paper against evolution, for intelligent design

One argument for Intelligent Design (ID) is the argument if Irreducible Complexity (IC). The argument states that certain systems in organisms have a level of complexity and interdependency that can not be explained by small evolutionary steps. I will attempt to refute this by referencing the bones that make up the middle ear.Now, in the human ear three bones transmit sound waves from the tympanum (ear drum) to the cochlea of the inner ear. Without these bones humans would be deaf. However, fossils have been found that are intermediate between the hearing system that humans have and the simpler hearing that reptiles have. Here is an example of the fossils that were found: As you can see, our middle ear bones were originally jaw bones and their shift into the middle ear gave mammals a more sensitive hearing system. In fact, in human embryological development, the same phenomena is observed.Therefore, IC systems can be shown to evolve in steps contrary to the arguments made by many ID proponents. An argument from IC can then be seen as an argument from personal incredulity, in other words "I don't believe it happened that way because it doesn't seem possible to me." A lot of people thought it was impossible that the Earth moved about the Sun, but their personal bias does not affect the actual evidence.More information on these fossils can be found at talkorigins.org. This is just a very brief discussion on the jawbone to ear ossicle transitionals, I can bring up more stuff if you would like.

I was actually arguing against irreducible complexity with my example of the middle ear bones. People who support irr complex deny that evolution can produce these systems because intermediates will not work. However, the middle ear bones can plainly be seen to move from the jaw to the ear when comparing reptile to mammal transitional fossils. In mammals, if those bones are not in a precise arrangement then the animal is deaf (hence an irr complex system). So, look at these fossils of the lower jaw (middle ear bones are in color, reptiles on bottom mammals on top): As you can see, over time jawbones in reptiles moved and became ear bones in mammals. If we take a snapshot of what we see today and compare reptile middle ears with mammal inner ears it would seem like a gap that was undoable. However, these fossils fill in the gaps very nicely. The problem with the eye and the blood clotting systems is that we only have current snapshots, in other words there is no fossil record of biochemical pathways or the intricate systems inside the eye, nor can there be because of their inherently small or delicate nature.So, I would ask you, is it fair on your part to insist for evidence backing up the evolution of a system that does not fossilize? Better yet, is it fair to do so when irr complex systems that do fossilize display intermideate steps that would indicate evolution?

First, you have to claim knowledge of the thought processes of the designer. Second, bad design argues against an intelligent designer. Third, no mechanism is given by which things were designed. Evolution can cover all three problems.That, any predictions that ID makes are worthless in that there is no mechanism for design and design is attributed arbitrarily. For example, I could say that if DNA was created by a unicorn it would have a helix shape in honor of its helical single horn. Lo and behold, DNA has a helix shape. Therefore, it was a unicorn that was the designer. Why can't I use this argument to argue ID by a unicorn? My predictions seem to work. Second prediction, unicorns have four feet, therefore DNA will have four possible bases at each position. Hmmm, my predictions are getting even better.

It's the if's and then's that are totally useless. On his proof reading hypothesis, he seems to forget something. Why do you have to translate into an intermediary language to begin with. Or better yet, why do you have to translate at all. I could just as easily form this hypothesis:IF: Because translation between mechanisms can create mistakes the cellular systems should not have intermediary systems that could cause translational problems. In a cell, proteins are derived directly from the information carrying material.NOT THEN: RNA goes against this hypothesis because it adds a superfluous second translational step that is not needed if the system were intelligently designed.There you go, a simple refutation of the idea of an intelligent designer from a teleological perspective. In ID theory, the if's and then's are arbitrary and have no logical stance. ID argued through this framework are refuted through examples of bad design. You then have the job of deciding what is designed and what isn't, a task that will not even add to knowledge between "soup" and "ordered".[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-15-2003]

If an intelligence can design something better, then yes I would say bad design argues against intelligent design. Am I going to agree that good design is proof of a designer? I say produce the designer. Evolution is a measurable mechanism, ID is not. ID is arbitarily assigned, can you prove otherwise? I can't. See post #64 above. I can arbitrarily assign design theories and prove that design is not present. My ID theories are supported with the same amount of evidence as Mike Gene's theories and they lead to no designer. The same can be said for every system. Isn't it curious that we can detect bioengineering in bacteria because of design characteristics, but no one is able to do the same through ID. ID lacks a mechanism, period. The mechanism is how the designer designed. We know that a watch is designed because there are mechanisms to make a watch, etc for the rest of human artifacts.

Hypothesis: If a system is intelligently designed, it should not need proofreading.Data: There exists proofreading mechanisms in DNA translation that seem to indicate lack of intelligent design.It is that easy, you arbitrarily attribute characteristics to expected design and see if it is there. My hypothesis does not meet up with what is present in the cell therefore ID fails.

Yes, ID reasoning can make predictions, but it can make every prediction under the sun in any given situation. My example was that if a system was intelligently designed it should be perfect and shouldn't need a proof reading system. That is a teleological predicition that isn't true. A ateological prediction would observe that there are mistakes made in RNA transcription that do not show up in the protein, hence there must be a proofreading system. It is deductive in nature instead of inductive like ID predictions.My question to Mike Gene would be why he predicted there would be proof reading systems? Why did he make this predicition? He makes the claim that if you are translating from one language to an intermediary languange and to a final language you need checks at each point. My question is why isn't the first translation accurate if it is intelligently designed? In fact, it would seem counterproductive to have three languages involved, why not just one language? Why didn't he use his language argument to make the prediction that there is not an intermediary language (ie RNA).Teleological reasoning does not work because it makes predictions using logic that may not reflect the nature of the system in question. Ateological reasoning needs observations and mechanisms in order for the correct logic to be applied before it can make predictions. That is the way I see it anyway.

So what makes you think that they had a full grasp on genetics, biology, meteorology, and geology? Maybe we should look to the lessons taught in the Genesis stories and not take them as literal and scientific fact?

Just so we are on the same page (which I think we are) this is from Ask Jeeves: "Teleological notions were commonly associated with the pre-Darwinian view that the biological realm provides evidence of conscious design by a supernatural creator." Or, in other words, Intelligent Design. So, teleological perspecitives start with an a priori assumption of a designer, possibly a supernatural designer. So, through this perspective, you give characteristics to the designer (such as the need for RNA proofreading via human logic) and then look for that design in organisms. It is the process of assigning characteristics and a set of logic to an a priori assumed designer that weakens the ID argument. This process is done arbitrarily, ie pick your favorite diety and assume it thinks like you do. The real problem occurs when humans would have designed something in an entirely different way than what is seen in nature, eg human retina, appendix, lower back, etc., not to mention other organisms who are far from effeciently designed even by human standards. This is why I have a problem with the predictions and testable hypotheses that a teleological framework creates. The causation of design is arbitrary, the reasoning behind design is arbitrary, and the designer is arbitrary.Ateleological framework starts with a mechanism as a framework, random mutation plus natural selection. The mechanism supplies its own logic, not something that is personally contrived. There is no diety involved, it can be seen more as diety neutral, where as teleologically you have to pick a diety. The basis for an ateleological framework is that natural phenomena have natural explanations, all you have to do is find the natural mechanism to explain the outcome. This perspective does work of which there are many examples in the "Is it Science?" forum. One example I posted in another topic is this (Pubmed abstract which I will summarize here): A random sequence is added to a functional gene in a virus. This random sequence reduced the infectivity of the virus. Through artificial selection (picking the most infective strains over a few generations) the infectivity was regained. The artificial random sequence introduced into the genome mutated and resulted in wild type infectivity rates. No designing was necessary to produce a functional gene, just random mutation and selection. How would a teleological framework predict this? It wouldn't because the gene was not designed. I know this statement wasn't aimed at me, but nevertheless, it seems to bring up an important point. Ateleological assumptions are rife in other branches of science, but this seems to be ok with you. In math, we don't assume that God makes 2+2=4, we assume it to be a natural consequence. Same with gravity, electricity, chemical reactions, etc. This is not athiesm. Why is it athiesm in relation to the biological sciences?

Well constructed post Warren, good job (not being sarcastic). I wish a lot of design theorists would write posts like this explaining their position as you have. Anyway, now to the critique .

quote:

---

Two points. First, my ID hypotheses only require an assumption of a designing agent with human-like intelligence. Why? Because the things in nature that cause me to suspect ID happen to be things that look like products of advanced bioengineering. I'm not sure what a supernaturally designed thing would look like. So to infer ID I don't require evidence of perfect design.

---

Things in nature look like evolved products to me. I have seen and had experience with bioengineered E. coli expression systems, random transposon mutagenesis, etc and nature looks nothing like this. But, this is a subjective judgement so I will leave it at that. Saying you don't know what a super. design would look like is a statement I can agree with, and hence the perfect design is not needed. Point to you, we can agree on this.

quote:

---

Secondly, it doesn't even matter if an intelligent designer exists. It's my contention, for example, that viewing bacteria as integrated technology is a better perspective for understanding how bacteria function than viewing them as random goo. Viewing biological things as random and purposeless hinders scientific progress. Viewing them as designed machines is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is an intelligent designer.

---

So design is not needed for a teleological perspective? Hmm, seems to border on an ateleological perspective, wouldn't you say? Anyway, bacteria themselves are not strictly goo, but they are poorly compartmentalized as compared to eukaryotic cells. Non-excreted proteins are in the cell, membrane proteins bridge the gap between intracellular and extracellular, and excreted proteins are put out in the mileu. That is about the extent of compartmentalization seen in bacteria (as a general rule, spores come to mind). Goo might not be the best adjective; a complicated soup or stew might be a better analogy. Production lines are not separated out like a factory, everything is mixed in together. Substrate affinities keep reactions separate, not walls.

quote:

---

suspect you are assuming that my ID perspective is that everything in nature is the direct result of ID. Not so. Currently my ID inference is constrained to the origin of life: the original life forms were designed and followed by evolution. This perspective certainly allows for imperfection in nature.

---

So you would agree that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of species and body plans we see today, not design? What do you think were the first designed organisms? Cellular/non-cellular? One original design, multiple orignal designs?

quote:

---

Science is built on the belief in repeatability. Repeatability is not a property of purely random processes.

---

A random event can be observed repeatibly. I can watch a dice turn up a random number time after time, this is a repeatable event. Repeatability in scientific observations revolve around the circumstances of the experiment. For example, in my work I measure metabolic intermediates in cultured human cells. If someone else repeats my experiment and comes up with the same concentrations of metabolic intermediates that I do, then it is a repeatable event. It is also repeatable if I can show the same results time after time. Your definition of repeatability in science is being used in a different connotation. The rest of the repeatability argument kind of falls flat once this discrepancy is seen.

quote:

---

For Evolution to proceed, even the "randomness" must be algorithmically constrained like a search heuristic. With unbridled randomness, you get chaos. The ability to replicate must be guaranteed at some point for evolution to succeed. Replication and repeatability are vital components, and it is these qualities (replication and repeatability) that are the antithesis for purely random processes.

---

If the algorithmic constraint is number of mutations per generation, then I would agree. UV radiation is used for microbial sterilization because it causes DNA breaks and damage to such an extent that it causes cell death. However, the fidelity of DNA replicating enzymes and DNA repair mechanisms keep the number of mutations per generation very low, but still enough for natural selection to act on. Just like dice, it is the measureable randomness of mutations AND the number of mutations per generation that argue against design.

quote:

---

Darwinism attributes the constraint on randomness to Natural Selection, but information theory is challenging that view severely as well as experimental evidence.

---

Shannon information in DNA can increase due to random mutation and selection. I think we are covering this elsewhere.

quote:

---

In sum, the fundamental design spec: randomness must be constrained.

---

I think the fidelity in DNA replicating enzymes and DNA repair mechanisms keep mutations limited enough to prevent "chaos" but still allow selection to occur. This is perhaps the constraint you are looking for?