Attn IDers, what would it take...?

quote:

---

If the cell is designed, we will find that they look more and more like Paley's watch.

---

What does it tell you that a cell looks nothing like Paley's watch?

Deleted.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 04:43 PM

Chiroptera: What does it tell you that a cell looks nothing like Paley's watch?I disagree. Of course it's not an exact fit but to me "a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines" is closer to Paley's watch than it is to a "balloon filled with molasses". But my point stands without the reference to Paley's watch.The cell as a "factory" full of nanomachines = design; the cell as a "bag of solution" = non-design.That's the way I see it. If you see it differently, so what? I was asked what would invalidate my suspicion of design. Here it is. If the cell turns out be nothing more than a bag of solution I will no longer suspect it to be the product of design.Now, here's a question for you ID critics. What data from the natural world could be discovered that would cause you to merely suspect design?This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 05:02 PMThis message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 05:03 PM

Yeah, the choice of language with words like "machines", "assembly lines", and "factory" -- the deliberate use of words that already have connotations of "intelligent design" cannot help but to attach image to the cell due to purely emotional reasons.However, the point is what evidence is there that these "machines", "assembly lines", and "factories" actually have been intelligently designed?

Chiroptera: Yeah, the choice of language with words like "machines", "assembly lines", and "factory" -- the deliberate use of words that already have connotations of "intelligent design" cannot help but to attach image to the cell due to purely emotional reasons.Warren: These words are coming from the peer-reviewed literature. I doubt they were employed for purely emotional reasons. I assume the terms "machines", "assembly lines", and "factory" were used in these scientific articles because that is the words that best describe what is going on in the cell. I am curious if you consider referring to the cell as a "balloon filled with molasses" as the deliberate use of a phrase because of it's connotation of non-design.Chiroptera: However, the point is what evidence is there that these "machines", "assembly lines", and "factories" actually have been intelligently designed?Warren: And what exactly would you count as evidence that they were designed? Your mistake is in thinking in terms of necessity. I make no necessary claims that anything must be designed. But design is the prima facie interpretation when confronted with a machine. As Polanyi pointed out a long time ago:"If all men were exterminated, this would not affect the laws of inanimate nature. But the production of machines would stop, and not until men arose again could machines be formed once more."Machines work under two distinct principles: the higher one is the machine's design and this harnesses the lower one, the physical-chemical properties upon which the machine relies. Put simply, machines impose boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chemistry. The ultimate origin of those boundary conditions is either chance or intelligence. I see no reason to think chance is the better explanation when confronted by the molecular machines I have surveyed thus far.Of course, in the end, you are free to interpret these machines as
something that began as simpler, sloppier versions thrown together by
chance that were then refined through natural selection. I simply
see no evidence for such a belief. That we don't agree is hardly
important.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 05:26 PMThis message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 05:57 PM

Personally, I don't have a problem with that. I see cells as being designed during meiosis, and manufactured via mitosis. But it isn't the kind of external designer that ID proponents assume.

quote:

---

And what exactly would you count as evidence that they were designed?

---

It would be nice if there would be a set of criteria that people could agree are indicative of "designed by an intelligence", perferrably quantifiable, and that a cell shows these criteria. Someone just saying, "Gosh, they look like Paley's watch to me" just isn't a very convincing argument.But that's the problem with your first post in this thread. The question in the OP is: "Exactly what would it take to convince an IDer of ToE?" Or, as Nuggin rephrased it: "What bit of evidence would you assume wouldn't exist if your theory was correct?"Your answer seems to be, "If the cell doesn't look like Paley's watch." You mean if it isn't gold? It doesn't have have two hands that go around in a clockwise direction? You're not very specific in this, using vague descriptions of "assembly lines" and "machines" without specifying how one quantifies how much like or dislike "Paley's watch" a cell is, how "alike" it must be to be considered "designed", or how we should know that this quantity really is indicative of design as opposed to non-design.-

quote:

---

Of course, in the end, you are free to interpret these machines as something that began as simpler, sloppier versions thrown together by chance that were then refined through natural selection. I simply see no evidence for such a belief.

---

Except that the overwhelming evidence that quite complex organisms arose through natural selection on random variations makes it not so hard to believe that the cell could have arisen through a similar process. This is certainly better evidence than exists for "intelligent design". In fact, if any kind of decent evidence for "design" could be put forward, we might actually see ID discussed in serious scientific circles.-

quote:

---

That we don't agree is hardly important.

---

Indeed. Reality is what it is, and doesn't much care what either you or I believe

It's there huge middle ground between the two examples of "a factory full of nanomachines" and a "sack of molassis"?The basic premise of ToE is that organisms (or in this case the pieces driving the organism) which have an advantage continue to reproduce while those that do not tend to die off.Aren't the "machines" inside the cells simply features selected for or against? Those that make cells work better survive.Unfortunately, I think we'd be hard pressed to see the protein make up of long extinct single cell organisms for obvious reasons.But, just because what we have today is successful (as predicted by ToE) that doesn't indicate ID.Do we have an example that more concrete? Something we can see in the real world?For example, if Dumbo existed today with no precursor in the fossil record, I think most ToErs would have a lot of trouble reconciling that with the theory.What sort of an example can IDrs give along the same lines?

We seem to be getting off track here. I'm responding to the question of what would invalidate my suspicion of design. We now seem to have changed the subject to what would prove intelligent design. I don't claim to have proof of design. I am telling you why I suspect design and what could change my mind. I suspect design because the scientific literature tells me that the inside of a cell is like a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of nanomachines. If this view turns out to be wrong and science goes back to the earlier view of the cell as a bag of solution, I will no longer suspect the cell was designed.My inference that life is designed is made only tentatively and as part of an overall investigative approach. Secondly, that molecular systems look like machines is not insignificant. For if they were machines, they would look like machines. And if they are not machines, why do they look like machines? What's more, let's not forget that what is convincing about the data that points to evolution is simply the fact that these data make things look evolved. Thus, to disparage appearances in one instance, yet cling to them in another, seems quite inconsistent. Thirdly, when it comes to these molecular systems, I not only think they look like machines, but in fact are machines - machines of a different technology and with an accumulated history of evolution, but machines nevertheless. And design is the prima facie interpretation when confronted with a machine.We have known for a long time that evolution can provide the appearence of design but conversely the process of design can yield an appearance of evolution.I recognize that in our ambiguous reality, different rational interpretations are possible and freely admit my views may be wrong. But my views have nothing to do with religion, creationism, the supernatural, nor am I anti-evolution. I am not an intelligent design creationist. I am an intelligent design evolutionist.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 06:42 PMThis message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 06:46 PM

quote:

---

I'm responding to the question of what would invalidate my suspicion that cells are the product of design.

---

Ah, I think this may be the problem. Nuggin may correct me if I am wrong, but I think the question was meant to ask what would be a way to scientifically falsify the notion of intelligent design.-

quote:

---

I suspect design because the scientific literature tells me that the inside of a cell is like a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of nanomachines.

---

As I stated, the mere use of words like "factory" and "assembly lines" do not constitute evidence of anything, except for the poetic abilities of the author, or maybe that the author is willing to use analogies to explain his points.-

quote:

---

If this view turns out to be wrong and science goes back to the earlier view of the cell as a bag of solution, I will no longer suspect the cell was designed.

---

Since it is quite unlikely that science will make such a reversal, I'm not sure why you bring it up. But I have stated that if it turns out that all of the stars and galaxies are less than 6000 light years from the earth then I will begin to doubt the great age of the earth -- maybe you are making a similar rhetorical point?-

quote:

---

My inference that life is designed is made only tentatively and as part of an overall investigative approach.

---

I see more semantic games than investigation here, like:

quote:

---

why do they look like machines?

---

They don't. Unless you come up with some arbitrary meaning of "machine" designed to prove your point.-

quote:

---

What's more, let's not forget that what is convincing about the data that points to evolution is simply the fact that these data make things look evolved. Thus, to disparage appearances in one instance, yet cling to them in another, seems quite inconsistent.

---

You are not being clear here.-

quote:

---

I not only think they look like machines, but in fact are machines....

---

Again, I think the point of Nuggin's questions had to do with scientific notions of evidence and falsifiability, not subjective opinions.-

quote:

---

I recognize that in our ambiguous reality, different rational interpretations are possible....

---

But not equally logical or reasonable.--

quote:

---

It is my logical interpretation of the evidence.

---

Well, if by "logic" you mean the overly literal interpretations of analogies used by certain authors to come to a predetermined conclusion, then you have a point.

It seems to me that the tone of my replies to Warren may have been too antagonistic. Perhaps this is because the whole topic of "Intelligent Design" annoys me so much. At any rate, let me apologize for any offense I may have generated.

Not to stray too far, but it seems like you are using the term machine to mean "something which does something very efficiently".So a watch would be a machine which tells time very efficiently, and an enzyme would be a machine which combines two proteins very efficiently.It then seems like you are suggesting that since a watch was obviously created by a creator, it stands to reason that an enzyme would also have been created by a creator.I think that's a rather large leap.First of all, the deduction that since and enzyme does something it is therefore a machine is a little by far fetched. Enzymes do what they do, they are used because they do what they do. A banana is not a machine which delivers potassium, but it has potassium and that's one of the reasons we eat it.Just as enzymes do positive things which cells, an acid would do horrible damage. Sulfuric Acid is not a machine designed to destroy cells, it's simple a chemical compound. A cell which produced sulfuric acid and thus destoyed itself would stand very little chance of reproduction and thus be weeded out by natural selection.Yes, cells are extraordinarily complex. Yes, watches are extraordinarily complex. However, just because more things are complex doesn't mean they are both the product of design.

Nuggin: Not to stray too far, but it seems like you are using the term machine to mean "something which does something very efficiently".So a watch would be a machine which tells time very efficiently, and an enzyme would be a machine which combines two proteins very efficiently.It then seems like you are suggesting that since a watch was obviously created by a creator, it stands to reason that an enzyme would also have been created by a creator.I think that's a rather large leap.Warren: No, that is not my argument. I use the term machine to refer to the entities that are called "molecular machines" in the peer-reviewed literature. Note:"Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines." Do you know who said this? Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences and a leading expert in molecular biology. And there's more:For example, with the bacterial flagellum, "we need to think almost in engineering terms about transmission shafts, mounting plates and bushings." Trend in Genetics, 6/91Perhaps this is because "the flagellum resembles a machine designed by humans." Cell 93, 17-20Then there is the F-ATP synthase, where Science News reported " With parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1-ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is." Science News vol 151, p173In fact, an expert on this machine observed, "These exciting results led to the conclusion that Fo.F1-ATP synthase is the smallest electrical machine created by Nature and a number of technical terms previously unknown to enzymology such as: rotor, shaft, stator, torque, clutch are now widely used to describe the enzyme operation." See Full ArticleNuggin: Yes, cells are extraordinarily complex. Yes, watches are extraordinarily complex. However, just because more things are complex doesn't mean they are both the product of design.Warren: Again this isn't my argument. For me, ID is simply the best explanation for the origin of machines. Also, I tentatively infer ID behind the origin of machines because there really is no evidence that chance and natural selection were indeed the mechanisms behind their origin.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-16-2005 10:40 AM

Warren: Why do they look like machines?Chiroptera: They don't. Unless you come up with some arbitrary meaning of "machine" designed to prove your point.Warren: Once again, ID proponents didn't coin the term "molecular machine". This terminology is coming from Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences and from articles found in the peer-reviewed literature.Look, these things look like machines to me. And I haven't seen a good argument that they aren't literal machines. If they don't look like machines to you, so what? I'm not here to convince you. I'm simply telling you why I suspect ID and what it would take for me to no longer suspect ID.Warren: Let's not forget that what is convincing about the data that points to evolution is simply the fact that these data make things look evolved. Thus, to disparage appearances in one instance, yet cling to them in another, seems quite inconsistent.Chiroptera: You are not being clear here.Warren: Many find the evidence for common ancestry convincing even though it essentially is nothing more than a "looks evolved" argument. And that's okay with me. As I see it, if something "looks evolved," then those who want to propose it really is designed ought to come up with persuasive evidence to the contrary. But this works both ways. If something "looks designed," those who want to propose it really evolved ought to come up with persuasive evidence to the contrary. And this whole issue is further complicated by the fact that evolution can provide the appearence of design and the process of design can yield an appearance of evolution. I find it a double standard for ID critics to use "looks evolved" arguments to support their position and then turn around and disparage ID proponents for using "looks designed" arguments for their position. My approach is open-minded and is willing to follow the claims supported by evidence.In contrast, the ID critics propose everything evolved and unless one can prove this is impossible and come up with powerful, independent evidence of the designer, all design inferences are to be pooh-poohed. In my opinion, this approach is closed-minded and seeks to force all the data into one proposal.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-16-2005 11:36 AM

quote:

---

So, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences is using an arbitrary meaning of "machine" designed to prove a point?

---

Yes, I would say so.-

quote:

---

I'm simply telling you why I suspect ID and what it would take for me to no longer suspect ID.

---

Fine. If all you're saying is that they look like machines to you, then I don't think that there is much more to discuss. What I object to are those people who think that I should see that it is obvious that these things have been intelligently designed, and those people who think that we should teach school children that ID is a reasonable, scientific hypothesis. If that isn't you, then I apologize for wasting your time.-

quote:

---

Many find the evidence for common ancestry convincing even though it essentially is nothing more than a "looks evolved" argument.

---

This is false.-

quote:

---

In contrast, the ID critics propose everything evolved and unless one can prove this is impossible and come up with powerful, independent evidence of the designer, all design inferences are to be pooh-poohed.

---

This, too, is false. What ID critics want is that the IDists present a scientific theory that can be evaluated. A proposal of what properties that something "intelligently designed" should posses that things that are not "intelligently designed" do not, a way of testing that these properties are diagnostic of "intelligent design", and a way of measuring the extent that real life objects, including organs, cells, biochemical systems possess these properties.