|
Author
|
Topic: A Reason For Backwards Eye-Wiring
|
Darel Rex Finley
Member
Member # 1034
|
posted 26. December 2003 15:19
(I have not visited ISCID for some time -- if this idea has already been broached, please disregard/delete this message.)
If I remember correctly, Scientific American, in an article by Richard Dawkins several years ago, printed a drawing of the squid eye vs. the mammalian eye. The caption indicated that the squid eye was wired forwards and had no blind spot, whereas the mammalian eye was wired backwards which causes a blind spot where the bundle of nerves must plunge through the retina to escape the eyeball and reach the brain.
This is often quoted as a reason to think that the eye could not be designed, and the ID response has been that imperfect design does not rule out a designer. However, I think a more specifically substantive response is required in this case, because the anti-ID argument here is not merely that the mammalian eye is kludgy, but rather that it post-dates a better design in the squid. Why would a designer have done it well the first time, then purposely switched to a more roundabout solution? This is a legitimate question that does not require infinite perfection on the part of the designer, but merely common sense like that posessed by humans.
A general-purpose answer to this question would be that if the designer is a large group of engineers, it is possible that the better (squid) eye was forgotten, and the eye had to be redesigned from scratch, possibly by a different designer. Although I am warm to the team-of-engineers conception of design, I find this response weak for the simple reason that it strains credibility to think that an engineering team would fail to retain and re-use their best designs, especially when crafting their (apparently) supreme organism -- humans.
I have to doubt that I am the only one to notice this, but it seems apparent from Scientific American's own simple illustration that there is a reason for the mammalian eye to be wired backwards. The squid eye is approximately egg-shaped, with the pointed end of the egg at the back (image) end of the eyeball. It seems that this shape is an attempt to compensate for the mass of nerve tissue that falls inbetween the retina and the back of the eyeball. The compensation is intended to make the retina as spherical as possible. But you can see from the illustration that the attempt is not entirely successful -- it helps, but the retina is still significantly aspherical.
In the mammalian eye, the retina falls behind the nerve mass, directly on the back of the eyeball. Thus, it is a simple matter to use a spherical eyeball, and the retina will be spherical. Yes, it does necessitate a hole in retina, and brain trickery to make the blind spot unnoticeable by the higher mind, but I would guess that the improvement in clarity of vision is well worth the compromise.
Please, someone tell me if I am off-base here, or if this is a reasonable analysis.
Darel
[ 26. December 2003, 15:44: Message edited by: Darel Rex Finley ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Denyse O'Leary
Member
Member # 1035
|
posted 26. December 2003 18:02
Finlay: Did you happen to read Michael Denton's "The Inverted Retina - A Hypothesis" at Origins & Design, 19:37, Winter 1999. I think you can read it free at www.arn.org.
It sets out an argument for the usefulness of the mammalian eye arrangement in some detail. The basic thesis is that the squid eye would not work in mammals because the main problem is one of circulation. The mammal requires a rapid circulation, which creates the difficulty that blood must be kept away from the vision parts of the eye, yet available in great quantity. Denton argues that the mammalian eye achieves these goals, at the minor expense of introducing a blind spot. The squid, being cold-blooded, would not have similar needs.
I would be interested in your comments on Denton's article.
Question I do not know the answer to (do you?):
How much difference does the blind spot really make? In my experience, its existence must be demonstrated to human beings by trick tests. (I suspect that we compensate for it automatically because we have overlapping vision.)
What about animals that have monocular vision, like horses? Do they experience a serious problem with the blind spot created by nerve bundles?
It seems to me that the main question is 1) how would mammalian eye be created/developed/evolved? 2) is it a reasonable solution to the problem? (Problem: high metabolic activity + keeping blood away from vision parts of the eye)
Denyse
P.S. My elderly mother narrowly escaped blindness a few years ago, from a condition called "giant cell temporal arteritis," which is an outcome of high blood pressure. In a patient with that condition, the temporal arteries enlarge, and may leak blood, which can enter the eye and thus destroy vision parts. Fortunately, the condition was diagnosed in time, and treatment prevented blindness. Her illness made me aware of the perilous balance that exists in all of us between blood and eyes. - d.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 26. December 2003 19:03
Interesting article. My question would be why the octopus and squid do not have an inverted retina when the fish who live in a similar environment do? Surely this seems to point to multiple designers (parallel design)
Link
Given the prevalence of Pax6 and rhodposin may argue for front loading scenario?
[ 26. December 2003, 20:04: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Denyse O'Leary
Member
Member # 1035
|
posted 04. January 2004 14:44
This should interest anyone who is interested in this topic:
"that wonder of the natural world, the insect eye"
Excerpt from a press reseale on a recent research study on insect eyes:
"“We think we can use this concept to make smart weapons smarter,” said Paul Holloway, a distinguished professor of materials science and engineering and the project's lead researcher."
(Note: If there is really no information or design involved, how can we use this concept to make smart weapons smarter? Wouldn't we be making smar weapons dumber? Anyway, read it for yourself and see.)
Linked:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/502417/?sc=wire
Header Appended:
Source: University of Florida Released: Thu 11-Dec-2003, 12:00 ET
With Nature’s Help, a Better Vision System for Smart Weapons
Libraries
Science News Keywords
SMART WEAPONS, ENGINEERING, BIO-OPTICS
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 04. January 2004 17:28
Denyse: If there is really no information or design involved, how can we use this concept to make smart weapons smarter?
I do not think the issue is 'design or information', both can be explained with evolutionary processes but rather what the designer(s) are for these structures. That we have learned much from nature does not mean that our applications of knowledge necessarily point to 'intelligence' in nature.
Thanks for the link, interesting
IP: Logged
|
|
Denyse O'Leary
Member
Member # 1035
|
posted 05. January 2004 17:13
"Denyse: If there is really no information or design involved, how can we use this concept to make smart weapons smarter?
I do not think the issue is 'design or information', both can be explained with evolutionary processes but rather what the designer(s) are for these structures. That we have learned much from nature does not mean that our applications of knowledge necessarily point to 'intelligence' in nature."
From Denyse:
First off, if you think that we are a part of nature and that we are intelligent designers, then there definitely IS intelligence design in nature. The question then becomes, is there any intelligent design other than what we do?
Can the structures that we identify as the products of intelligence if human beings have designed them be considered products of intelligence if they occur in nature, in situations where no combination of law and chance appears to be a likely candidate to produce them?
Or are we to assume that law and chance must do it all because we are committed to naturalism, regardless of the state of the evidence?
I question that "'design or information', both can be explained with evolutionary processes" unless you 1) specify just how they can be so explained OR 2) state that you will not accept any other explanation, no matter what the state of the evidence.
But here is my current difficulty: If we choose to replace human design with natural design, and there is no real design in nature, we must be decreasing the overall level of design in an artifact. Or do you think that there is no real design in what human engineers do? Is that what you are trying to say?
Or are you saying that if we simply copy a design in nature it somehow becomes real design because we copied it -- much as if a student plagiarizes a famous poet in love letters to his girlfriend, and suddenly, for the first time, it's poetry.
I'm just trying to understand, that's all.
Denyse
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 05. January 2004 22:34
Denyse: First off, if you think that we are a part of nature and that we are intelligent designers, then there definitely IS intelligence design in nature.
In this sense you are correct and intelligent design inferences for "known designers" have been applied succesfully for quite a long time. Archaeology and criminology come to mind. But the issue is not as much that we are intelligent designers, that's a given, but rather if we can detect intelligent design in for instance biology or even cosmology.
Denyse: The question then becomes, is there any intelligent design other than what we do?
Well, there is the rest of the animal kingdom and there may even be evidence of life on Mars.
Denyse: Can the structures that we identify as the products of intelligence if human beings have designed them be considered products of intelligence if they occur in nature, in situations where no combination of law and chance appears to be a likely candidate to produce them?
An interesting question which seems to be difficult if not impossible to answer. IF we were able to eliminate any and all combination then we can safely infer this but in absence of omniscience on our part we will have to accept the possibility of false positives. Given the possibility of false positives, an approach based on elimination can at most infer 'we don't know'.
Denyse: Or are we to assume that law and chance must do it all because we are committed to naturalism, regardless of the state of the evidence?
Of course not, naturalism is equally unscientific in the sense of metaphysical commitments.
Denyse: I question that "'design or information', both can be explained with evolutionary processes" unless you 1) specify just how they can be so explained OR 2) state that you will not accept any other explanation, no matter what the state of the evidence.
Let me see if I can explain this. If it can be shown that evolutionary processes can in fact explain in principle increase in information and complexity (see Schneider, Adami, Toussaint, Lenski and many others) then an eliminative approach cannot dismiss evolutionary processes in one big swoop. So now each and every instance becomes an issue of 'we don't know' until we can formulate a falsifiable and verifiable hypothesis which explains the data. Which is where we reach part 2) of your question. I am very willing to entertain any scientific hypotheses in this area although it seems that the evidence tends to mostly be on the side of regularities and chance when it comes to evolution. But as a scientist I am always open to evidence.
Denyse: Or are you saying that if we simply copy a design in nature it somehow becomes real design because we copied it -- much as if a student plagiarizes a famous poet in love letters to his girlfriend, and suddenly, for the first time, it's poetry.
Copying can be a natural process as well as an intelligently designed process and it does not matter if the copied object was intelligently or non-intelligently designed. The act of copying design however says nothing about the original object.
I hope this clarifies some of the issues to your satisfaction.
IP: Logged
|
|
Denyse O'Leary
Member
Member # 1035
|
posted 07. January 2004 15:46
Denyse wrote: First off, if you think that we are a part of nature and that we are intelligent designers, then there definitely IS intelligence design in nature.
Pym replied: In this sense you are correct and intelligent design inferences for "known designers" have been applied succesfully for quite a long time. Archaeology and criminology come to mind. But the issue is not as much that we are intelligent designers, that's a given, but rather if we can detect intelligent design in for instance biology or even cosmology.
Denyse then said: Okay, but do you see the problem I am trying to work through here? People who believe that we are part of nature also state that there is no intelligent design in nature. Are they saying that there is no intelligent design period? Are they saying that there is intelligent design only if we do it? In either case, how do they understand intelligence and design? No doubt this topic must be unpacked in another discussion. But I take it that you agree that if we do it, it is intelligent design.
Denyse had asked: The question then becomes, is there any intelligent design other than what we do?
Pym replied: Well, there is the rest of the animal kingdom and there may even be evidence of life on Mars.
So Denyse asked Pym: So you are saying that animals, including ET bacteria, are capable of intelligent design? Or do you mean that they show evidence of intelligent design?
Denyse had asked: Can the structures that we identify as the products of intelligence if human beings have designed them be considered products of intelligence if they occur in nature, in situations where no combination of law and chance appears to be a likely candidate to produce them?
Pym replied: An interesting question which seems to be difficult if not impossible to answer. IF we were able to eliminate any and all combination then we can safely infer this but in absence of omniscience on our part we will have to accept the possibility of false positives. Given the possibility of false positives, an approach based on elimination can at most infer 'we don't know'.
Denyse then said: The trouble is, no one sets this standard of proof in other areas. "In the absence of omniscience," we make reasonable inferences from evidence. We reach a point where we think we can render a judgment based on evidence. We do not try to rule out any possibility of being wrong because in that case we can never begin or never continue. Generally, having chosen a line of inquiry, we keep going as long as we are learning something.
Denyse asked: Or are we to assume that law and chance must do it all because we are committed to naturalism, regardless of the state of the evidence?
Pym replied: Of course not, naturalism is equally unscientific in the sense of metaphysical commitments.
Denyse then noted: Yes, but it is clear that naturalism is the basis of the majority of arguments that are made against design. I wonder what will happen when an open conflict exists between naturalism and empiricism?
I will start another post for other questions, so this one will not be too long. FOr clarity, I am anxious to preserve what you say.
Denyse
IP: Logged
|
|
Denyse O'Leary
Member
Member # 1035
|
posted 08. January 2004 09:44
Pim said: Let me see if I can explain this. If it can be shown that evolutionary processes can in fact explain in principle increase in information and complexity (see Schneider, Adami, Toussaint, Lenski and many others) then an eliminative approach cannot dismiss evolutionary processes in one big swoop. So now each and every instance becomes an issue of 'we don't know' until we can formulate a falsifiable and verifiable hypothesis which explains the data. Which is where we reach part 2) of your question. I am very willing to entertain any scientific hypotheses in this area although it seems that the evidence tends to mostly be on the side of regularities and chance when it comes to evolution. But as a scientist I am always open to evidence.
Denyse replied: Does that mean that you are an empiricist but not a naturalist? Actually, if there is design as well as law and chance, we should expect the design part to be a lot less common, shouldn't we? Here is my thinking:
The system I am most familiar with, book production, functions far more effectively when we prepare a book and then print out 5000 copies.
In the old days, when books were prepared by hand, a constant problem was "scribal errors," as you know, so a whole scholarly industry has grown up around trying to eliminate the problems and confusion created by these errors or intentional interpolations and restore original texts. In other words, there was too much chance and design in the system, and not enough law.
Today, by restricting the design part to the prepress and progresesively reducing chance, we eliminate many quality problems.
If the same principle is followed in life forms, some major systems will show evidence of design. But the events that follow from those systems are a chain of consequences, somewhat like pressing the start button on a properly set up offset press.
Unsolved problem: Some library books fall into the hands of vulgar people who deface them by hand lettering their unsolicited opinions in the margin. Again, too much design.
Now, regarding eyes, here is another interesting item from my stack, how researchers are studying different kinds of eyes to design visual systems. I wonder which, of any, of these systems might be viewed as irreducibly complex?:
"Research on the optical systems of the octopus and other animals provides important clues for the design of artificial vision systems, according to Titus, a leading researcher in the field of optoelectronics. He chose to mimic the octopus retina because it has a simple, yet elegant, visual system that is relatively easy to simulate."
"Different animals have different visual structures with different properties for how they see the world," Titus says. "If we want to develop a chip that can see far distances, we should mimic the visual system of an eagle. If we want to develop a chip for seeing primarily in the desert, we should mimic the eyes of zebras or lions."
Linked: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/500998/?sc=wire
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 10. January 2004 14:03
Hi Denyse, first of all let me compliment you on your website and your books especially:
By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe
From your webpage I understand that you write regularly on science and faith issues.
You seem to focus on evidence for design but I would argue that design is NOT the issue since science presents its designers in the theories of evolution. Since I would argue that in nature, the design processes can lead to teleology, the issue in my opinion is not detecting design but detecting the designers.
quote:
If the same principle is followed in life forms, some major systems will show evidence of design. But the events that follow from those systems are a chain of consequences, somewhat like pressing the start button on a properly set up offset press.
I like your analogy of book printing but as is common with analogies, their usefulness is often quite limited. In case of book printing the fitness function is to minimize copying errors. In case of evolution, copying is important but so are imperfections in copying or the merging of two genomes in sexual reproduction etc.
Denyse: Now, regarding eyes, here is another interesting item from my stack, how researchers are studying different kinds of eyes to design visual systems. I wonder which, of any, of these systems might be viewed as irreducibly complex?:
Irreducible complexity, while interesting as a topic is not really that relevant to the issue of design since it cannot eliminate natural pathways. In fact as Gehring argues, despite initial ideas that the eye arose independently in the various branches of life, it now seems that it may be monophyletic via the Pax6 gene.
That researchers study the various eyes to improve visual detection systems shows the power and usefulness of the design in nature but I fail to see how it helps us address the real issues?
Denyse asked Pym (sic): So you are saying that animals, including ET bacteria, are capable of intelligent design? Or do you mean that they show evidence of intelligent design?
The former.
Denyse then said: The trouble is, no one sets this standard of proof in other areas. "In the absence of omniscience," we make reasonable inferences from evidence.
But that is the problem when relying on a fully eliminative approach to detect design. As I have shown it either requires omniscience or has to accept false positives. Either one seems problematic.
Denyse: We reach a point where we think we can render a judgment based on evidence. We do not try to rule out any possibility of being wrong because in that case we can never begin or never continue. Generally, having chosen a line of inquiry, we keep going as long as we are learning something.
But how does elimination lead to knowledge. At most is leads us to understand what isn't so we should conclude that 'we don't know' may be better than jumping to conclusions. If you check out archaeology or criminology you will see that the approach is beyond elimination but deals with "motives" as Gedanken calls it namely opportunity, motive, means.
Denyse: Denyse then noted: Yes, but it is clear that naturalism is the basis of the majority of arguments that are made against design. I wonder what will happen when an open conflict exists between naturalism and empiricism?
Not really. The majority of arguments against (intelligent) design are based on methodological naturalism.
I would refer you to Del Ratzsch excellent review of eliminative approaches in Nature, design and science:
quote:
So typically, patterns that are likely candidates for design are first identified as such by some unspecified ("mysterious") means, then with the pattern in hand S picks out side information identified (by unspecified means) as releavant to the particular pattern, then sees whether the pattern in question is among the various patterns that could have been constructed from that side information.
What this means, of course, is that Dembski's design inferene will not be particularly useful either in initial recognition or identification of design.
This can be found on page 159. Del also explores the problems of false positives and the impact on the design inference.
There are many other excellent reviews that show in detail the many problems surrounding a design inference. The most recent book is by Mark Perakh called "Unintelligent design". I have just received this book via Amazon. An excellent overview in terms very accessible to laymen yet enough detail to be challenging even to scientists.
[ 10. January 2004, 18:02: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Denyse O'Leary
Member
Member # 1035
|
posted 20. January 2004 14:52
Pim noted: Hi Denyse, first of all let me compliment you on your website and your books especially: By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe From your webpage I understand that you write regularly on science and faith issues.
Denyse replied: Whenever I am not being fired, yes. The public investment is generally grossly disproportionate to the freelancer’s income but, that said, we press on.
Pim noted: You seem to focus on evidence for design but I would argue that design is NOT the issue since science presents its designers in the theories of evolution. Since I would argue that in nature, the design processes can lead to teleology, the issue in my opinion is not detecting design but detecting the designers.
Denyse replied: Well, many people claim that there is no real design; that all apparent design is only illusory. Where do you stand on that? Pardon me if you have made your position plain in earlier posts, and I have not been able to understand it or have ignored it.
Pim noted: quote: [quoting Denyse]
“If the same principle is followed in life forms, some major systems will show evidence of design. But the events that follow from those systems are a chain of consequences, somewhat like pressing the start button on a properly set up offset press.”
I like your analogy of book printing but as is common with analogies, their usefulness is often quite limited. In case of book printing the fitness function is to minimize copying errors. In case of evolution, copying is important but so are imperfections in copying or the merging of two genomes in sexual reproduction etc.
Denyse replied: The point of my analogy is that any system that uses design would typically minimize copying errors by restricting the involvement of design to the initial stages. No doubt, a system more complex than book publishing (for example, any system of life forms) would require the capacity for change in response to environment as well.
Now consider this: In textbook publishing we respond to change by simply issuing a new edition in response to new conditions. But again, design is restricted to the initial phase. We do not want design in the product after the Start button is pushed on the offset press.
Pim noted: [quoting Denyse]
Now, regarding eyes, here is another interesting item from my stack, how researchers are studying different kinds of eyes to design visual systems. I wonder which, of any, of these systems might be viewed as irreducibly complex?:
Pim then replied:
Irreducible complexity, while interesting as a topic is not really that relevant to the issue of design since it cannot eliminate natural pathways. In fact as Gehring argues, despite initial ideas that the eye arose independently in the various branches of life, it now seems that it may be monophyletic via the Pax6 gene.
Denyse rreplied: I am not sure what you mean here. Irreducible complexity would eliminate “natural pathways” by definition, if you mean by “natural pathways,” pathways that do not require any input of design. Is that in fact what you mean?
Pim wrote: That researchers study the various eyes to improve visual detection systems shows the power and usefulness of the design in nature but I fail to see how it helps us address the real issues?
Denyse replied: Okay, ... what do you think the real issues are? If you can list them, I will be better able to identify news items of interest.
Denyse asked Pym (sic):
Apologies for getting your name wrong. I was not sure how to check the spelling of your name without deleting the remainder of my original post. So here it is again, corrected:
Denyse asked Pim:
So you are saying that animals, including ET bacteria, are capable of intelligent design? Or do you mean that they show evidence of intelligent design?
Pim replied: The former.
Denyse asks:
Can you explain how ET bacteria are capable of intelligent design?
Denyse then said: The trouble is, no one sets this standard of proof in other areas. "In the absence of omniscience," we make reasonable inferences from evidence.
Pim replied:
But that is the problem when relying on a fully eliminative approach to detect design. As I have shown it either requires omniscience or has to accept false positives. Either one seems problematic.
Denyse asks: What about the problem of false negatives? False positives can make a person look foolish, but false negatives cut off worlds of discovery.
Denyse said: We reach a point where we think we can render a judgment based on evidence. We do not try to rule out any possibility of being wrong because in that case we can never begin or never continue. Generally, having chosen a line of inquiry, we keep going as long as we are learning something.
Pim replied: But how does elimination lead to knowledge. At most is leads us to understand what isn't so we should conclude that 'we don't know' may be better than jumping to conclusions. If you check out archaeology or criminology you will see that the approach is beyond elimination but deals with "motives" as Gedanken calls it namely opportunity, motive, means.
Denyse asks: At a certain point, one must ask what the evidence points to. Can you say where, in any given situation, the evidence would point to design? If not, why not?
Denyse: Denyse then noted: Yes, but it is clear that naturalism is the basis of the majority of arguments that are made against design. I wonder what will happen when an open conflict exists between naturalism and empiricism?
Pim replied:
Not really. The majority of arguments against (intelligent) design are based on methodological naturalism.
Denyse replies: But does methodological naturalism exclude design in principle? Why so?
Pim replied:
I would refer you to Del Ratzsch excellent review of eliminative approaches in Nature, design and science:
quote:
So typically, patterns that are likely candidates for design are first identified as such by some unspecified ("mysterious") means, then with the pattern in hand S picks out side information identified (by unspecified means) as releavant to the particular pattern, then sees whether the pattern in question is among the various patterns that could have been constructed from that side information.
What this means, of course, is that Dembski's design inferene will not be particularly useful either in initial recognition or identification of design.
This can be found on page 159. Del also explores the problems of false positives and the impact on the design inference.
Denyse replies: It seems to me that people are considering the problem of false positives as a very serious one and the problem of false negatives as not serious at all. Can you explain to me why this is so? (Incidentally, I do not know what your author means above by referring to “unspecified (“mysterious”) means.” What about means that appear to defy natural selection within the life of the present universe. That is neither unspecified nor mysterious. How would you respond to that?
Pim wrote:
There are many other excellent reviews that show in detail the many problems surrounding a design inference. The most recent book is by Mark Perakh called "Unintelligent design". I have just received this book via Amazon. An excellent overview in terms very accessible to laymen yet enough detail to be challenging even to scientists.
Denyse replies: I haven’t read it, so can’t comment. Anyway, this is fun.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 21. January 2004 23:54
Denyse: Well, many people claim that there is no real design; that all apparent design is only illusory. Where do you stand on that? Pardon me if you have made your position plain in earlier posts, and I have not been able to understand it or have ignored it.
It is hard to answer this question because people use the term design to mean a variety of things. Design in nature is for me not the issue, I would say that design is obvious but I also argue that science has a pretty good explanation for this design. Thus some may call the design apparant to distinguish it from intelligent design.
Denyse rreplied: I am not sure what you mean here. Irreducible complexity would eliminate “natural pathways” by definition, if you mean by “natural pathways,” pathways that do not require any input of design. Is that in fact what you mean?
Well, that depends on which definition of IC you subscribe to and I have to admit that Behe's writings have been less than clear. Some have interpreted Behe's comments to mean, an IC system cannot arise naturally only through intelligent design but if you read Behe carefully, later on he accepts that natural pathways to IC systems can exist (in fact science has identified several plausible pathways so in principle IC is just not sufficient to infer intelligent design).
Denyse: Can you explain how ET bacteria are capable of intelligent design?
Some see the interactions by bacteria as evidence of some form of intelligence. See for instance the Ben Jacob paper in the literature forum. But when looking at the details you will notice that their behavior can be well modeled by a reaction diffusion equation, making their reactions quite similar to what is observed in non-life. And yet these observations may help us understand how regulatory pathways may have evolved. In addition, the next step, multicellularity now seems to have potential signaling pathways than can be used for differentiation.
Denyse asks: What about the problem of false negatives? False positives can make a person look foolish, but false negatives cut off worlds of discovery.
False negatives are fully accepted to occur by Dembski. If you consider this to be a problem, well... In case of eliminative arguments false positives are far worse since they lead one to jump to conclusions.
Denyse: At a certain point, one must ask what the evidence points to. Can you say where, in any given situation, the evidence would point to design? If not, why not?
Design yes, but how to infer intelligent design and intelligent designer reliably seems in many cases quite problematic.
Denyse replies: But does methodological naturalism exclude design in principle? Why so?
No it does not exclude design in principle.
Denyse replies: It seems to me that people are considering the problem of false positives as a very serious one and the problem of false negatives as not serious at all. Can you explain to me why this is so?
Because of the eliminative nature of the design inference, false positives will lead to an inference erroneously without any positive evidence. This would make the design inference a 'gaps' argument.
Denyse: What about means that appear to defy natural selection within the life of the present universe. That is neither unspecified nor mysterious. How would you respond to that?
We may infer that "we don't know" all we would like to know. My question is why should this lead us to infer intelligent design?
IP: Logged
|
|
Danpech
Member
Member # 163
|
posted 05. February 2004 16:59
I think analogies can be made between
1)'natural' eye design
and
2)'artificial' aviation design by humans.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic