|
Author
|
Topic: Explanations by Design
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 23. August 2003 19:25
Pim writes:
quote:
Both natural selection and mutation are independently observable.
So is intelligent design.
[ 23. August 2003, 19:28: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 23. August 2003 20:17
What part of intelligent design is "independently observable"? The designed product is supposedly observable, but the processes, mechanisms, and agents are not. Is that true in your eyes, Nelson, or can you point to something more than the things you think are designed?
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 23. August 2003 21:43
On the contrary Evan, the processes, mechanisms, and agents are observable. Intelligent agents today build motors that look like the motors in bacteria. They even tinker with tiny motors and build molecular brakes, antennas, etc.
[ 23. August 2003, 21:45: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 23. August 2003 21:56
This is just not a convincing argument. The difference between the progressive changes in life on earth over the last 3.5 billion years and people now building cars and beginning to have a tiny grasp on how biology works is immensely vast. If this is the extent of your argument, then I don't think there is much more for me to say.
Over and out.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 23. August 2003 21:58
But thats why an advanced intelligence is hypothesized. Hey I'm not here to convince you. We can just agree to disagree.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 23. August 2003 23:41
Nelson: Intelligent agents today build motors that look like the motors in bacteria. They even tinker with tiny motors and build molecular brakes, antennas, etc.
Non a no sequitur unless you are arguing that humans were responsible for the design of life on earth. There is no evidence that suggests that going back in time, intelligent designers beyond natural selection were prevalent.
It's more than a matter of disagreeing, it is a totally fallacious argument based on a vague and incomplete assertion. We may as well argue that humans imitate the design found in nature since nature was first. We are good imitators but that hardly makes us good original designers especially since we were not even around when this design is supposed to have happened. At most we have appeal to similarity but that may equally well point to humans imitating the 'design' in nature.
So far Nelson's argument for ID has failed to provide for independent evidence of the intelligent designers other than 'natural selection/mutation'. This is a major short coming in the intelligent design argument since it is based on appeal to ignorance, it is founded in an eliminative aprroach and is unable to eliminate natural processes as the 'intelligent designer'. And appeal to what human intelligence does and its similarities to design in nature are hardly helpful in establishing if intelligent design played a role billions of years ago.
I think that Nelson has shown that ID is sterile in its lack of mechanism, details and evidence. One can hypothesize anything, pink fairies are my favorite but of course the usefulness of such to scientific inquiry remains quite limited.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 24. August 2003 11:42
Pim writes:
quote:
Non a no sequitur unless you are arguing that humans were responsible for the design of life on earth. There is no evidence that suggests that going back in time, intelligent designers beyond natural selection were prevalent.
No I'm arguing that intelligent agent(s) were responsible for the design of life on earth. Humans are not the only kind of intelligent agents that exist. So it's not a non-sequitor.
I don't see any reason why I should think we are the only intelligent agents that ever existed in the history of the universe.
Pim writes:
quote:
At most we have appeal to similarity but that may equally well point to humans imitating the 'design' in nature.
Thats a little far-fetched. We built motors way before we found one in bacteria.
[ 24. August 2003, 11:48: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 24. August 2003 13:39
Nelson: No I'm arguing that intelligent agent(s) were responsible for the design of life on earth. Humans are not the only kind of intelligent agents that exist. So it's not a non-sequitor.
I don't see any reason why I should think we are the only intelligent agents that ever existed in the history of the universe.
An interesting speculation that seems to be devoid of any supporting evidence. Heck using your logic I may as well state that there is no reason to think that pink fairies do not exist. After all there are plenty of stories about 'em. :-)
Nelson: Thats a little far-fetched. We built motors way before we found one in bacteria.
Not as far fetched as using a vague analogy. Even if you are right, we 'invented' the combustion engine a 100 years ago, what took us so long? And if your argument is that humans are NOT the designers then any appeal to analogy fails due to lack of any supporting evidence.
Have you ever watched the clouds go by and you see 'similarities' between clouds and items we know. Intelligent design?... Well sort of, a creative/imaginative mind seeing 'design'
[ 24. August 2003, 13:42: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 24. August 2003 16:45
Pim writes:
quote:
An interesting speculation that seems to be devoid of any supporting evidence.
The supporting evidence is the design in nature.
Pim writes:
quote:
Not as far fetched as using a vague analogy.
An expert in flagella seems to think that it's not.
Pim:
quote:
Even if you are right, we 'invented' the combustion engine a 100 years ago, what took us so long?
Huh?
Pim writes:
quote:
And if your argument is that humans are NOT the designers then any appeal to analogy fails due to lack of any supporting evidence.
I think you are being too hard on Darwinian just-so stories.
Pim writes:
quote:
Have you ever watched the clouds go by and you see 'similarities' between clouds and items we know. Intelligent design?... Well sort of, a creative/imaginative mind seeing 'design'
That is completely different from what we see in designed systems. This is basic stuff and belongs on ARN.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 24. August 2003 17:00
Nelson argues that the supportive evidence of us not being the only intelligent designer in the universe is the design in nature. Of course that is begging the question since there is no evidence of design in nature supportinve of the presence of intelligent designers other than us.
In response to the vagueness of analogy Nelson appeals to vague authority.
Nelson still fails to provide any evidence supportive of his idea that we are not the only intelligent designer in the universe not to mention any independent evidence of intelligent design in nature. At most there is an argument from analogy, we think we see evidence of design, just like the clouds, but we are unable to determine if intelligent design requires actual intelligent designers other than for instance natural selection or processes of chance/regularity.
At most Nelson can argue that there is appearance of design in nature since there is no independent evidence to validate if what he sees is actually in need of a true intelligent designer. Nelson wants to extrapolate from our existence as an intelligent designer and our use of similar designs as found in nature, that there is design in nature but the analogy fails since there is no logical extension between our capabilities and those required 4 billion years ago. Nelson may speculate that there were intelligent designers at that time but to use evidence of 'design' as evidence of said designers is truely circular.
Nelson's argument seems to come down to
Things in nature look designed since humans designed analog features. This requires an intelligent agent which excludes humans since they were not really around that time but there must have been some intelligent agent. Why? Because nature looks designed.
Of course in all this circularity Nelson still fails to address how he has eliminated natural processes as the intelligent designer? More problematically, Nelson has failed to provide for independent evidence of intelligent designers for what he considers to be design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 24. August 2003 17:10
Pim writes:
quote:
Nelson argues that the supportive evidence of us not being the only intelligent designer in the universe is the design in nature. Of course that is begging the question since there is no evidence of design in nature supportinve of the presence of intelligent designers other than us.
The bacterial flagellum, the eukaryotic flagellum, the atp synthase, etc are all evidence of intelligent design in nature.
Pim writes:
quote:
In response to the vagueness of analogy Nelson appeals to vague authority.
Robert Macnab is not a "vague" authority.
Pim writes:
quote:
Nelson still fails to provide any evidence supportive of his idea that we are not the only intelligent designer in the universe not to mention any independent evidence of intelligent design in nature.
I discuss and argue that evidence everytime I come here.
Pim writes:
quote:
At most there is an argument from analogy, we think we see evidence of design, just like the clouds, but we are unable to determine if intelligent design requires actual intelligent designers other than for instance natural selection or processes of chance/regularity.
See the OP to the Other Flagellum thread. Assembly of the eukaryotic flagellum is irreducibly complex, and thus presents a barrier to natural selection.
Pim writes:
quote:
At most Nelson can argue that there is appearance of design in nature since there is no independent evidence to validate if what he sees is actually in need of a true intelligent designer.
Please show me independant evidence for the common ancestor of bacteria and eukaryotes.
Pim writes:
quote:
Nelson wants to extrapolate from our existence as an intelligent designer and our use of similar designs as found in nature, that there is design in nature but the analogy fails since there is no logical extension between our capabilities and those required 4 billion years ago.
That is why an advanced intelligence is hypothesized.
Pim writes:
quote:
Nelson may speculate that there were intelligent designers at that time but to use evidence of 'design' as evidence of said designers is truely circular.
It's not circular at all. Design points to a designer. Thats the explanation ID gives. As you keep saying. You think the designer is natural selection. I think the designer is an intelligent agent.
Pim tries to summarize my views:
quote:
Things in nature look designed since humans designed analog features. This requires an intelligent agent which excludes humans since they were not really around that time but there must have been some intelligent agent. Why? Because nature looks designed.
Well, not really but close enough. This is not circular.
Pim writes:
quote:
Nelson has failed to provide for independent evidence of intelligent designers for what he considers to be design.
Wow, when it comes to assertion you truly are king. When you show me independant evidence for the common ancestor chimps and humans (and I want to actually see it, touch it), then I will show you indpendant evidence of designers. I already stated, everytime I post in this forum, why I think natural selection is inadequate mechanism to produce irreducible complexity.
[ 24. August 2003, 17:22: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 24. August 2003 17:44
Nelson: The bacterial flagellum, the eukaryotic flagellum, the atp synthase, etc are all evidence of intelligent design in nature.
Begging the question Nelson. At most they are not fully understood features which under some scenarios may give the appearance of design. And since you are unable to remove natural processes as the intelligent designer, the use of the term intelligent design to refer to our ignorance is hardly useful and in some cases confusing.
Nelson now suggests that Macnab sees the similarity as more than an analogy. It is up to Nelson to support this because I doubt that Macnab supports Nelson's viewpoints here.
Nelson avoids the issue of evidence supportive of the idea that we are not the only designer by claiming without much merrit and supportive evidence that he does so all the time.
Nelson then makes an assertion that "Assembly of the eukaryotic flagellum is irreducibly complex, and thus presents a barrier to natural selection." without having show either point. In fact as has been shown, there are natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems and thus IC is neither an insurmountable barrier to natural selection nor a reliable indicator of intelligent design.
Nelson not only wants to argue in favor of Intelligent designer but an advanced form of course no evidence exists of such advance form of intelligence.
Nelson: Design points to a designer
Indeed and without any evidence of speculated advanced intelligent designer there is little reason to jump to such a conclusion.
nelson concludes with the following red herring
quote:
When you show me independant evidence for the common ancestor chimps and humans (and I want to actually see it, touch it), then I will show you indpendant evidence of designers.
I am not asking for independent evidence of common ancestry, we both seem to accept this observable fact. I am arguing that your conclusion that there must be a designer fails to 1) eliminate natural selection/mutation or other natural processes as said intelligent designer 2) absent any evidence of said designers Nelson's argument is merely one of appeal to ignorance.
In other words 'we don't know but it looks designed to me thus there must have been some advanced intelligent designer', purely speculative, lacking in any supportive evidence.
Is Nelson btw suggesting that there was an intelligent designer responsible for the split in human/other primates? The evidence of common ancestry of human/chimp is well supported by various independent evidences, if Nelson wants to suggest that there was an interruption in said processes by some unnamed intelligent designer then he should at least present some evidence.
Nelson concludes I already stated, everytime I post in this forum, why I think natural selection is inadequate mechanism to produce irreducible complexity.
Sure, but what you think is not necessarily helpful in what actually is or was. We do know that natural selection in principle cannot be excluded from producing irreducible complexity.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 24. August 2003 17:56
Pim writes:
quote:
And since you are unable to remove natural processes as the intelligent designer, the use of the term intelligent design to refer to our ignorance is hardly useful and in some cases confusing.
It's only ignorance if you have faith that it evolved. I do not have faith that it evolved.
With respect to the flagellum, I actually meant David DeRosier:
quote:
“the flagellum resembles a machine designed by humans.” ( Cell 93: 17-20)
Pim writes:
quote:
Nelson avoids the issue of evidence supportive of the idea that we are not the only designer by claiming without much merrit and supportive evidence that he does so all the time.
Actually I gave a few examples above. They were merely dismissed with a faith statement.
Concerning the irreducible complexity of the assembly of eukaryotic flagellum, this is not an assertion, here is one facet:
quote:
These particles are composed of 16 different proteins, some large and some small. They can be isolated as two distinct complexes: A and B. Complex A contains IFT 144, IFT140, IFT139, IFT122A, IFT122B, and IFT43. Complex B contains IFT172, IFT88, IFT81, IFT80, IFT74/72, IFT57/55, IFT52, IFT46, IFT27, and IFT20. The sequences of many of these proteins are conserved among the protozoa, nematodes, and vertebrates [10]. Genetic manipulations in green algae, whereby the genes are essentially knocked out, demonstrate the important of these proteins. For example, removal of IFT88, IFT172, IFT140, and IFT52, result in the same bald phenotype as removal of the kinesin transporter [9]. Removal of the IFT proteins have no other effect on the cell, indicating a flagellum-specific function.
Pim writes:
quote:
In fact as has been shown, there are natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems and thus IC is neither an insurmountable barrier to natural selection nor a reliable indicator of intelligent design.
Which ones?
Pim writes:
quote:
I am not asking for independent evidence of common ancestry, we both seem to accept this observable fact.
At the level of phyla (and kingdoms) common descent is not a fact. If you think it is an observable fact, show me the common ancestor of bacteria and eukaryotes.
[ 24. August 2003, 17:58: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 24. August 2003 18:41
Nelson,
Let's be clear here. It is ignorance if you have no evidence. Or to use your argument "it's only ignorance if you have faith that it was intelligently designed", I do not have such faith however.
See how easy it is to use your strawman and while I do not have faith that it evolved or not, you seem to be the one making a positive statement namely that it was intelligently designed. I merely point out, using the design inference proposed by Dembski that "And since you are unable to remove natural processes as the intelligent designer, the use of the term intelligent design to refer to our ignorance is hardly useful and in some cases confusing."
Perhaps you want to argue that Dembski's design inference filter is useless?
I am glad you corrected your attribution, but resembling hardly means more than a superficial similarity and I doubt that DeRosier had ID in mind as the 'explanation'. I fail to see the relevance to appeal to this authority as in any way supportive of Nelson's argument.Certainly similarity is in the mind of the beholder and like cloud watching irrelevant. The heart resembles a pump, the eye resembles a telescope. We can find superficial resemblances in almost anything. What does that prove however? Other than that specification may be trivial and CSI is merely about complexity?
You state that the ICness of the flagellum is a fact based on knock out experiments which of course are not really helpful in establishing pathways or eliminating natural pathways to said IC system.
When I point out Behe's argument about indirect pathways 'In fact as has been shown, there are natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems and thus IC is neither an insurmountable barrier to natural selection nor a reliable indicator of intelligent design.' Nelson wants to know which ones. But that is irrelevant. One cannot use ICness as a reliable indicator of intelligent design if one cannot eliminate such indirect pathways. Surely our ignorance should not become an argument for evidence.
I also assume that Nelson is willing to drop his request for independent evidence of common descent of human/chimp and has now moved the goalposts to bacteria/eukaryote. Again nothing to support the need for an intelligent designer other than that they have to hide in areas in which our knowledge is still incomplete.
In that context let me add a quote from Derosier's paper
quote:
The mechanism of the flagellar motor remains a mystery. It is not clear if there are any similarities of its mechanism to those used in eukaryotic cells. The differences are apparent but wemay not know about similarities until we have more detailed structures for the motor parts; we look forward to the day when we do.
[ 24. August 2003, 18:46: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 24. August 2003 18:58
Pim writes:
quote:
Let's be clear here. It is ignorance if you have no evidence. Or to use your argument "it's only ignorance if you have faith that it was intelligently designed", I do not have such faith however.
But my claim was that I have evidence and gave 4 examples. You never responded to them.
Pim writes:
quote:
"And since you are unable to remove natural processes as the intelligent designer, the use of the term intelligent design to refer to our ignorance is hardly useful and in some cases confusing."
I already discussed why I think IC forms a barrier to natural selection. Not all the steps in producing these systems is selectable.
Pim writes:
quote:
I am glad you corrected your attribution, but resembling hardly means more than a superficial similarity and I doubt that DeRosier had ID in mind as the 'explanation'.
Resembles means looks like, not "artificially" looks like. The only difference is that it is more complex.
Rim writes:
quote:
I fail to see the relevance to appeal to this authority as in any way supportive of Nelson's argument.
Just telling you what the experts are saying. Most people see design in nature. The only way to escape it is to say it is "apparent". But that begs the question of how likely natural processes can generate such things. I disagree that it can likely do so.
Clouds don't look like the machines that humans make. Clouds don't stop functioning when you remove a component.
Pim writes:
quote:
The heart resembles a pump, the eye resembles a telescope. We can find superficial resemblances in almost anything. What does that prove however? Other than that specification may be trivial and CSI is merely about complexity?
Those are not superficial resemblances. The heart is a pump. That is it's function. More accurately, the heart is a "cyclic, volume-displacement" pump. What do you think cardiac output is:
cardiac output
Eyes, like lobster eyes, are telescopes.
quote:
With little modification, this design can be used in the construction of a grazing incidence system to focus X-rays.
source
Irreducible complexity eliminates natural selection in that it focuses on which steps are not functional and therefore not selectable.
Pim writes:
quote:
When I point out Behe's argument about indirect pathways 'In fact as has been shown, there are natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems and thus IC is neither an insurmountable barrier to natural selection nor a reliable indicator of intelligent design.'
Thats not Behe's argument about indirect pathways. Behe's argument about indirect pathways is that the more complex an irreducible system is, the less likely an indirect pathway can generate it.
You still have not answered this question. Which pathways do we have to eliminate?
I'd still like to see all those ancestors. Think the burden is too great/unfair? Then stop asking for independant evidence for intelligent designers.
I'm sorry if the moderator is finding this tit for tat annoying but it's sunday and I have nothing better to do.
This quote by David Derosier, is completely irrelevant:
quote:
The mechanism of the flagellar motor remains a mystery. It is not clear if there are any similarities of its mechanism to those used in eukaryotic cells. The differences are apparent but wemay not know about similarities until we have more detailed structures for the motor parts; we look forward to the day when we do.
[ 24. August 2003, 19:54: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic