|
Author
|
Topic: Should the concept of IC be confined to machines?
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 13. March 2002 23:22
I'm just a short guy with hairy feet, visiting from ARN. With no background in biology I feel quite out of my depth here. But I have a question I hope those of you with more knowledge will address. In DBB, Behe applies his concept of IC to both molecular machines, such as cilia and flagella, and to processes, such as the blood-clotting cascade. It has been suggested that IC should be restricted to molecular machines and not used in describing processes. Since this would vitiate a good part of DBB and Behe's consequent interaction with his critics, I think this restriction needs close examination. So go, talk amongst yourselves. A lot! I could use that $100!
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 14. March 2002 17:08
Well, if I'm going to win that money I'll have to do it myself, I see. All right, as far as I can tell, the main difference between a process and a machine is that the former is an open-ended system, the latter a closed system. By open-ended, I mean that it is conceivable to add on to the system and only affect the first or last part of the process. If, for example, we have a system such as A --> B --> C, conceivably we could add parts to it and get either A' --> A, or C --> D. In a closed system, we would have some sort of circularity, so that we get A --> B --> C --> A.
Can processes such as the blood-clotting cascade be described as purely open-ended systems? From Behe's description, not entirely, as there is an important feedback system that turns off the cascade. We have something like A --> B --> C --> -A. This isn't the same as a closed system. However, in order for the cascade to work effectively, the off-switch would have to be able turn off whatever new part had been added to the beginning of the system. That minor problem aside (and I doubt it's that minor), we might think of the cascade as an open-ended system.
Should we restrict such open-ended systems from the category of IC?
[ 15 March 2002, 18:54: Message edited by: Jules ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 15. March 2002 19:03
Thinking it over today, I came up with another distinction between machines and processes. Usually (always?) the parts of a machine are contiguous. In other words, if A --> B, then A is touching B, continuously. Whereas in a process, if A --> B, A may only touch B at the moment of interaction. This is an important distinction, since when we think about adding a part to a machine, we have to think how an additional part could fit between two contiguous parts. Conceptually, it seems that we would have to move the orignal parts to make room for the additional part. And if we move the original parts, then since they are contigous with other parts, we would have to move those, also. Compared to a process, we could add another part without moving any of the original parts.
The fact that a machine is thought of as both a closed system, and one where its parts are contiguous, makes it easier to think of it as being IC, when compared to a process. However, I think there are other things to consider, before we rule out processes as being IC. More later.
[ 17 March 2002, 09:34: Message edited by: Jules ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 17. March 2002 09:30
The main motivation of narrowing the definition of IC seems to be that processes are more vulnerable to non-ID explanations. The probability of the blood-clotting cascade evolving by RM&NS is thought to be much higher than the probability of the bacterial flagellum evolving by RM&NS. This may be the case. However, that fact does not entail that the blood-clotting cascade did indeed evolve by RM&NS. So far, attempts to explain how it evolved have failed. At another topic, Charlie D. has suggested that we now know how the complement cascade has evolved. That may be true, but since this claim has only been made very recently (February 24, 2002), that claim has yet to be evaluated.
Nevertheless, shouldn't we narrow our definition of IC, in order to insulate it from these sort of attacks? I suggest not. At Mike Gene's topic, on the utility of IC, he demonstrated the usefulness of IC in predicting scientific discoveries. Are we sure that such is not the case with IC processes? Why is it that the blood-clotting cascade is apparently identical in all vertebrates? If evolution can explain it, there have been at least 300 million years for the cascade to evolve and change. Why hasn't it? I would think this is an area where thinking of IC as designed could lead us to insights that we might otherwise miss.
Further, if our current definition of IC is used as a hallmark of ID, then it will help us to develop a criteria of identifying the designer. For example, as far as we know the blood-clotting cascade appears at the time of the origin of multi-cellular life, roughly 600 million years ago. Either we need to show how the information for the cascade could have been loaded into the first life forms, 3.5 billion years ago, or we need to abandon ID theories that place the designer only at the origin of life.
Aside from possibly helping in these questions, the concept of IC continues to serve as a challenge to the non-teleological scientist. Whereas such a person may have assumed that a process certainly evolved "somehow", there is now an additional pressure placed upon him/her to show exactly how such a process did indeed evolve. If nothing else, IC serves as a motivator in coming to understand our origins.
[ 17 March 2002, 09:33: Message edited by: Jules ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 17. March 2002 12:09
Re: Should the concept of IC be confined to machines?
No.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 17. March 2002 12:46
nobody,
Thanks for that keen and insightful comment. With the help of you and other friends I will no doubt win that $100. Speaking of other friends, until such time that we can be reunited at ARN, my e-mail address is nailuj54@aol.com.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 17. March 2002 12:48
It seems to me that the distinction between organisms and machines is very simple. In a machine, the teleological organization is imposed from the outside. In an organism, it arises somehow (in a way we do not yet understand) from the inside.
Now, this may appear to simply beg the question as to whether organisms themselves have been designed, but there is a great deal of empirical support for such a distinction. Just think about the fact that organisms are self-constructing, self-maintaining (against the 2nd Law), and self-repairing.
Finally, the machine analogy of organism makes it impossible to say in what way a good enough simulation of an organism (whether via A-Life or via robotics) differs from the real thing. This "functionalist" philosophy leads to absurdities such as considering computer programs "alive," thermostats "conscious," and robots to be "persons" (all positions which have been argued for vigorously quite recently by prominent scientists).
Do ID proponents really want to subscribe to these claims? If not, how can they avoid them, while subscribing to the organism=machine thesis?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 17. March 2002 13:19
Dear James,
Thanks for the reply. The more replies, the closer I come to filling my empty coffers. However, I think it is slightly off topic, which may be my fault. You bring up the topic of whether or not we should compare organisms to machines. I was asking whether we should narrow our definition of IC to machines. Perhaps I should have said "machine-like" things. The flagellum, after all, certainly looks and acts like a machine, whereas the blood-clotting cascade does not.
Staying off my topic and on yours, I've been fascinated by it since I first heard you read your paper at Calvin College last year, and when I re-read your paper after you e-mailed it to me. There's something invigorating and inspiring in that paper, and I recommend it to all. As to the idea itself, is it much different than Vitalism? But perhaps we should start another topic to discuss it?
[ 17 March 2002, 13:51: Message edited by: Jules ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 17. March 2002 19:30
Good stuff, Jules. I don't advocate restricting IC to molecular machines. I do, however, think the ID "signal-to-noise" ratio is much better when discussing molecular machines. Thus, this is where my primary focus lies. For example, my "IC Revisited" essay on my web page briefly explores the difference between a molecular machine and a metabolic pathway.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 17. March 2002 22:57
Mike,
Ah! Praise from you! I feel like a little puppy being greeted by its master. I remember reading that paper of yours, and I think we agreed that if metabolic pathways were on one end of the continuum, and molecular machines were on the other, then things like the blood-clotting cascade would fall somewhere in the middle. I should have mentioned at the beginning of this topic that it was inspired by some comments made by Alonzo Nelson, who seemed to suggest (perhaps I misunderstood him) that based on Dembski's NFL, we should narrow our use of IC to just molecular machines. I guess I've just been arguing that perhaps it's too soon to do that.
Meanwhile, thanks for the reply. Only 26 more to go to catch up to you. Where's Leonard, matty, and Julbon when you need them?
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 18. March 2002 00:08
Jules:
Thanks for the nice words about my Calvin College paper. I have dealt briefly with your vitalism concern back on the other thread.
Perhaps, if we wish to continue with this particular exchange on whether organisms can rightly be called "machines," we should pick one thread or the other and stick to that. I don't care which one.
This question about organisms vs. machines---and hence the ontological status of teleology---is my main concern, but I realize that it is orthogonal to most of the exchanges here, so I don't want to become a bore with my own take on things.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 18. March 2002 00:19
James,
I think we could fit your concept into ID. We would merely refer to molecular machines such as the flagellum as "living machines." We could think of an analogy on our scale: imagine a number of people joining hands and kicking their feet to propel a boat. If organized properly, we could refer to them as a machine, even though they are much more intelligent than the dumb outboard motor that ran out of gas. Likewise, the IDist refers to the flagellum as a machine, even though it may be much more than a bunch of dumb molecules put together by an external intelligence. So I, at least, see no problem of incorporating your view with the traditional IDist. There are a number of members at ARN who advocate the same idea.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 18. March 2002 10:11
Jules:
I guess I am comfortable with that. I simply did not know that there were other people associated with ID (besides me, to the extent that I am) who shared my "neo-vitalist" viewpoint.
Who are some of the other people advocating similar ideas? Are there any writings you can point me to?
By the way, I was amused to see in Time magazine last week that Robert Wright considers ID a "big tent" embracing even "New Age" vitalists. I wondered who he was referring to. Did I make it into Time magazine (even if incognito), or are there other folks out there whose work I ought to know about?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 18. March 2002 20:39
James,
The ARN member who has views most similar to yours is mturner. Unfortunately, the forum has been temporarily shut down, and I don't know how else to reach him. I just got a message from the administrator saying that the forum will be re-opened in a couple of days. So hang on. Mturner advocates a theory called E.A.M (Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis). Whether he came up with that name or got it from someone else, I couldn't say. He's a panentheist, but I think the two of you could agree on more than you disagree on. There is also Bertvan, who is an agnostic, but favors views similar to yours. And right here at ISCID is Jack Foster(aka Jazzraptor), an agnostic who I think is still sympathetic to EAM, even if he doesn't buy into it all the way. He has a topic here at Brainstorms that could use a reply or two. Why not say hello?
I usually don't read Time. But you've given me reason to. Last week's? It's interesting that ID is called a big tent, but not the huge collection of non-ID theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 19. March 2002 01:17
Hello James,
The US Dept of Energy is not an ID organization. However you can read some of their words here:
The Machines of Life
Proteins carry out almost all of life's essential processes, often working in highly complex multicomponent assemblies that sometimes include other types of macromolecules such as DNA or RNA. These machines typically work together in functional networks called "pathways" that underlie the dynamic life of a cell as they execute important metabolic functions, mediate information flow within and among cells, and build cellular structures.
http://doegenomestolife.org/roadmap/machines.html
* * * * *
GTL Goals
Specific GTL goals are to
identify the protein machines that carry out critical life functions,
characterize the gene regulatory networks that control these machines,
http://doegenomestolife.org/index.html
Jules,
Did you receive my email? Matty is here: http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8064
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic