|
Author
|
Topic: Human Design Analogy Considered Dangerous
|
rossum
Member
Member # 463
|
posted 17. November 2002 17:04
There are two types of animals designed by humans. The first type comprises artificial breeds of domesticated animal, dogs, cattle etc. These are the types of animal created by artificial selection by human breeders. The animal breeders have produced some extraordinary types from the original breeds, but the limits on what the breeders can achieve are set by the extent of genetic variation present in the breeding population.
The second type of animal designed by humans does not have this limitation. For this reason these animals show more about the design process, as they are not constrained by the practical achievability of the design. The second gropup of designs are the various mythical animals. Dragons, unicorns, griffins, naga and so on may not exist in nature, but are all animals undeniably designed by humans. By examining them we can gain some insight into the design processes that humans use.
Looking briefly at the various mythical animals some design themes are obvious.
1 Single function subsystems: The human designs tend to use subsystems with one function, such as wings on a western dragon. If an animal is to fly then the human designer will add a pair of wings to it. If an animal is to be fierce then it will get the head of a lion or an eagle. This means that mythological animals are often chimeras; they are assembled from parts of different animals, as was the Chimera itself: a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail. This tendancy towards single function subsystems is also noticeable in other more practical examples of human design.
2 Multiplication of parts: Both the naga and the hydra have multiple heads. In Edgar Rice Burroughs' Martian novels most of the animals have more than four legs. This effect may just be for differentiation, or to emphasise the quality relevant to that body part. The hydra was fierce and the nagas wise, both associated with the head. Occasionally parts can be reduced, as with the single horn of the unicorn.
3 Change of size: Dragons are fundamentally large lizards. Brownies, faeries and so on are small humans.
Using this simple analysis a western dragon would be a large lizard with bat's wings added. A Chinese dragon may be a large snake with legs added or an elongated large lizard. A faerie is a small human with insect's wings added. Angels are depicted as humans with bird's wings added.
We can extend the analysis further by looking at a practical example, how to design a flying mammal. Two mythological solutions are the pegasus or the faerie, the observed solution is a bat.
The human designed solutions take an existing mammal and add a flying subsystem to it. Bird's wings are added to a horse to make a pegasus; insect's wings are added to a human to make a faerie. In the case of the faerie there is also a size change. Thus in both cases of human design all the existing functions of the land mammal are left intact with a completely new subsystem being added for the new function of flight.
The bat uses a very different solution. It takes an existing subsystem, the standard tetrapod front limbs, and changes their function to make them wings. Their previous function is very much degraded since bats are now not very good at walking on land. In this case the new function is not gained by adding a new subsystem, it is gained by taking an existing subsystem and changing it so that it has a new function at the expense of the previous function.
This shows that the process that formed bats, whether evolution or design, was probably not driven by a human-like designer or designers. It does not show any of the characteristics of human design, except possibly size change.
Staying with the example of flight, it is noticeable that flight has occurred four times in the history of life on earth: insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats. In each case the flight structures are different. There is no sign of previous design elements being reused. This is not characteristic of human design which often looks to reuse previous successful solutions.
It is also worth noting that the same general method was used for pterosaurs, birds and bats. The pre-existing tetrapod front limbs were reshaped into flight organs and lost all or part of their previous function. No new parts were added; pre-existing parts were reshaped. This would tend to indicate that the same process, whether evolution or design, was at work in all three cases.
Given this difference in the characteristics of the design method used, it would be incorrect to argue by analogy from human design when talking about any designer or designers behind the development of life. Any such designers do not appear to be using typically human methods of design. Any analogy with human design will be weakened by the dissimilarity and thus will make for a dangerously weak argument.
IP: Logged
|
|
Brasten Sager
Member
Member # 581
|
posted 21. November 2002 15:34
Your critique of design analogies contains some apparent flaws, as well as ignores some powerful evidences in favor of such analogies. Please consider my response, and I would be interested in discussing anything I may have missed about your argument. First, a critique of your post.
Designing from What We Know
The creatures of human design that you chose to base your arguments on were “...various mythical animals... [that] may not exist in nature, but are all animals undeniably designed by humans.” The purpose of these mythical creatures was usually to serve as a symbol of some virtue or as an enemy in a story. The designers in such situations faced a tough question. How do you build a more powerful enemy than a Lion? Or a more swift enemy than a goat? Or even a more sneaky enemy than a serpent?
The designs we see in the realm of ancient myth are not how they are because of lack of creativity, but rather due to the knowledge of the designer at the time. Ancient authors and storytellers had little knowledge of biology, had yet to be exposed to the idea of common descent, and had little reason to design something fundamentally new, as it would not have served their purpose. The designers simply designed a “new creature” at the level they were comfortable with.
Conversely, anyone who's spent any time watching or reading modern science fiction has probably seen many fictional creatures with completely new characteristics that the authors used to terrify it's audience. The octospiders of Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series, almost any villain on X-Files, and many others are good examples of fictional biologics designed by humans that don't match the pattern presented in your post.
One Problem, Multiple Solutions
The claim that humans tend to use the same solutions for every similar problem may hold in isolated instances, but is certainly shown to be false as a generic claim. Humans often design vastly different mechanisms for performing the same tasks. To continue to use your analogy, let's look at the design of flight, only this time from a human-invention standpoint.
Contrary to the pattern you suggest, humans have developed several independent methods and systems of flight. I believe there are at least 5 completely distinct subsystems which allow for flight.
- Wing and Propeller. By far the most popular method of flight, and the first to be invented, this subsystem relies on a propeller to push the craft along through the air. Eventually the attack angle and Bernoulli Effect cause the craft to rise.
Even though I've grouped them into the same subsystem, the separate inventions of propeller-based flight and jet-engine-based flight is worth noting. When a more efficient technology was needed, a completely different method of propulsion was invented. - Helicopter Blades. An entirely different solution to the flight problem. This time, numerous blades are attached to a vertical engine. The rotation of these blades creates the pocket of low pressure above the craft and high pressure below the craft that is needed to lift the helicopter.
- Lighter Than Air. Blimps, hot air balloons and other such lighter-than-air craft use one of the simplest principles. If something is less dense than it's surroundings, it will be lifted by the surrounding pressure.
- Rocket-propelled Flight. Simple principle here: ignite rocket fuel and direct the venting downward, and your craft will rise.
- Fan-wing Flight. A relatively new method of flight in which fans force air across the top of a wing. The resulting Bernoulli Effect causes lift on the wings at extremely low speeds. This flight-method is unique from wing and propeller in that it relies entirely on the Bernoulli Effect to maintain flight, and has no capability for gliding in the event of an engine failure.
Inventive Designs
While not all human designs are inventive, there are a vast number of examples of inventive or creative human designs from which we can pull. Even better than individual examples are studies of human invention patterns, such as the studies of Russian patents, which eventually became known as the “Theory of Inventive Problem Solving”. This study is very well described and compared to modern biological discoveries by John Bracht in his essay Inventions, Algorithms, and Biological Design.
In conclusion, it becomes obvious after even a passive look at human inventiveness that the analogies used by design advocates can easily stand up to the critiques your presented. Until such time as a more adequate objection to the human-design analogies presents itself, it would benefit the design advocate to continue to use such analogies in his/her argument.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 21. November 2002 23:24
Dear Brasten,
You state that
quote:
In conclusion, it becomes obvious after even a passive look at human inventiveness that the analogies used by design advocates can easily stand up to the critiques your presented.
It seems to me that the reason why analogies can be defended is that we can always limit the extent of the analogy to 'well it looked designed'. The question is if analogies make for good design inferences.
I would say that in cases where we can use analogies to propose testable non ad hoc hypotheses we can determine if the design inference is a better one than for instance an natural explanation. But there are undoubtable instances in which our knowledge does not allow us to determine what the probabilities are for a design hypotheses and/or natural hypothesis. There are times were we just have to admit that we do not know yet.
My problem with analogies is that if it does not explain anything, if it does not help us formulate testable predictions that can be compared with other hypotheses that a design inference will be hard to support.
I have proposed in another thread a positive research approach for ID. I am somewhat saddened that my proposal does not seem to have generated much interest yet.
IP: Logged
|
|
rossum
Member
Member # 463
|
posted 22. November 2002 18:45
Brasten,
Overall I agree with some of what you say, but I do not think that it impacts on my main point, that design observed in nature differs substantially from human design. My analysis of human design was indeed short and simple, which you have correctly pointed out. However the examples of human design that you use to extend my analysis are still different to the types of design found in nature.
You said:
quote:
The designs we see in the realm of ancient myth are not how they are because of lack of creativity, but rather due to the knowledge of the designer at the time. Ancient authors and storytellers had little knowledge of biology, had yet to be exposed to the idea of common descent, and had little reason to design something fundamentally new, as it would not have served their purpose. The designers simply designed a “new creature” at the level they were comfortable with.
We can use our knowledge of human designers to make reasonable guesses about their motives and objectives. We cannot do this for non-human designers with any degree of certainty. Certainly not in the case of ID where there seems to be nothing definite known about the designer/s beyond their mere existence.
The dangers of using the analogy of human designers is not just a criticism of ID. For example the same criticism applies to the argument that the vertebrate eye, with its blind spot, is "badly designed" compared to the cephalopod eye. This argument implies knowledge of the motives and goals of the designer/s which must be pure speculation, whatever the source.
You use the example of Arthur C. Clarke's octospiders from the Rama books. I do not have copies to hand, and it is a long time since I read them, so I cannot say anything useful about the octospiders. I can say that their name is a good example of the human design tendancy to assemble a new whole from previously existing separate parts. I have never been a fan of X-files so again I cannot comment.
You also use the example of multiple human designs for flight.
There are indeed different methods of human flight. However the differences from the ID designer/s is clear. For powered flight all biological systems use flapping wings; no successful human flight method does. None of the human methods use modifications of pre-existing parts; the biological method does not import single function subsystems from other places.
Would a human think of taking a car, gradually modifying the two front wheels into propellers and gradually modifying the fins at the back into true wings in order to invent the aircraft? No, human flight design does not start with an already existing car, it starts with a blank piece of paper. Specific parts of a car, such as the engine, may be used, but the starting point is not a car. My point that biological design uses very different methods from human design still stands.
Temporarily diverting onto a tangent, you said:
quote:
Wing and Propeller. By far the most popular method of flight, and the first to be invented
Surely from an ID point of view flight was invented when the insects took to the air, if not before. The ID designer/s must have invented flight at or before that time, or are you asserting that flight in insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats is an example of pure evolution without any element of ID at all? Even the first human invention of flight was in 1782 when the Montgolfier brothers flew a hot air balloon. This was lighter than air and not an aerofoil.
[tongue-in-cheek mode=on]If I wanted to be really picky I could say that "by far the most popular method of flight" is the flapping wing, as used by insects etc., but that would perhaps be a bit too picky, so I won't say it.[tongue-in-cheek mode=off]
Getting back to the mainstream of the discussion, my initial post made two main points:
- Human design and design seen in nature use different methods.
- Therefore using an analogy with human design to discuss design in nature may lead to errors.
I do not feel that either of these points is weakened. I do agree that there is more to human design than I was able to fit into my initial post, which is why I described it as a "simple analysis".
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 23. November 2002 02:26
Frances,
I hope I am not contributing to your saddened state. I'm currently buried by all the positive and suggestive research insights that my own ID approach is generating. The stuff I discuss and speculation about on my web page emerges from a bottle neck known as "time." Basically, ID gets the hours between midnight and 3 AM when I have the energy. When I contemplate the "in-progress" stuff in my head and on my hard drive, I feel a little overwhelmed. Perhaps one day I'll hit a real lull and take in your suggestions. In the mean time, I'd encourage you to flesh out your own ideas. Good luck.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 23. November 2002 16:28
Mike Gene
quote:
I hope I am not contributing to your saddened state. I'm currently buried by all the positive and suggestive research insights that my own ID approach is generating.
Hi Mike, this seems to be encouraging that your own ID approach seems to be generating positive and suggestive research insights. Could you explain how your ID approach is different/similar to the ID approach used by Dembski et al? Your work may be helpful in contributing to the ID research programme. My main interest is in how you use the insight in ID to generate hypotheses about ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 12. December 2002 20:38
Rossum,
quote:
Would a human think of taking a car, gradually modifying the two front wheels into propellers and gradually modifying the fins at the back into true wings in order to invent the aircraft?
It would seem that yours is a presumption that Nature designs via gradualism. One can state that there appears to be Gradualism, but others may claim that the appearance is only that.
Another thought: At what level is gradualism or noy gradulism? Human's took a car (internal combustion) engine and modified it to power a propeller. Almost all of technology is the build-up from pre-existing technology. The design of the micro-computer owes a lot to the mainframe, and the mainframe owes a lot to previous adding machines....
IP: Logged
|
|
rossum
Member
Member # 463
|
posted 13. December 2002 18:38
Irving,
All the evidence I have seen indicates that nature uses gradual methods; I include punc-eek as "gradual" as it still takes a lot of time. It is worth noting that nature's use of gradual methods does not prevent an inference of design. We do not have enough information about the ID designer/s to say that they only use sudden, rather than gradual, methods. My argument is about the differences between human and natural design, not whether natural design is intelligent or not.
I think that your example of the internal combustion engine reinforces my point. The human designers took only a part of the car, the engine, and grafted it onto their aircraft. This is similar to the Pegasus with its bird wings grafted on. Nature would have taken the whole car, not just one part of it, and modified the different parts of the car to make flight possible, as with insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats. Nothing would have been grafted on from a different animal.
Lateral Gene Transfer in bacteria is an exception to my point, where it is possible for a functional subsystem to be transferred from one species to another. The available evidence shows the DNA transferred by LGT is random with respect to its usefulness to the receiver. Random transfer of subsystems is not characteristic of human design so I do not see this exception as impacting on my argument.
I agree that human designers build on previous technology, as with your example of computers. However they generally start with a blank piece of paper and assemble known subsystems from different sources. They do not take a complete mainframe and modify only the existing parts of the mainframe, possibly adding a random part from elsewhere.
My point that human design methods differ from the design methods seen in nature remains.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 13. December 2002 21:52
Granted, it seems to be one of personal subjectivity. I find that the punk-eek concept induces so much time that it's credibility as a viable design tool of nature is even more suspect than that of Evolutions hallmark of gradualsim.
quote:
I think that your example of the internal combustion engine reinforces my point. The human designers took only a part of the car, the engine, and grafted it onto their aircraft. This is similar to the Pegasus with its bird wings grafted on. Nature would have taken the whole car, not just one part of it, and modified the different parts of the car to make flight possible, as with insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats. Nothing would have been grafted on from a different animal.
Another issue of subjective perspective it appears. I would say that wheels, struts, gas guages, sparkplugs, and many other components are similar in cars and aircraft. It is much more than a wing graft on a Pegasus. This, of course, is my perspective...I don't think we can make any traction here.
I would agree that Intelligent design is differentiable from mutation and selection as a design paradigm. If Natural design is defined as mutation and selection, then I would agree that Intelligent design differs from Natural design. It must also be stated, that defining Natural design as mutation and selection is an issue far from settled.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic