHub Pages

quote:

---

Random mutation alone won't do it. Random mutation combined with a selection process, however, will do it.

---

This axiom, and it's ok to call it an axiom, doesn't explain the notion of purpose though, nor does it constitute a problem for it either. At any level whatsoever. I don't know if you'll understand what I mean by this, but I tried to word it as specifically as I could.Mutation + natural selection = evolutionNo problem at all. It's a fact. It's undisputable and has been verified on so many levels.This is not the problem. The problem is puporse of the design. I don't know if that's what IDers are saying. But that's my querrel personally.Meaning to say, in this above equation, should we put the word "purposely designed" or "random" in front of "mutation". Does this "natural" selection occur by chance alone and entirely so? If it has a purpose, can it be qualified as chance? If the purpose is highly specific, doesn't that make it even harder to use the word "chance" so easiliy? Because if chance can apply on some level, on other levels, it becomes more difficult to see it that way. It's the same way Newton's Mechanistic Physics models worked to some extant on a Macrolevel, but on Microlevels, with atomic and subatomic particles, that model doesn't work, thus Quantuum Physics saved the day and models were revised to explain for example, howcome matter at that level, sometimes, seems only to have a 'tendency' to exist.Thus, I pointed out that the Borrato response was weak in that it didn't adress any fundamental aspects of the question of design. It adresses the numerous taxonomic errors of Sergenti. But that's scientifically not good enough of a rebutal, because it bares not consequence on the initial proposed question.

quote:

---

but its such a creative force that engineers and programmers are exploiting it to craft designs for circuits and software that are far too complex to have been designed by our intelligence directly.

---

quote:

---

The question is not if natural processes can result in the complexity we see in the natural world, because its pretty obvious that they can. The burden of proof is on those who would posit that intelligence can design things as complex as living things, because to date, no known intelligence has ever been able to do so.

---

Wouldn't that alone warrant the question of, how could the complexity of natural selection occur by chance then?It would seem like a legitamite question to ask?

quote:

---

Because those organisms that did not look enough like leaves were eaten by predators, and their genes were selected from the population.

---

That still doesn't, when we analyse that response specifically in light of the initial question, provide an answer to explain how it popped up to be morphologically almost identical to the food it eats, by chance of mutation. You won't randomly mutate into Mr. Potato-Head if you eat nothing but potatos for 2 000 000 years straight, even if you and your ancestors live in a potato field for that amount of time, simply because some mean wolves happen to live around that field to pray on you (edit).

quote:

---

Mutation expands the diversity of a population; selection contracts that diversity. Mutation acts at random, but selection is anything but random.

---

Again, it still raises the legitimate scientific question: Is it "random" or "designed" or "planned"?This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-08-2005 01:09 PM

quote:

---

But that ISN'T the real central issue. The REAL issue is whether Sermonti's cliam, repeated by Behe was true or false. And Bottaro took that issue head on. It is false.

---

Sermonti's claims about the taxonomy of these bugs are false. I mentionned this in my response if you paid attention. But it ISN'T the central issue. The central issue is, why does it look like a leaf, by pure chance. How does an insect mutate an "advantage" randomely. I'm not questionning the fact that mutation + natural selection causes evolution to occur. But can "randomness" as a principle explain this how specific complexity AND highly specific puporse of the said complexity ? This is a legitimate question.

quote:

---

It is also false to suggest that Bottaro did not address the issue - although there was no detailed explanation because it is so well known:

​

t is really not hard to imagine that a thin, brownish insect may gradually evolve into a stick-like mimic (center left picture), or that a green insect living among foliage may evolve to resemble leaves (right). This conclusion is further strengthened by the existence of many gradations of stick- and leaf-like crypsis in living
insects.

​

And he's right. A greater resemblance to a tick menas a greater chance of not being noticed by a predator. Even a diguise that will nt bear direct examination may be able to pass a casual glance. This is a wel-known issue which is why Sermonti made the claim that he did. Mimciry is no mystery - but mimicry can't work if there is nothing to mimic - an insect can't be mistaken for a leaf if there are no leaves

---

Absolutely, I know he's right. But how can we claim this process is random ? There is your real question..what part of it is so difficult to grasp?

quote:

---

No it does not. The question certainly can be dismissed in a few words.

​

Did the meteor ~65 million years ago that struck off the tip of Yacatan do so by design?

---

If you seriously rationalise my objections to randomness with that kind of "apples & oranges" answer, then I guess you didn't give much thought to the question.

quote:

---

No, that's not a legitimate scientific question. It's a philosophical (and perhaps theological) question. Science deals with cause, not with purpose.

---

Causality is becoming gradually outdated you know.

quote:

---

There is no "question of design." If things in the natural world look like they have "purpose" to you, that's something in your mind, not in the world. Why do things look like they have design to you? Because you've chosen to look at them that way.

​

It really is just that simple.

---

That is a philosophical statement at best, which is incurrate for a simple reason. I'll give you an example,pain...it's there both a reason and a physical purpose for pain, we both know the spinal nerve gates control the flow of pain messages from the peripheral nerves to the brain. The whole process can be explained neurologically, but it has real "purpose". If it didn't serve this purpose it wouldn't be there in the first place. The problem is that on a philosophical level, people will use "purpose" as an imaginary phenomena when it's convinient. But no, your own anatomy shows you purpose is real. Your isolading fields here my friend. That observation was not very objective on your part.The notion of "need" warrants the notion of "purpose". If need is real so is purpose..

quote:

---

Your mistake is your assumption that randomness and complexity are somehow anathema

---

Your mistake is to assume I do. But randomness and purpose however, are anathema. It's a root question.

quote:

---

Your example doesn't really mean anything. "Pain" only has purpose in your mind; it's just a model you use to connect the cause of pain with the effect of an action taken to avoid pain.

​

But it works just as well to consider it another way - organisms respond to pain because there's a selection pressure against organisms that don't respond to pain; organisms that do not avoid painful actions or situations tend to be killed by those actions or situations.

---

Sorry but it does, it makes no sense to say purpose is imaginary on an organic level. Because what is puporse, it is to serve a fonction, to have a role. Organisms play specific roles and fonctions, that is purpose. It's the action for which a thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists. Like the chair your seating on. It has a purpose, it was designed to play the role of holding your backside as you answer this thread, or else it wouldn't be in your house. But what you say is inacurate even on the most basic subatomic level.But your mistake is that you confuse "purpose" with the philosophical notion of "meaning" or "significane". Then apply that mistake to your misunderstanding as it pertains to evolution. But it the "Meaning" and "significance" that you give things that are from your own mind, yes. Not purpose.

quote:

---

No, that's not a legitimate scientific question. It's a philosophical (and perhaps theological) question. Science deals with cause, not with purpose

---

No actually, because purpose is intrinsic to every organism. Therefore to ask the question is legitimate.

quote:

---

But that purpose is contained in my mind, and the mind of those that made it, not in the object itself. Purpose is defined in context, not in the object itself. That's why a urinal in a restroom has the "purpose" of being a receptical for human wastes, but the very same urinal - with no modification whatsoever - hanging in an art gallery loses that purpose and gains the purpose of being an item of cultural interest, an object d'art.

​

How can you say that purpose is not imaginary when objects gain and lose purpose based simply on a change in how we think about them? Purpose is located in our minds, not in objects. It's irrefutable, no matter how often you say "that isn't so."

---

It's irrefutable? Really?According to who? You?There is no basis for your definition and you clearely haven't even attempted to deal with fonction as intrinsic.You seem in denial for some reason? Maybe this is why you're trying to get around the fact that your definition of purpose was an honest mistake. That it was confused for meaning and significance.Because even in the very operation of mutations in genetic algorithms, purpose is there..again. According to every standard text on the subject. That purpose, role, fonction, all the same anyway, is to prevent populations of chomosomes from becoming too similar to each other. To slow down the mutation if you may. So even the very randomness of the selection process on that level has purpose. That's why GAs avoid choosing the fittest in a population of chroms and opts for a random and sometimes semi-random selection. So when you say that "We know for a fact that mutations are random; thus, they must be without purpose", I don't know if you understand the full extant of what you're referring to, in terms of proving that selection has no purpose because it's random. Yes, it is, but in that context, for that purpose...you won't get away no matter how much you try I'm afraid.If I'm obsessed by purpose, your obsessed by denial of it, and shield your denial behind incomplete assumptions you have about randomness, then say "we" proved it. It's not that simple.Also, "purpose" like every other thing is subject to the only constant in the universe: change.Another important notion that we forget, is symbios in living organisms and in our eco-system. It always balances itself out. Right down to frogs, when you put one next the other, their heart beats ultimately synchronise in perfect synthony. This balance in our eco-system is not random either.

quote:

---

Acccording to anyone willing to approach the issue objectively.

---

That's actually a statement you just made, where is the proof in that? Anyone can state such a claim. So if I we're to tell you the same thing, we'd be playing ping pong for a while, to no avail.However, though I appreciate you tried to "educate" me on the definition of purpose, I corrected you by pointing out that your definition alluded to other words of a philosophical nature. I gave you a clear definition, yet you rejected it. In return, you answer with your own unsupported assomptions of purpose. That assumption, is not even a principle, it's your opinion based on the definition you choose to cling to. Maybe I should use the synonyms: Role and fonction. Would that help?

quote:

---

My examples have destroyed the idea of intrinsic purpose. You haven't even tried to rebut them; instead you've simply repeated your assertions. Now you're pretty obviously gearing up to a big ad hominem attack.

---

another....statement, to just say you destroyed the arguements doesn't destroy it. I rebuted your assumptions clearly. If you read back my posts carefully.

quote:

---

You're the one who asserted that randomness was anathema to purpose. If you believe that to be true then you have no choice but to believe that mutations are without purpose, because there's no coherent, legitimate basis for disputing the fact that mutations are random.

---

I explained the nature of it's randomness and established it had purpose and a limited context. So to state this as though I hadn't done that is unfair and untrue. It's denial perhaps ?If my explinations of the nature of randomness in mutations of GAs is incorrect, please tell me so. Then we'll have something concrete to work with. If not, you have to accept it has purpose. Not to do so would indicate you're only interested in proving your point. In that case, we'll be going around in circles.

quote:

---

(PS I have read of fireflies synchronizing their flashes so it doesn't seem to me to be totally out to lunch. It also doesn't seem to mean a darn thing in this discussion)

---

I agree with you, in and if self it is irrelevant. True or not.And I appreciate your objectivity in the matter. It is refreshing to this thread.thank you NosyNed

quote:

---

ell, the ball's in your court, where it has been for a while. Any time you'd like to start supporting your assertions and fleshing out your arguments is fine with me. Perhaps you'd like to begin with defining exactly what you mean by "purpose"? It appears that you've equated it to "function", though those two things are obviously not the same.

---

Here, once again, we are dealing with denial. Or lack of knowledge on definitions, or both.But I defined purpose as "Role" and "Function". This is the reason I said, that if you keep denying the word purpose, maybe you'd be more comfortable with the latter 2 words. But you, in response, claim that they are n-o-t the same. Alright, then I guess we have to revise our dictionaries then, because Webster's Dictionary gives us a definition of the word "FUNCTION",let's read it shall we?

quote:

---

Webster's second definition of FUNCTION:
2 : the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists : PURPOSE

---

Notice, I didn't add the word PURPOSE in that definition, it was a part of it.As for "Role", here is the definition we find.

quote:

---

Webster's second definition of ROLE:
Variant(s): also rle /'rOl/ Function: noun
2 : a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process 'played a major role in the negotiations'

---

You'll notice "Function" pops back up in Role's definiton. Also, in the same dictionary, we're not surprised to find (well it maybe a surprise for you?) precisely the exact same second definition of "Purpose" as written for the second definition of the word "Function". Let's read it toghether.

quote:

---

Webster's second definition of PURPOSE:
2. the action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists. 'still trying to discover her purpose in life' -- see ROLE

---

Notice, we're specifically told to see:ROLENow, I know Ned said it was pointless to reiterate one's point and I agree with you Ned. But in light of the above definitions, please allow me to reiterate the fact that I specifically defined "Puporse" from the very beginning in my earlier posts. Yet, systematically, Crash denied and rejected my definition, as though, somehow, I just made it up myself. Or never bothered to give one.Clearly, it was not the case.

quote:

---

Which is apporpriate, because purpose is a philsophical construct, not a property of material objects.

---

I think we can dismiss that in light of the above definitions

quote:

---

You've given no definition. Not in any post directed to me, anyway.

---

I think we can dismiss that in light of the above definitions

quote:

---

Role and function are not synonymous with "purpose", but if you'd like to discuss function instead, that's fine with me. What is your question in regards to function? Do you challenge the power of natural selection and random mutation to generate systems that have function?

---

I think we can dismiss that in light of the above definitions

quote:

---

I've made no assumptions, and my arguments have yet to be addressed by you. But we can sit here and restate the debate all day long. The record is clear, anybody can go back and read it. Maybe it would be more fruitful for you to try to defend your own arguments, instead of making claims about how good they were? In particular I'd like you to defend your assertions about:

​

1) "Standard texts" in the field of "purpose";
2) "Purpose" as a property operating at the subatomic levels
3) Randomness being anathema to purpose

​

I've challenged all those points; your response has been to ignore those challenges. Do you really think that constitutes the behavior of someone who is winning the debate? This isn't a contest about who can ignore the other person the best, AM.

---

1) "Standard texts" in the field of "purpose";yes, that was my bad, I should have been more specific and I wasn't. You're absolutely right. But what I should have said is that in any standard text on the subject of biology, genetics, neurology, subatomic physics, astrophysics, neuroevolution in general, the notion of "purpose" is constantly refered to, albeit, on a random basis perhaps .2) "Purpose" as a property operating at the subatomic levels;I guess the answer to challenge #1 also answers challenge #2, especially in light of the definitions given for: purpose, role and function.3) Randomness being anathema to purpose;Again. My bad. I really do contradict myself in a sense. I can certainly understand that you would point it out. Thank you.
Rather, I should have said the following:Even randomness has purpose, in the specific way it occurs during the mutation of genetic algorithms, which is to prevent populations of chromosomes from becoming too similar to each other. Therefore, as am sure you already know, GA systems tend to avoid choosing only the fittest in a population in the process of generating the next one, but opts for a random or semi-random selection, although it does so with a weighting of the fitter ones.So I ackowledge my statement was unclear and therefore contradictary if understood in the wrong context. I thank you for pointing that out. But I repeat, I should have said instead:Even randomness has purpose in the mutation processThat is, in light the very process I just described. But I also said in an earlier post, that if the process I described wa inacurate, then please correct me. If not, then you cannot circumvent: PURPOSE.I see no further reasons to continue arguing this word, I think that much should be clear.SIDE NOTE:
As for the Frogs, I greately apologise, I ws told this by a friend of mine, he happens to be a biologist. I have no clue where he read that from. So I shouldn't have mentionned it. I take it back.Nonetheless, it had little baring on the subject as Ned pointed out.In terms of the purpose of viruses, well let's all read Lynn Margulies and comeback on that discussion later shall we? This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-09-2005 12:11 PM

quote:

---

I don't see that we can dismiss the question in light of the above definitions. It is clear from Websters that purpose and function are interchangeable but it is not clear (at least not to my small brain) that they are interchangeable with respect to the position of Intelligent Design. Are you saying that natural selection and random mutation generate systems that have function and hence are "designed"?

---

At this point,I'll let you make that call.This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-09-2005 08:16 PM