Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)


Wall Of Sleep wrote:
Navillus wrote:
Wall Of Sleep wrote:

I used the example of the computer that gains anti-virus protection by
losing the ability to connect to the internet. It loses a function and
gains another. No oxymoron there.

But, can you build complex functions that way? Can your mechanism of
"gain through loss" add all the functions required to get from soup to
man? I think not. Again, in Spetner's immortal words, "It's like the
businessman who lost money on each transaction, but thought he could
make it up on volume."


Wall of Sleep-

You're familiar with genetic duplication, I assume-- the process where
a chunk of genetic code is copied more than once, creating
redundancies. Consider the case of the light sensitive spot on a simple
creature. A genetic duplication causes two light-sensitive spots to be
built, instead of one. If either of them registers a certain amount of
light, it triggers a neural response that makes the creature move to
get away from the light.

Adding a second spot is a security measure to increase the robustness
of the function. That is it to say, should one of the light sensors
fail, for whatever reason, the other light sensor still works and
triggers the movement response. This is an increase in information
(particularly if the redundant code begins to mutate into a more
specialized unit). This is also an increase in functionality, and the
introduction of a new function, the safety net.

With the addition of a third spot, you could feasibly setup a system
that detects to *direction* that the light is comming from. Easy to
imagine, clear to see the increase in functionality.

Now I know where you are going to go with this. You're going to say
that no one has ever proven that this ever happened. And you're right,
but think of the bigger picture. When the eyeball arguement began,
scientists were completely dumbfounded. Explaining the eye seemed
impossible, and in fact, the divine explaination made a lot more sense.

*Proof* is an illusive ideal in biology. In mathematics, it's a
requirement. But almost always in biology, the best we can do is try to
figure out possible explainations based on what we know about current
life forms, fossils, and the properties of genetics. We take all the
explainations, and as a group, decide which makes the *most sense*. Of
course, this is a majority rules situation where ID can always have the
minority opinion, but it's the way science works, when dealing in a
non-determinant field such as biology.

So when you attempt to explain the eye, using what we know about
genetic mutations and common descent in general, forming an educated
guess that isn't explicitely *proven* in the lab isn't so terrible.

The consequence here is obvious. Some scientists attempted to explain
the eye as the result of light sensitive spots that grew in size and
functionality, and the majority of scientists agree that it's the best
possible explaination. You're theory of multiple design agents popping
in an out of space to create new, more complex forms of life is another
idea. But, seriously, no one's ever going to buy it. You're smart
enough to realize this. It simply isn't as good of an explaination.
Farmers know crap when they see it. Smart people look at your theory
and come to the conclusion that it's crap, science fiction at best.

So while we can never formally dismiss your approach, you should really
figure out for yourself that no matter how hard you try, the body of
science is never going to buy it. And jumping up and down waving the
"you can't prove it" flag doesn't deter the fact that your explaination
simply makes less sense when smart people think it over.



I find it interesting that a "guess" based on assumptions - with no real
evidence other than "It could have happened" is considered good science,
while another guess, based on equally valid assumptions (Intelligence
produces complex specified information - therefore the complex specified
information in DNA could have been the product of intelligence) is not
science and nobody will buy it.

They call it an educated guess for a reason. And the only true reason
it is more valid is the simple fact than when scientists look at it,
more of them agree it makes sense. You're right, it's perfectly valid
to hypothesize that since intelligent agents produce machines similar
to the machines we see in life, that *perhaps* life was designed. But
when scientists really look at it, your arguement simply doesn't make
as much sense to them.

Maybe it's because you spend so much time argueing the philosophy of
naturalism or the principle upon which ID is valid, and less time with
showing good examples. With the exception of the bacterial flagellum,
how many biological machines has ID written books on showing the
striking obviousness of the ID arguement? Do you think that number of
books or articles stands a chance against the thousands of documents
explaining similar mechanics through evolution? You just stand there
and say "Yep, life is complicated. My arguement here is done. Believe
me because you have to accept my rationale". ID hardly ever pushes
forward with reasearch. You've been using the same two examples, the
eye and the flagellum, for decades. Meanwhile, evolutionary biochemists
are explaining things like the blood clotting cascade that Behe
asserted couldn't be proven in evolutionary terms. You're rebuttal? "It
still is too complex"

You can't win over people minds by standing around asserting that
people have to take you seriously on the basis that your argument is
*technically* logical and *technically* makes some sense. You have to
go the next step and prove it until it's been exhausted. But now we're
back to the issue of how you prove ID with experimentation. Don't you
see what's going on here?


But lets look at the parallels between intelligent designs in literature
and protein synthesis:
The complex specified information (CSI) in DNA is first transcribed into
RNA, (analogous to a handwritten manuscript being entered into a word
processor). It is then copied to a messenger form - mRNA, (analogous to
the now digital manuscript being sent via e-mail). The mRNA then goes
through a process where non-coding sequences are eliminated becoming a
codon, (analogous to the editing process). The mRNA is then translated
by tRNA releasing the final product - a completed polypeptide,
(analogous to the publishing of the manuscript in book form).

As you can see, the genetic process can be described in terms that only
apply elsewhere to designed processes. It is like this with *all*
genetic processes. The process of protein synthesis is as specified and
complex as that of any human factory - and can be described using human
'manufacturing' terms as well.

Right. You've made your case. Now anyone who reads it is allowed to
judge for themselves if it makes more sense to them than the
evolutionary explaination. What if I say to you "No, I don't think
these similarities imply design. The evolutionary explaination still
makes more sense to me."? What if the majority of science agrees, which
they do. When will face the fact that, simply put, it is an inferior
theory simply because smart people look at it an smell false positives?


The processes involved in sight are so advanced, we are still struggling
to understand them. It is a technology that is far beyond man's
primitive cameras and TV sets - yet *must be* described using the same
engineering terms. Despite this, it is somehow "good science" to suggest
that this advanced process was the product of random corruptions of
genetic code that *may have* provided some advantage and therefore *may
have* been selected - not once, but thousands of times - and "bad
science" to suggest that the eye may have been designed.

Your rationale baffles me.

If it really baffles you, then you're helpless. I can see the problems
facing evolution. Can you see the problems facing Intelligent Design?
More importantly, do you think they are fixable, or will you continue
to push the idea even if the theory has no real chance of ever being
proven to an extent that convinces anyone?

.