Teleological Science?

Maybe teleology could be found in the immune system. The existence in an evolutionary lineage of antibodies against a pathogen that the clade had not yet been exposed to could be seen as a teleological development. Of course, it could also be seen as a fortuitous coincidence, so this type of teleology would be difficult to prove.The next step in this line of reasoning would be to determine what purpose the development has in mind. Obviously, survival of the organism would be the short-term purpose. But, if it appeared in a springtail (Hexapoda: Collembola), which has very little to do with humans, it would be hard to justify the anthropic concept of creationism. Which is a good seque into my recent musings on this subject: But, teleology doesn't necessarily support intelligent design.With the model of God creating the Earth specifically for human usage, you would have to link any teleological development you found to human benefit. Otherwise, teleology wouldn't really support much of the current IDists' views. An instance of teleological development that proves God's assistance to inedible and destructive beetles would be a serious detriment to religious beliefs everywhere. Unless, of course, the development was seen as producing a parable for humans to learn from (which is always a possibility), or a mode of punishment for our sins. Of course, the claim that God favors the beetles would be equally valid until God revealed directly that it was flawed.So, teleology would only prove an "intelligent tinkerer" (which could be God, advanced aliens, conspiring CIA people, or whatever your favorite paranoia is). But, the nature of the design may reveal even scarier things than materialistic evolution theorizes, such as God's actual purpose in creating the Earth having little to do with us at all. In fact, none of the examples discussed so far actually support a human-centered plan of creation. If this kind of evidence isn't found, people may find evolution to be a more comforting thought than an all-powerful beetle-god.So, if we found enough design favoring beetles, starfish, octopus or tapeworms, people might stop trying to prove God's existence and just let us teach evolution. Join the teleology thread, guys! Disclaimer: This is not how science works, and this is not the methodology employed by evolutionists. It is, however, eerily similar to some ID methodologies out there (see Wedge Document). IDists should be glad we don't like backstabbing, cloak-and-dagger stuff like this.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

Bluejay,I very much enjoy reading your posts; you always offer up a lot of food for thought.Behind every design is an implicit purpose. If Beetles somehow shared man's intellectual and emotional capablities, it would be interesting to listen to the arguments unfold about which species God had in mind when designing the Universe. Beetles are pretty easy to smash, however, so the religious war wouldn't last too long. To the victor goes the spoils.

Ahh, but therein lies the rub, my friend. If we are to take the ID proponents word for things, the putative Designer is NOT necessarily the Christian God. It could very well be the aliens, Illuminati, or whatever. So, let's hoist them by their own petard. Clearly, with over 350,000 described species of beetles, plus more to be discovered, God...erm I mean the Designer...clearly created the world - and possibly the entire universe - for them. In fact, by extension, humans are quite the least of the Designer's creation. So using non-human organisms to test for design seems fairly reasonable. And as I said, one of the things that would point to design - or at least something non-evolutionary - would be evidence of "biological anticipation" (i.e., teleology).

Indeed, purpose is the definition of design. And I wouldn't be too sure that the religious war between humans and beetles would necessarily end in our favor. After all, if the Designer really did create everything for them, don't you think It would intervene to prevent the destruction of Its chosen, erm, people?

Unless the chosen tribe is bacteria, and all the other organisms are designed to provide cozy environments and transportation and nourishment (to say nothing of entertainment).Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

It seems to me that the entire plenum revolving around teleology, purpose and final causes depends on rethinking why Boltzmann felt it necessary to describe that atomism was not incompatible with infinite divisibility.But the kind of “atom” here is not the one we learn of post WWII but simply the particle that got chemistry a lot more quantitative. Feynmann makes this difference of type in his Lectures on Physics(6 pieces) talking about the generic vs the nuclear atom.
Poincare describes this general atom here:

quote:

---

Science and Method by Henri Poincare page 92-93

---

Gladyshev’s invocation of the principle of substance stability has been used for either kind of atom. Biology however really is about limiting the biophysics to the generic atom. It is my opinion that the “carrying capacity” of the environment is limited by this distinction and that this is the cause behind Darwin’s notion of wedging not Huxley’s “red in tooth and claw”.Now this opinion IS rather thick. On my view the “infinite divisibility” instead of atoms is not one of matter but of space, in the inifinite possible behavior of colliding attractions and repulsions(to use Poincare’s use of Thompson), as larger genus supremums are considered species>kindgom, life on Earth>anyother LIFE. Whether the latter life breaks the strong and weak force barrier and capacity of life on Earth no one knows, but it matters little (electron vs photon) whether this is in the thrip or the thrifty human. What becomes sizeless IS NOT what is materially IN the void but what separates the taxonomy in the life contrary to Aristotle.
Democritus of Abdera and other atomistsThe trajectory of life is infinitely divisible eventhough the materiality is not. I sometimes fancy the reason there is RNA and no direct formation of proteins from DNA base pairs is because of the need to keep the near attractive and repulsive collisions separate but I have not worked out the full implications of this idea. It depends on how artifical and natural selection can be combined and hence how man can be goal directing evolution itself.Insofar as this is possible anthropocentric purpose and with it the thought of God centered direction of the man doing the direction is certainly retainable with the very best of knowledge in science, it is only that it need not be -- till someone starts this kind of project. Plans come before implementation. This vision of mine falls within Boltzmann’s notion of infinity space of motion of electrons in atoms. I see no reason to avoid Poincare’s criticism of Russell as long as the space is determinant. That is what I try to demonstrate. Thus I DO think of the origin of genetic information as infinite pasigraphic design (not a transformation grammar of order for free) but not something that MUST be associated with a GOD behind ID. It might be but it is hard to think that far ahead of science with so many “what ifs” and to know whether one has selected them correctly. I think Phil Johnson erred this way. Poincare made the good point that it does not make any difference if man symbolizes “if” with a backward ”c’ or not. Whatever IC(irreducible complexity) is to express depends on a definition per genus proximum et differentiam specificam and this may be a property like Kepler shapes (Lenten Pretzel-the period of Lent)

quote:

---

The Book Nobody Read page 50 by Owen Gingerich

---

of where life is headed rather than where it came from. Gould sides with Cuvier over Darwin on this. I have no confidence whatsoever however that Behe’s ideas and those that attempt to delimit this within the creature HAVE to work. Niche and Phenotype are different.I have no problem with people thinking that there might not be or they can do biology without using teleology etc, but I see no reason to think that the membrane is out of position in any way. Frogs jump where we can not.Anyone who feels that this topic does not entail as complicated a position as the one I attempt to construct is welcome to read the script of Darwin/Gray correspondence I saw tonite (to be posted on http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/99/83/ ) and explain to me how Will Provine insisted to me after the performance that the difference of Gray and Darwin WAS EVEN WIDER THAN THAT represented by Gould and performed this evening.Gould wrote on page 753 (Structure of Evolutionary Theory)

quote:

---

From the other side, Asa Gray understood Darwin’s central contribution as the proper reintroduction of purpose, or functionalism, into biology. In 1874, Gray wrote to Nature (quoted in Ospovat, 1981 p 148) that Darwin had done great service for biology by “brining back to it teleology; so that, instead of morphology vs. teleology, we shall have morphology wedded to teleology” in other words, fuctionalist hegemony by proper criteria of primacy and relative frequency.Darwin certainly appreciated the argument, for he wrote back to Gray:"What you say about teleology pleases me especially."

---

The wedding was slightly misrepresented in the play but it was closer than Gould wrote. The misrepresentation in the play was due to failure to differentiate French and Russian views. My view differs from Provine’s but we both agree about disagreeing with Gould to some extent. Provine explained that Darwin used Gray's views on teleology *against* his religious critics. It is hard to say who is the kettle here.Edited by Brad McFall, : link,graphic,word

Thank you, Grizz. I’m having a lot of fun on this thread. You’d think so, wouldn’t you? If we had one-on-one debates, I have to say I’d agree with you. Of course, this is the kind of thing conscientious, religious people claim to avoid (although I know a lot of people who see themselves as having very high morals who simultaneously seem to have a passionate vendetta against all things six-legged).However, I tend to agree with this quote from Quetzal: Consider human history with crop and household pests: how many species of insect have we successfully eradicated from this planet with our concerted pesticidal efforts? I can’t think of any. We’ve wiped out many peripherally by killing their food sources or draining swamps, but the ones that we’ve been explicitly trying to kill are still thriving right under our noses.So, could it be that God is, in fact, helping the cockroaches? If so, what does that say about the nature of God and our relationship to Him?On the other hand, can anyone think of anything teleological in human evolution? It seems, if true creationists want to prove their point, they’ll not only have to prove teleology, but prove teleology in our favor. Any ideas?Side-Note for Quetzal: From what I’ve been told, that sounds like a very conservative estimate. But, then again, you’re the coleopterist, so I’ll trust you.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

Just a slight correction. I am SO not a coleopterist. I just use the bugs because, well, they're so useful for certain studies. It might very well be a conservative estimate - it was a figure I remembered from a few years ago. I'm looking at between 25-30 species of the subfamily Scarabaeinae alone in my "backyard" here, divided neatly by habitat type, which makes them very useful for developing an Index of Biological Integrity for the long-term management and monitoring of the reserve where I work. What I know about beetles in general could probably fill a sample cup.

Well, observing how the various camps reason, other species would simply be offered up by creationists as the supporting cast in any such teleology. If one is willing to believe the Earth is 6,500 years old, any other assertions would be relatively easy to fit into such a line of thought without proof, even if it makes little sense or flies in the face of conventional wisdom.On the other hand, we all search for purpose and meaning in our lives; this quest often leads people to different places. I wouldn't go so far as to say attaching a teleolgical nature to man's existence is irrational(unless, of course, one were to attach a claim that the Earth is 6500 years old etc..)

That's true, also. It's kind of scary to think we don't mean anything, so it's natural for a being that has the ability to imagine such philosophical concepts to avoid such thoughts.Furthermore, in our studies of science and nature, there is no way to actually discern what is and isn't God's will. For all we know, God's will manifests itself in our universe as random for some unknown reason. Under such conditions, teleology is fruitless.I, for one, cannot think of anything conclusively teleological in human evolution, so I don't buy the special creation scenario.One thing is for certain, though: it's beneficial to have people oppose us, because it makes us think things through more carefully. After my handful of posts on this thread, I feel more secure in my belief about evolution through natural selection than before.

Brad McFall, most of that went about three kilometers over my head. I would appreciate a dumbed-down version of all that. Does this mean you believe the code came before the implementation of the code, and that the code therefore did not evolve alongside the organisms? If so, I disagree: there are several known variations of the code (UGA is a stop codon in our nucleus; it codes triptophan in our mitochondrion, though).That's about all I could even conjecture a meaning for in your post. I assume, however, that at least YOU know what you're talking about. I hope this doesn't mean I'm just stupid.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

Well, if you have any prediliction towards Margulis' view there was some symbiogenesis BEFORE mitochondrial inclusions.

quote:

---

Does this mean you believe the code came before the implementation of the code, and that the code therefore did not evolve alongside the organisms? If so, I disagree: there are several known variations of the code (UGA is a stop codon in our nucleus; it codes triptophan in our mitochondrion, though).

---

Thus any codable difference betweem a stop and tryptophan happened later.Before this difference, suppose one has only DNA and dynamic self-assembly of microtubules. I wonder if there-then a kind of self-life (not Dawkin's vechicular selfish gene) could exist such that there is an active sorting of molecular attractions and repulsions across biotic potentials of population of supramolecular complex increases. This might *not* be dependent on proteins per say but on relations of the attractions and repulsions across relative motion of electrons and photons framed by H+ etc which could resultin triplet coding I might try to suppose or propose if we could ge the DNA and some precusor at least to microtubule self assembly.It might be possible to derive this idea directly from substance stability of macrothermodynamics. I do not know. This would occurr before the mitochondira became involuted in the same system.The importance of thinking of the"the code" occurred because while language was being used as an analogy to organ organization during the 60s. I think this was overblown by exubrance towards advances in linguistics. Any form of symbiogenesis obviates the analogy as we have to think without the creature with organs here, per say.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

This supports the notion that the code itself is also capable of adapting and "evolving" alongside the organisms that use it. It also suggests that the genetic code is not a teleological design, as is often quoted in creationists' "arguments from ignorance." I don't know that DNA can function like this without proteins, unless you're suggesting that the microtubules might have performed the functions of enzymes and, in turn, were encoded by the DNA instead of proteins. I don't think there is enough support for this notion: the "RNA World" hypothesis seems more far more plausible to me.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

Notice that "infinity" on my view has do to with a discrete space that life crosses. Cantor may have been the first to see that continuous motion was physically possible in a discontinuous space.I will be writing later how macrothermodynamics may be the cause of symbiogensis on http://www.aexion.org @
http://aexion.org/orthogenesis.aspxWhether "the code" is a design (teleological or anyotherwisesense) seems to depend on whether the infinite divisibilty really is extant from which life segregates genes.While working in Parks' lab of Animal Science in 1991-2 on cell blocks to artifical insemination I came to cognize what I called then the "centriolar cycle", which was the passage of information across generations molecularly but independent today of DNA. Then I recognized that the guanosine content of DNA might be kinematically iteractive with tubule dynamics. So yes, I even think that there might be some kind of still extant "coding" between DNA and tubules independent of the proteins concurrent. I think of RNA as a STRAIGHT line between the reactivity and as sorting attractions from repulsions.This might be designed or not. I still dont know for sure. If I can rigoursly effect symbiogenesis from phenomenological thermodynamics I might be able to state such more definitively.Edited by Brad McFall, : link material added off site

I think there is an important disinction to be made here. Intelligent Design (capatalised), in my dictionary, is the home of the traditional creationist, typically Christian. In contrast, intelligent design (lower case) involves a teleological view of the universe, but not one that adheres to the Christian god, or necessarily to any god at all.I suspect that if intelligent design is present it will not be visible at the level that would make it accessible to investigation in some of the ways suggested so far. I see it as being reflected in such matters as the values of the universal constants, the magnitudes and character of the fundamental forces, and the rather remarkable fact that from these seemingly mundane rules a heirarchical order of complexity emerges.Going further with those thoughts would move this too far off topic, but it explains why I think looking for evidence of intelligent design in tinkering carried out on genomes is likely to prove fruitless. It would be unfortunate if that was taken as evidence that there was no intelligent design at any level.