Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: "Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Mar 2006 02:49:37 -0800
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
Just to point out a few responses which have been ignored...
WoS:You are grossly oversimplifying things. I can only assume you
haven't
read any of Behe's answers to his critics.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp
I can only assume as well, that your knowledge of the case for ID is
cursory.
RF: The is Michael Behe, who conceeded under oath that ID is not
science.
You evidently disagree with him.
I suggest that you take up the argument on whether or not ID is science
with Behe.
WoS: ID is more logical than evolution
RF: It is? It explains anything, predicts nothing and cannot be
falsified. It's scientifically valueless
WoS: and has a mechanism
RF: What mechanism? It specifically avoids any speculation on the
nature of the designer or the mechanism.
WoS: that has been observed
RF: So you are asserting that the "intelligent designer" has been
observed
fiddling with DNA to create a flagellum on a bacterim?
I must of missed the publication of this extraoridinary event in
NATURE.
to create complex specified information (CSI).
You realise, of course, that CSI falls into the logical falacy of
presuming the consequent.
Evolution, on
the other hand, has no observed mechanism
Haven't you heard of the science of genetics? It's made substantial
advances in the past century or so, and provides the key to the
mechanism by which the variation on which selection acts can be
generated by processes which can be observed and measured.
You need to bring yourself up to date on the advances in our knowledge
of biology over the past few decades or so.
which has been shown capable
of doing that.
Let's take the process of protein synthesis for example. This is a
process which begins with a strand of complex specified information
presuming the consequent again...
-
DNA. This strand is then *transcribed* into mRNA. This process alone is
unexplainable by natural mechanisms.
My word! There are a lot of people working in the biological sciences
who disagree with you, of course, but hey! What do they know? They only
*know* about the subject.
Where did DNA come from?
Don't tell me! God made it! (By the way, is there anything God could
*not* have made?)
How did
the process of transcription into RNA come about?
Don't tell me! God made it! (By the way, is there anything God could
*not* have made?)
Was there a time when
DNA wasn't transcribed into RNA? What happened to it?
Don't tell me! God made it! (By the way, is there anything God could
*not* have made?)
But it doesn't stop there. Then the mRNA is *edited* to eliminate
non-coding sequences to become a codon. How did this stage develop? What
was going on *before* this stage developed? Was transcribed RNA just
willy-nilly going around and sometimes getting "lucky" and making
codons? This is a complex specified *filter* of information.
Intelligence makes stuff like this, does "mutation"? What evidence is
there that it does or even can?
There's more: This codon is then *translated* - starting at the start
codon and ending at the stop codon - using another type of RNA (tRNA)
into a polypeptide chain of amino acids. How does "nature" account for
this? What was the process by which this step came about? Is there a
known series of mutations that will produce "mRNA translators"? How does
the organism "know" to produce tRNA? How did *that* process come about?
Why not try to find out from the scientific literature?
You can see readily the difficulties of explaining this via mutation and
natural selection. What are the advantages of having DNA that doesn't
transcribe to RNA? What are the advantages of having RNA that doesn't
have a system in place to edit it into a codon? Where did the start and
stop codons come from? What happened before they developed? What about
tRNA? When did it enter the picture? What was going on before then?
Which came first - DNA? RNA? mRNA? tRNA? amino acids? Or did it all come
about at once? If all at once, what known process can produce, what is
essentially, a protein manufacturing plant from scratch?
The list of questions can go on and on and on. And this is just the tip
of the iceberg. This is *just* protein synthesis. What about all the
different types of proteins? How did all these complex specified
groupings of proteins work themselves into functions and structure?
Do you have an explanation for *any of this*?
It is "good science" to look at such things and assume the work of
intelligence IMO - because *we know* and *have observed* that
intelligence creates similar systems. Intelligence creates
'translators'. Intelligence creates 'transcribers'. Intelligence creates
'editors'. Intelligence creates 'manufacturing plants'. Intelligence
creates 'assembly lines'. In short, intelligence has been observed
creating systems like any seen in life's organisms.
No, it isn't "good science". Good science offers hypotheses which can
be falsified. Your assertions can't be falsified.
I think there's more going on here than just "good" science versus "bad"
science. I think one side is entirely closed minded to criticism - so
long as the criticism involves the concept (even remotely) of a "deity"
of some sort or another.
No, it's untestable assertions against science.
It's religious conviction pretending to be science against science.
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?
Again, the majority doesn't decide "inferior" and "superior". If so, we
would have all been using Beta instead of VHS in the VCR days. Or we'd
all be typing these messages on Macs. Or...
This is not an argument about how technologies become established in
the marketplace. Scientific theories become established on the basis of
evidence and argument. ID has no evidence, and no argument.
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?
It is convincing to many open minded scientists:
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm
Most of those scientists have no relevant qualifications, and all are
motivated by religous conviction.
Not a very convincing argument.
More to the point, none have published anything in any scientific
journal in support of ID.
RF
I noticed you offered no explanations for how evolution produced protein
synthesis.
Neither have you. Saying that an unspecified "intelligent designer" did
it using supernatural processes is not an explanation.
I'n any case, why should I? Im not a biochemist. If you want to know,
read the literature. I can't give a coherent explantion for quantum
tunneling either. That doesn't mean that "God did it" is a useful
explanation.
You can hand wave and pontificate all you want,
I'm not pontificating. I'm pointing out that
1) ID is not science according to one of its founders
2) ID offers no mechanism
3) ID makes no predictions
4) ID cannot be falsified
but where's
the evidence that the corruption of existing data (mutations) can
produce protein synthesis?
Genes make proteins. That's essentially all they do. They usually work
in conjuction with other genes - i.e the proteins made by one gene
trigger the formation of proteins in other genes and so on in a cascade
which ends up building bodies and metabolic systems.
There are many known mutation by which gene sequences are duplicated.
If genes on the duplicated set are knocked out by known processes of
mutation, they are no longer manufacturing the same proteins. So new
proteins are introduced into the developmental and metabolic pathways
which may create differences in morphology and biochemistry. Some of
these differences may be selected by environmental or other factors in
populations of organisms in which the modifed genes have become
established by reproductive processes.
This is called evolution. It's very well studied, and well-supported by
data. It makes predictions, and can be falsified by experiment and
observation.
BTW, Stephen Meyer *did* have a paper on ID published in a peer reviewed
journal.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
....which he slipped past normal peer-review by dishonest methods, and
which has been repudiated by the journal in question.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html
Not very impressive, is it? Ten years and 30 million dollars, and the
DI can produce only one paper, and that has been repudiated by the
journal in question. In most universities there is an expectation that
researchers produce a number of papers every year, and in some they
risk losing their jobs if they don't. Perhaps the DI should sack all
it's researchers.
Dr. Lee Spetner has also had papers published - though not specifically
on ID.
So have many other creationist scientists. So what? None of those
papers has offered support for creationism or ID. Which goes to show
that creationists can get scientific paper published if they stick to
science. The fact that they don't get ID papers published shows that
there ain't no science in ID.
If you think ID is science, take it up with Michael Behe. He doesn't
think it is. I agree with him.
RF
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Wall Of Sleep
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Prev by Date: OK, just the one question
- Next by Date: Re: Re: Religious scientists
- Previous by thread: OK, just the one question
- Next by thread: Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
