|
Author
|
Topic: The Utility of IC
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 23. March 2002 23:54
James: Can this nanotechnology arise spontaneously within the cell, with the functional "causality" (for lack of a better word) being exerted from the inside, or must we posit a supernatural force being applied from the outside to constrain the reactions, in the same way that human beings constrain intrinsically inert matter in our machines by establishing a set of boundary conditions (and intervening periodically to fix them, as they inevitably degrade)? That is, is the teleology inherent in the idea of "nanotechnology" intrinsic (meaning organisms are sui generis) or is it extrinsic (meaning organisms are machines)?
I view it to be extrinsic (although, as always, my views are tentative), as I don't see how a machine like the flagellum emerges onto the scene through some principle of self-organization. Of course, I am quite open to such a hypothesis, as it would be truly fascinating to ponder its implications. Currently, I am fleshing out the idea that life exists because various boundary conditions were set into place by some form of intelligence. This leads me to propose that evolution itself was designed (or the original designs were implemented with evolution in mind). I should also point out that I do not view these issues in terms of what can and cannot happen. I take a forensic "if, then" approach focused on proposals about what did in fact happen. Lastly, I do not think that an appeal to extrinsically shaped nanotechnology forces us to posit a supernatural force. I take quite seriously Arthur C. Clarke's dictum: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." However, all of this is quite off topic, so perhaps we can start up another thread?
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 24. March 2002 12:18
Mike:
Yes, a new thread to discuss the issue of the intrinsic/extrinsic source of teleology in living things seems appropriate. Especially since we are fast approaching your 50-post limit on this thread!
You want to do it, or shall I?
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 25. March 2002 20:41
James,
Feel free to start up a new thread. I'll join in when I have the time.
For now, let me wrap up this thread.
Summary
I think I have effectively shown that Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is indeed useful for scientific research. I used three examples to demonstrate this, although I could have posted several more. With the examples I used, IC was helpful in judging the meaning and significance of 1) a putative pseudogene (FlgE); 2) finding a gene that was originally overlooked and then in helping to interpret why it differs from its homologs (FliM) and; 3) the purported discovery of a gene (Ub).
Two factors came into play in fine-tuning the concept of IC to make it a more effective research tool:
1)Understanding the logic of the IC system and why the parts are required and; 2) coupling IC to the concept of minimal function. Both factors stem from an approach that attempts to reverse engineer that which is hypothesized to have been engineered. What is interesting to me is that the concept of IC alone probably does not get us back to the originally designed state (consider the hypothesis about the Ur-flagellum having redundant functions embedded in fliN and fliM), but instead helps to point us in the right direction.
Where does one go from here? Two questions stand out in my mind.
1.) IC is useful for understanding how things work and the patterns of distribution we see across evolutionary space. But how does IC help us when it comes to the origin of the system in question?
2.) Since IC is useful, we must ask why is it useful. Put simply, what does the utility of IC imply about biotic reality?
In the hopefully not-to-distant future, I will attempt to address these questions.
[ 25 March 2002, 20:43: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 25. March 2002 23:54
This was an excellent thread. Hands down favorite for "topic of the month."
Having said that, and seeing that Mike has summed up his thoughts, I will close the topic and grant it the title of "model for all other threads."
[ 25 March 2002, 23:57: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
