Biological evolution- why is the starting point such a big deal?

quote:

---

Yes, there is evidence.

​

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/Gases/origin.html

​

"Perhaps the best geologic evidence for the composition of the early atmosphere is the presence and abundance of Banded Iron Formations. These rocks are made of layers of sulfide minerals (evidence for a reducing environment) and chert or fine-grained quartz. These rocks are not present in rocks younger than 1.8 - 2.5 billions of years ago, when oxygen starting becoming more abundant."

---

Not that I disagree about the then state of the atmosphere, but I think arguement may be flawed. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that the Banded Iron Formation (BIF) deposited at that 1.8-2.5 bya time boundry was deposited as carbonates, sulfides, and oxides. The oxide deposition may very well be the result of a more oxygenic atmosphere - The oxides being deposited in a shallower, more oxygenic sea, and the sulfide being deposited in a deeper, more reducing environment.Regardless, this BIF timeline marks some sort of significant environmental change.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - MaybeEdit note: Deleted #17, which was a duplicate of #16

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-09-2002]

Good, I was hoping someone who knows more about this kind of thing would show up!Thanks for the clarification.

Is it possible to get this thread back on track? We start another thread on the atmosphere if you would like.I gave some more thought to schalldampfer's post- true it might be helpful to know some of the history of an object in order to make improvements, but I never found it necessary. Also that doesn't mean we have to know that objects origins in order to determine its function (or a function) and to therefore maintain it.The prevailing theory on how eucaryotic cells came about is endosymbiosis, which is basically one (larger) procaryotic cell engulfing, but not digesting another (smaller) procaryotic cell. Please tell us how that knowledge would help a surgeon...------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Is it possible to get this thread back on track? We start another thread on the atmosphere if you would like.

​

I gave some more thought to schalldampfer's post- true it might be helpful to know some of the history of an object in order to make improvements, but I never found it necessary. Also that doesn't mean we have to know that objects origins in order to determine its function (or a function) and to therefore maintain it.

​

The prevailing theory on how eucaryotic cells came about is endosymbiosis, which is basically one (larger) procaryotic cell engulfing, but not digesting another (smaller) procaryotic cell. Please tell us how that knowledge would help a surgeon...

---

Who cares if the knowledge will help a surgeon?? The Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System doesn't "help a surgeon", but that fact doesn't weaken it in any way.Since when does the ToE claim that it's findings must be useful to surgeons??Most surgeons aren't scientists, and, like most engineers, do not do research and their work is neither emperical nor theory-driven.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Is it possible to get this thread back on track? We start another thread on the atmosphere if you would like.
I gave some more thought to schalldampfer's post- true it might be helpful to know some of the history of an object in order to make improvements, but I never found it necessary. Also that doesn't mean we have to know that objects origins in order to determine its function (or a function) and to therefore maintain it.The prevailing theory on how eucaryotic cells came about is endosymbiosis, which is basically one (larger) procaryotic cell engulfing, but not digesting another (smaller) procaryotic cell. Please tell us how that knowledge would help a surgeon...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Who cares if the knowledge will help a surgeon??John Paul:
I used surgeon as an example because they help maintain life. So it looks like you agree with the premise I am making in this thread, which is we do not have to know the origins of something in order to understand its function and therefore properly maintain it. Thanks.schraf:
The Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System doesn't "help a surgeon", but that fact doesn't weaken it in any way.John Paul:
But the question would be does the origin of a heliocentric solar system aid us to know how it functions?schraf:
Since when does the ToE claim that it's findings must be useful to surgeons??John Paul:
The point is the ToE is only useful to materialistic naturalism and its agenda. It is not useful to understanding function or maintenance. We can understand those two by observing life now (now- as in man's tenure on Earth- be that 6-12,000 ya or 100,000-200,000 ya) and knowing nada about its origins or the origins of different kingdoms, phylums, classes etc.schraf:
Most surgeons aren't scientists, and, like most engineers, do not do research and their work is neither emperical [sic] nor theory-driven.John Paul:
Wow. I have to wear boots reading your diatribe. I can't speak for surgeons but engineers definetly do research, our work is definetly empirical and theory driven. Engineers weed out the theories that only work on paper. Did you know that engineering is applied science?I am sure your assertion about surgeons is also baseless. How do you think they learn about new surgical techniques?To further the point, David L. Kirk (Washington University, St Louis) suggests the origins of multi-cellularity lies with the Volvox. see "Kirk, D.L. (1998). Volvox: The Molecular Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation. Cambridge University Press, New York & Cambridge, 381pp."How does that knowledge allow us to better understand the function and maintenance of multi-cellular life?------------------
John Paul

John Paul:I would like to address your question concerning the necessity of understanding how life developed over time in the context of its current incarnation.Since you say you are an engineer, I'll try and put the answer in the context of engineering. Most engineers, unless they are little more than technicians assembling parts others have developed, usually want to know how something functions. They will often take a hierarchical reductionist approach to this problem by attempting to understand how the component parts of whatever they're looking at interact. Often they will have to go down several levels until a satisfactory explanation occurs. Most engineers I know would be dissatisfied with any kind of simplistic explanation such as "the manufacturer did it", or "the 'motive force' makes it go". Engineers want to know how parts A, B, and C work together (applied engineering). Sometimes they even need to understand why this occurs (theoretical engineering). They generally don't, however, need to understand where the parts came from originally (some from Japan, some from Cleveland), because there is little difference in function between a part from one place and the same part from another (assuming similar quality control). They also don't need to know how the parts were manufactured (except for forensic accident investigation). This is more in the purview of metalurgy, physics, and chemistry (among others).Biologists, on the other hand, find that merely understanding how things work is not always sufficient. This is especially notable in the biology subfields of microbiology, cytology, parasitology, virology, etc. One illustrative example is our understanding of how bacteria develop immunity to antibiotics, or how plant pests develop immunities to pesticides. Without a thorough understanding of the principles of coevolution, originally discovered by the much-maligned Charles Darwin, we would be in the position of an engineer who merely observes that a machine works (or that pesticides have no effect) - without understanding how it does so. Moreover, to eke out any advantage in this evolutionary arms race, we need to understand the reason why these immunities develop. The way to accomplish this objective is similar to that of the engineer: we use a hierarchical reductionist approach - except that, since biological systems change over time on their own (unlike machines, until we come up with a von Neuman device), we need to examine the how and why they have changed in the past to understand their functioning in the present. This lends a "historical" element to biology that engineering, in general, doesn't have or need.Taking this idea one step further, from the standpoint of someone fascinated by ecology it is imperative for understanding the exceptionally complex interactions of the organisms forming even the simplest ecosystem that an examination of how the system formed in the first place be undertaken. Again, using a reductionist approach, we find ourselves edging further and further back in time as we examine each microecosystem or organism - because the ways each organism interacts with all of the others in the given system is dependent on how the applicable traits changed over time. Why do we care? Because the more we understand about an ecosystem, the more we realize how fragile it is and the more chance we have of maintaining or rescuing ecosystems damaged by human activity. To continue the engineering analogy, we need to trace how changes in our biological machines and systems over time have given rise to the function of the machine or system in the present, and to see how current changes may effect things in the future.For some biological systems, tracing life as far back as we can is necessary to understanding life's linkages in the present. In living systems, it is necessary to do more than understand the interactions of the components (i.e., function) of a modern organism. Biologists are not engineers. Living systems are not machines. Taking a strict structural engineering approach (function, purpose, maintenance) is invalid when attempting to develop practical applications in biology, or even fully understanding how biological systems function.

quote:

---

schraf:Most surgeons aren't scientists, and, like most engineers, do not do research and their work is neither empirical
nor theory-driven.

​

John Paul:Wow. I have to wear boots reading your diatribe. I can't speak for surgeons but engineers definetly[sic] do research,

---

Some surgeons do research, and some engineers do research, but it is not a defining characteristc of either activity.

quote:

---

our work is definetly empirical and theory driven.

---

Science is "theory-driven" in that research is conducted to support theory or falsify theory. That's all research scientists do.Medicine is a practical art. If a treatment works, a doctor uses it no matter if they understand how it works or not. That's not science.Engineers use generally-accepted theories to create practical solutions to problems. Most engineers do not conduct physics experiments, for example. They use accepted theory, which has been developed by physicists, to create a skyscraper, for example.

quote:

---

Engineers weed out the theories that only work on paper.

---

There's no such thing as a "theory that only works on paper" that any real scientists accept in the first place.

quote:

---

Did you know that engineering is applied science?

---

There's a difference between "applied science" and "an application of science". Most doctors and engineers are "practitioners" of science and condict "applications of science". They generally do not deal in experiments, and so do not generally publish papers in scientific journals or develop new theories. "Applied science" is often found in industry, where science is conducted with a more specific "application" in mind, rather than just for the sake of pure knowledge (basic science).

quote:

---

I am sure your assertion about surgeons is also baseless. How do you think they learn about new surgical techniques?

---

How do they learn new techniques? By having someone teach them. Duh.
The vast majority of surgeons do not invent new techniques.I still think that you have, at best, a meager grasp ofthe nature of what is and isn't science, and how it is conducted. At least, that's all you have demonstrated.The entire reason I have gone into such great detail and to such exhaustive lengths in this conversation is to point out that having an engineering background is no guarantee that you understand science. Nor should you assume that you know how best to evaluate a scientific theory, because you are not a theory-evaluator, by trade, like a basic resarch scientist is.I'd like to know what Biology and Zoology classes you took during your undergraduate years in college, if you would be so kind.

quote:

---

To further the point, David L. Kirk (Washington University, St Louis) suggests the origins of multi-cellularity lies withthe Volvox. see "Kirk, D.L. (1998). Volvox: The Molecular Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and CellularDifferentiation. Cambridge University Press, New York & Cambridge, 381pp."How does that knowledge allow us to better understand the function and maintenance of multi-cellular life?

---

Biological molecules form families based upon evolutionary history. This knowledge has guided us in our search for new molecules which prove to be useful in the practice of medicine.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-12-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-12-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-12-2002]

schraf:
There's no such thing as a "theory that only works on paper" that any real scientists accept in the first place.John Paul:
From that statement I can safely deduce that no real scientist accepts today's ToE.scraf:
How do they learn new techniques? By having someone teach them. Duh.John Paul:
What about the person that originated the techinique?scraf:
The vast majority of surgeons do not invent new techniques.John Paul:
Really? Anything to substantiate that claim?schraf:
I still think that you have, at best, a meager grasp ofthe nature of what is and isn't science, and how it is conducted. At least, that's all you have demonstrated.John Paul:
Thank you very little. I wish there was a lab or project that we could enter in competion together.Just because I disagree with the ToE doesn't mean I don't understand science. That seems to be the confusion amonst evolutionists.------------------
John Paul

Q:
Most engineers, unless they are little more than technicians assembling parts others have developed, usually want to know how something functions.John Paul:
Oh really? I would say technicians want to know how something functions so they can repeir it. True engineers want to know that too, but that is more in line with 'how can we improve it' (or the process). Then we have design engineers. They are interested in designing something for a specific function.Q:
we use a hierarchical reductionist approach - except that, since biological systems change over time on their own (unlike machines, until we come up with a von Neuman device), we need to examine the how and why they have changed in the past to understand their functioning in the present. This lends a "historical" element to biology that engineering, in general, doesn't have or need.John Paul:
However there is no way we can examine how and why organisms changed in the past unless we were there to observe them. Do you understand that? All we can do is to look at the fossil record and assuming the ToE is indicative of reality, guess at what micro-chemical cahnges took place.
Engineering does have some historical element. We can look at old buildings, cars, planes, telephones, TVs, computers etc.Q:
For some biological systems, tracing life as far back as we can is necessary to understanding life's linkages in the present. In living systems, it is necessary to do more than understand the interactions of the components (i.e., function) of a modern organism. Biologists are not engineers. Living systems are not machines. Taking a strict structural engineering approach (function, purpose, maintenance) is invalid when attempting to develop practical applications in biology, or even fully understanding how biological systems function.John Paul:
The point is we may never know if our trace is correct. From what I have seen the genetic evidence is not exclusive to the ToE and is just as easily evidence for a Common Creator.Your point would be valid if we knew what caused the first population(s) of single-celled organisms to split up to become plant, animal and procaryotes. However we do not and most likely will never know. The same can be said for any alleged 'lineage'. All we can do is to assume the lineage under a materialistic naturalism framework with absolutely no way to objectively test it.------------------
John Paul

I guess it would have been more useful if you had actually responded substantively to my post. However, one works with what one is given.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Q:
Most engineers, unless they are little more than technicians assembling parts others have developed, usually want to know how something functions.

​

John Paul:
Oh really? I would say technicians want to know how something functions so they can repeir it. True engineers want to know that too, but that is more in line with 'how can we improve it' (or the process). Then we have design engineers. They are interested in designing something for a specific function.

---

Rather pointless quibble on the technician note. Do you disagree that an engineer, in order to understand a problem in engineering take a hierarchical reductionist approach to the problem? Do you agree or disagree that, as an engineer, you would be disatisfied with a "the manufacturer did it" explanation? Do you agree or disagree with the statement concerning engineers and origins?[edited to fix UBB code]

quote:

---

Q: we use a hierarchical reductionist approach - except that, since biological systems change over time on their own (unlike machines, until we come up with a von Neuman device), we need to examine the how and why they have changed in the past to understand their functioning in the present. This lends a "historical" element to biology that engineering, in general, doesn't have or need.

​

John Paul:
However there is no way we can examine how and why organisms changed in the past unless we were there to observe them. Do you understand that? All we can do is to look at the fossil record and assuming the ToE is indicative of reality, guess at what micro-chemical cahnges took place.

---

On the contrary, biologists (using data from genetics, microbiology, developmental biology, geology, geophysics, etc etc) and analogies among modern organisms, make inferences on the logical course of development and change. Of course, we could be wrong. That's what's different about science and creationism.

quote:

---

Engineering does have some historical element. We can look at old buildings, cars, planes, telephones, TVs, computers etc.

---

Really? You mean engineers somehow use vacuum tube technology to infer modern solid state electronics? How interesting. I never knew that. Engineering is not a historical science.

quote:

---

Q: For some biological systems, tracing life as far back as we can is necessary to understanding life's linkages in the present. In living systems, it is necessary to do more than understand the interactions of the components (i.e., function) of a modern organism. Biologists are not engineers. Living systems are not machines. Taking a strict structural engineering approach (function, purpose, maintenance) is invalid when attempting to develop practical applications in biology, or even fully understanding how biological systems function.

​

John Paul:
The point is we may never know if our trace is correct. From what I have seen the genetic evidence is not exclusive to the ToE and is just as easily evidence for a Common Creator.

---

You're going to have to show - in detail - how a supernatural creator is a better explanation for everything we see in nature - the good, the bad, the neutral, and the incompetent - than natural selection. Otherwise you're just handwaving.

quote:

---

Your point would be valid if we knew what caused the first population(s) of single-celled organisms to split up to become plant, animal and procaryotes. However we do not and most likely will never know. The same can be said for any alleged 'lineage'. All we can do is to assume the lineage under a materialistic naturalism framework with absolutely no way to objectively test it.

---

What's this got to do with your original question concerning "purpose, function, maintenance"? You need to re-read your own OP. I've shown you how a strict engineering approach to biology is invalid. You might want to address that issue instead of playing "let's drag in the red herring".

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-17-2002]

Q:
I guess it would have been more useful if you had actually responded substantively to my post. However, one works with what one is given.John Paul:
I responded to what you gave me.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Q:
Most engineers, unless they are little more than technicians assembling parts others have developed, usually want to know how something functions.
John Paul:
Oh really? I would say technicians want to know how something functions so they can repeir it. True engineers want to know that too, but that is more in line with 'how can we improve it' (or the process). Then we have design engineers. They are interested in designing something for a specific function.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q:
Rather pointless quibble on the technician note. Do you disagree that an engineer, in order to understand a problem in engineering take a hierarchical reductionist approach to the problem? Do you agree or disagree that, as an engineer, you would be disatisfied with a "the manufacturer did it" explanation? Do you agree or disagree with the statement concerning engineers and origins?John Paul:
No engineer (that I know) would be satisfied with the explanation "the manufacturer did it" but he would understand it was manufactured. If this is how you perceive Creationists, that we are content with saying "God did it", you are sadly mistaken.
[edited to fix UBB code]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: we use a hierarchical reductionist approach - except that, since biological systems change over time on their own (unlike machines, until we come up with a von Neuman device), we need to examine the how and why they have changed in the past to understand their functioning in the present. This lends a "historical" element to biology that engineering, in general, doesn't have or need.
John Paul:
However there is no way we can examine how and why organisms changed in the past unless we were there to observe them. Do you understand that? All we can do is to look at the fossil record and assuming the ToE is indicative of reality, guess at what micro-chemical cahnges took place.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q:
On the contrary, biologists (using data from genetics, microbiology, developmental biology, geology, geophysics, etc etc) and analogies among modern organisms, make inferences on the logical course of development and change. Of course, we could be wrong. That's what's different about science and creationism.John Paul:
You can keep your BS comparisons to yourself. And IF we are wrong (as you just stated we could be), then what difference does origins make?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering does have some historical element. We can look at old buildings, cars, planes, telephones, TVs, computers etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q:
Really? You mean engineers somehow use vacuum tube technology to infer modern solid state electronics?John Paul:
Tubes led to the invention of transitors. We had to start somewhere.Q:
How interesting. I never knew that. Engineering is not a historical science.John Paul:
Are you an engineer? Engineers do look at past designs, that is how we improve upon them.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: For some biological systems, tracing life as far back as we can is necessary to understanding life's linkages in the present. In living systems, it is necessary to do more than understand the interactions of the components (i.e., function) of a modern organism. Biologists are not engineers. Living systems are not machines. Taking a strict structural engineering approach (function, purpose, maintenance) is invalid when attempting to develop practical applications in biology, or even fully understanding how biological systems function.
John Paul:
The point is we may never know if our trace is correct. From what I have seen the genetic evidence is not exclusive to the ToE and is just as easily evidence for a Common Creator.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q:
You're going to have to show - in detail - how a supernatural creator is a better explanation for everything we see in nature - the good, the bad, the neutral, and the incompetent - than natural selection. Otherwise you're just handwaving.John Paul:
First, what we see in nature is the result of millenia acting upon a once very good Creation (according to the Creation model). And Behe has done a good job of explaining why purely natural processes are found wanting.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your point would be valid if we knew what caused the first population(s) of single-celled organisms to split up to become plant, animal and procaryotes. However we do not and most likely will never know. The same can be said for any alleged 'lineage'. All we can do is to assume the lineage under a materialistic naturalism framework with absolutely no way to objectively test it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q:
What's this got to do with your original question concerning "purpose, function, maintenance"? You need to re-read your own OP. I've shown you how a strict engineering approach to biology is invalid. You might want to address that issue instead of playing "let's drag in the red herring".John Paul:
And I never said to take a strict engineering approach to biology. Talk about red herrings! All I said that function and maintenance are more important than trying to deduce an organisms origins and that its origins are not required to do so.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Q:
Rather pointless quibble on the technician note. Do you disagree that an engineer, in order to understand a problem in engineering take a hierarchical reductionist approach to the problem? Do you agree or disagree that, as an engineer, you would be disatisfied with a "the manufacturer did it" explanation? Do you agree or disagree with the statement concerning engineers and origins?
John Paul:
No engineer (that I know) would be satisfied with the explanation "the manufacturer did it" but he would understand it was manufactured. If this is how you perceive Creationists, that we are content with saying "God did it", you are sadly mistaken.

---

As you have repeatedly pointed out, creationism does not claim "god did it". It does, however, claim a non-specified, possibly supernatural being did it. Whether you call it God, a Designer, or little green monsters from Arcturus, you are still pre-supposing a "manufacturer" for which there is no positive evidence whatsoever. There is no functional difference between "designerdidit" and "goddidit". Biologists, unlike engineers, do not require a "manufacturer" of any kind. Thus the need to discover or infer alternative explanations based on evidence. Call it what you will, creationism boils down to "goddidit" in one form or another.

quote:

---

Q:
On the contrary, biologists (using data from genetics, microbiology, developmental biology, geology, geophysics, etc etc) and analogies among modern organisms, make inferences on the logical course of development and change. Of course, we could be wrong. That's what's different about science and creationism.
John Paul:
You can keep your BS comparisons to yourself.

---

I beg your pardon? What "bs" comparisons (rather crudely put ad hom, don't you think?) should I keep to myself? The absolute denial by any creationist on the planet that they could be wrong? The total unfalsifiability of creationism? The lack of empirical data to support the nebulous claim of a "designer"? The utter lack of any coherent "theory of creationism" beyond "goddidit"?

quote:

---

And IF we are wrong (as you just stated we could be), then what difference does origins make?

---

No, I stated scientists could be wrong. Creationism can't be wrong by definition - it's non-falsifiable.As to origins, as I've rather patiently explained, they do have implications for biology - unlike engineering.

quote:

---

Q:
Really? You mean engineers somehow use vacuum tube technology to infer modern solid state electronics?

​

John Paul:
Tubes led to the invention of transitors. We had to start somewhere.

​

Q:
How interesting. I never knew that. Engineering is not a historical science.

​

John Paul:
Are you an engineer? Engineers do look at past designs, that is how we improve upon them.

---

Engineers tend to look at improving current or at least recent designs. They don't have to go back to the invention of metallurgy to understand them. A key concept here is "improving". I've never met an engineer yet that didn't think he/she could better someone else's design.Biologists often have to go back in time quite a ways. This is the difference between an applied or theoretical science (like engineering) and a historical science (like evolutionary biology or paleontology).

quote:

---

Q:
You're going to have to show - in detail - how a supernatural creator is a better explanation for everything we see in nature - the good, the bad, the neutral, and the incompetent - than natural selection. Otherwise you're just handwaving.

​

John Paul:
First, what we see in nature is the result of millenia acting upon a once very good Creation (according to the Creation model). And Behe has done a good job of explaining why purely natural processes are found wanting.

---

Thanks for replying so substantively. Let me back up a bit: you're going to at least have to define which particular flavor of "creation model" (LOL) you're espousing. According to the Tinkerer model, this shouldn't occur, since the tinkerer would keep intervening. According to the YEC "*poof* goddidit" and "liar" models there isn't enough time for things to have changed - certainly not for the worse as you seem to be implying. According to the OEC "goddidit" model, something like "sin" seems to be the operating principle. According to the ID "jump start" and "little green monster" models, evolution and natural selection have been operating for eons after the "designer" kicked everything off. When you decide which you adhere to, let me know. In all cases except for the YEC versions and their (at least honest) literal, supernatural approach, you're in an infinite regression problem (what created the creator, etc). No need to ask about origins! Without a coherent theory of origins, how can you determine "purpose"?Behe has been thoroughly refuted both in this forum and elsewhere. Try this website for example.

quote:

---

Q:
What's this got to do with your original question concerning "purpose, function, maintenance"? You need to re-read your own OP. I've shown you how a strict engineering approach to biology is invalid. You might want to address that issue instead of playing "let's drag in the red herring".

​

John Paul:
And I never said to take a strict engineering approach to biology. Talk about red herrings! All I said that function and maintenance are more important than trying to deduce an organisms origins and that its origins are not required to do so.

---

And I have provided an explanation (which you seemingly ignored) as to why origins are important in biology. Care to address that issue?

Engineers of many stripes, that also happen to be creationists, for some reason seem to have convinced themselves that they are somehow able to take engineering principles and use them to dissect any and all other fields of science.
A good, insightful accounting of the fallacy of that postiton can be read here: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/thermo_patterson.htmlWhen one is actually well versed in an area, and encounter a creationist engineer pontificating in that area, it is typically easy to see the fallacious reasoning and flawed logic being employed. Unfortunatley, the casual lurker may not.And that is how many a lurker can be unduly swayed by the overconfident bombast of the creationist engineer.I especially liked the bit about theories that 'work on paper.' Another engineer - creationist Darel Finley - has a web site with a section about how 'any theory can be made to work on paper' - perhaps JP has been reading his share of creationist sites? Of course, reading Finley's site we have some prime examples of why engineers should stay out of biology unless they receive the proper education. Finley claims, for example, that genomes had to have evolved by adding one nucleotide at a time per generation, and that therefore, there is not enough time for evolution to have occurred.Way to use those engineering principles!

SLP: Interesting observation. I wonder if an actual case could be made that "design" by its nature appeals to those with a penchant for looking at the world from an engineer's perspective. I don't want to confuse correlation with causation, but with the exception of Wells (who's a special case) and Denton (who's on the road to realizing he was wrong) there don't appear to be a lot of biologists who are creationists.

Q:
And I have provided an explanation (which you seemingly ignored) as to why origins are important in biology. Care to address that issue?John Paul:
OK, let's see if you will accept this response:Q:
I would like to address your question concerning the necessity of understanding how life developed over time in the context of its current incarnation.Since you say you are an engineer, I'll try and put the answer in the context of engineering. Most engineers, unless they are little more than technicians assembling parts others have developed, usually want to know how something functions.John Paul:
You don’t have to be an engineer to want to know how something functions. Sure engineers want to know how something functions, especially if the are charged with maintaining it, engineers are also about bringing good ideas to life.Q:
They will often take a hierarchical reductionist approach to this problem by attempting to understand how the component parts of whatever they're looking at interact. Often they will have to go down several levels until a satisfactory explanation occurs. Most engineers I know would be dissatisfied with any kind of simplistic explanation such as "the manufacturer did it", or "the 'motive force' makes it go". Engineers want to know how parts A, B, and C work together (applied engineering). Sometimes they even need to understand why this occurs (theoretical engineering).John Paul:
What an engineer does for a job and what an engineer’s ideas/ thoughts/ visions can be are two different things. The Wright Brothers sold & repaired bicycles for a living.
Once upon a time every man-made item had to have had an origin. This origin was nothing more than an idea that led to a hypothesis and then to practicality. The point is not all engineers are debuggers, sustainers, improvers(?) etc. Some actually do have original ideas.Q:
They generally don't, however, need to understand where the parts came from originally (some from Japan, some from Cleveland), because there is little difference in function between a part from one place and the same part from another (assuming similar quality control). They also don't need to know how the parts were manufactured (except for forensic accident investigation). This is more in the purview of metalurgy, physics, and chemistry (among others).John Paul:
There are different levels of engineering at play here though. Or do you think these ICs and other parts just designed and manufactured themselves? Engineering is applied science. In engineering we were taught and tested on physics, chemistry and other sciences as well depending upon the specific field.Q:
Biologists, on the other hand, find that merely understanding how things work is not always sufficient. This is especially notable in the biology subfields of microbiology, cytology, parasitology, virology, etc. One illustrative example is our understanding of how bacteria develop immunity to antibiotics, or how plant pests develop immunities to pesticides.John Paul:
Now you are blurring the issue. Or are you saying that we need to know exactly at what did bacteria start in order to carry on today’s experiments? If so we had better stop now or are you hiding the genome map of the original population of bacteria? The same goes for plants.
Again this just affirms my point that knowing something’s origins are not very important.Q:
Without a thorough understanding of the principles of coevolution, originally discovered by the much-maligned Charles Darwin, we would be in the position of an engineer who merely observes that a machine works (or that pesticides have no effect) - without understanding how it does so. Moreover, to eke out any advantage in this evolutionary arms race, we need to understand the reason why these immunities develop.John Paul:
Now I understand why I gave this post such a short answer the first time. When you say shit like we would be in the position of an engineer who merely observes that a machine works (or that pesticides have no effect) - without understanding how it does so. Tells me you aren’t talking about real engineers. Could there be people like that who call themselves ‘engineers’? Sure. But I can’t do anything about that and it has no bearing on the real McCoy. We can understand pesticide resistance and immunology just fine without even understanding the alleged Great Transformations required if the ToE was indicative of reality. Let alone speak of origins. What you speak of is merely micro-evolution.Q:
The way to accomplish this objective is similar to that of the engineer: we use a hierarchical reductionist approach - except that, since biological systems change over time on their own (unlike machines, until we come up with a von Neuman device), we need to examine the how and why they have changed in the past to understand their functioning in the present. This lends a "historical" element to biology that engineering, in general, doesn't have or need.John Paul:
That depends upon how far back in the past we need or can go, now doesn’t it? I’m saying we don’t need to go to the origins to understand what an organism might evolve into next. Actually isn’t it more like with viruses and bacteria that resistance already existed and after application of whatever was used the organisms that had the resistance survived and flourished? That’s definitely what was shown on the PBS series Evolution, when they discussed AIDS.Q:
Taking this idea one step further, from the standpoint of someone fascinated by ecology it is imperative for understanding the exceptionally complex interactions of the organisms forming even the simplest ecosystem that an examination of how the system formed in the first place be undertaken.John Paul:
That depends upon what type of an examination you are talking about. Theoretical or direct?Q:
Again, using a reductionist approach, we find ourselves edging further and further back in time as we examine each microecosystem or organism - because the ways each organism interacts with all of the others in the given system is dependent on how the applicable traits changed over time. Why do we care? Because the more we understand about an ecosystem, the more we realize how fragile it is and the more chance we have of maintaining or rescuing ecosystems damaged by human activity. To continue the engineering analogy, we need to trace how changes in our biological machines and systems over time have given rise to the function of the machine or system in the present, and to see how current changes may effect things in the future.Q:
For some biological systems, tracing life as far back as we can is necessary to understanding life's linkages in the present.John Paul:
What happens when that trace leads us to the Created Kinds?Q:
In living systems, it is necessary to do more than understand the interactions of the components (i.e., function) of a modern organism.John Paul:
If it is necessary to know the origins of living systems you have not made you case yet.Q:
Biologists are not engineers.John Paul:
Maybe you missed this article:Approaching Biology from a different anglePerhaps engineering has more to do with biology then people think.Q:
Living systems are not machines.John Paul:
You mean their not made of metal- sure. But not machines? Sure do resemble machines. Or is machines resemble living organisms?Behe responds to his criticsRead the posting by Nelson Alonso. (also read Behe's full response if you really think his ideas have been refuted)Q:
Taking a strict structural engineering approach (function, purpose, maintenance) is invalid when attempting to develop practical applications in biology, or even fully understanding how biological systems function.John Paul:
You have shown that your idea of an engineering approach leaves much to be desired.Practical applications in biology, thank God, have nothing to do with life’s origins, whether or not life was a planned venture, supernaturally brought forth, or is the product of chemical reactions. If they do you haven't shown so in your post.Practical applications in biology have a great deal to do with what we can observe, what we have observed, what we can do experiments on and what we can verify using the scientific method.

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-26-2002]