Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2017 8:31 AM
422 online now:
AZPaul3, bluegenes, Chiroptera, CRR, edge, frako, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD (11 members, 411 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,170 Year: 9,776/21,208 Month: 2,863/2,674 Week: 287/961 Day: 17/134 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 196 of 219 (652981)
02-17-2012 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Trixie
02-17-2012 5:13 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Except that I'm not arguing that simply because the parts "fit" then the flagellum is intelligently designed.

Let's remember why I presented the above arguments in the first place. Context is important ya know.

In essence, hooah asked why I think the bacterial flagellum displays properties of rational design. I provided a couple of reasons, citing the efficiency of the flagellar motor and the fact that the structure and location of the ATP synthase complex in the flagellum allows the flagellum to function efficiently. Thus, since efficiency is a hallmark of rationality, the flagellum displays properties of rational design. This doesn't necessarily mean that the flagellum was indeed rationally designed. But it's a clue in favor of the telic hypothesis, and it answers hooah's question.

If poor design is evidence against the telic hypothesis, then any system that displays rational design is evidence in favor of the telic hypothesis. There's no reason why the road can't go both ways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Trixie, posted 02-17-2012 5:13 AM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by bluegenes, posted 02-17-2012 7:21 AM Genomicus has responded
 Message 203 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2012 12:28 PM Genomicus has responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2991
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 197 of 219 (652986)
02-17-2012 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Trixie
02-17-2012 4:38 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Trixie writes:

This seems to me to be arguing that because Australia fits so neatly into it's coastline the shape was intelligently designed. (Apologies to whoever on here used that before, I would give you credit, but I can't find the post.)

Probably me, and there's no need to apologise. However, I use it for general fine tuning arguments, and although I can see how you made the connection, the precise "engineering" of flagella is not quite the same thing. Variation and selection certainly can "fine tune" things for very efficient function in a way though, which, coupled with the fact that they want to, is why I.D.ists can see an analogy to "rational engineering" in many biological systems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Trixie, posted 02-17-2012 4:38 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2991
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 198 of 219 (652990)
02-17-2012 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 5:19 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Genomics writes:

In essence, hooah asked why I think the bacterial flagellum displays properties of rational design. I provided a couple of reasons, citing the efficiency of the flagellar motor and the fact that the structure and location of the ATP synthase complex in the flagellum allows the flagellum to function efficiently. Thus, since efficiency is a hallmark of rationality, the flagellum displays properties of rational design. This doesn't necessarily mean that the flagellum was indeed rationally designed.

So far, I largely agree with you, especially with the last sentence.

Genomicus writes:

But it's a clue in favor of the telic hypothesis, and it answers hooah's question.

I don't think I can give you that because efficiency is also strongly favoured by Nature, and she's a superb non-telic engineer.

An intelligent designer could easily look at the bacterial flagella that you've implied are sub-optimum, and quickly engineer them up to the standards of E. Coli. But Nature's scatty, and although those lesser flagella may well gain increased efficiency over time, she can't act as quickly as an intelligent agent.

When we know of one designer in the biosphere (Nature) it requires very good positive evidence to bring in an apparently unnecessary second one. Will you be arguing that Nature is incapable of doing what we see in life around us, or will you merely be arguing from analogy with reference to our own engineering efforts?

It might be a good idea to start a thread setting out your own ideas of front-loading, because we're more accustomed to the heavier interventionist intelligent design favoured by people like Michael Behe. The board should welcome an I.D. advocate who writes good English (for some reason I can't quite fathom, many creationists can't do this).

Genomics writes:

If poor design is evidence against the telic hypothesis, then any system that displays rational design is evidence in favor of the telic hypothesis. There's no reason why the road can't go both ways.

If a system actually displayed rational design, that might be closer to proof than just evidence. Perhaps you meant to say "the appearance" or "hallmarks" of rational design?

Intelligent designers can do silly things and nature can hit brilliant solutions, so neither are evidence for or against intelligent design per se.

However, life shows certain designs that are characteristic of evolutionary "bricolage", examples being exaptation of a feature from one function to another, sometimes giving results which certainly are not hallmarks of rational engineering, especially given the time scales involved.

Let's have a front-loading thread, and welcome to EvC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 5:19 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 8:35 PM bluegenes has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 199 of 219 (653005)
02-17-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 2:57 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Optimal by engineering standards. Efficiency is one hallmark of rational design, as is flexibility. Of all the possible ways to build a biological machine that functions as a motility organelle, the vast majority wouldn't be optimal - they'd be hodge-podge. The ATP synthase could have F1 subunits, clogging up the pore. Or the stoichiometry of the various components could be significantly different, resulting in a totally inefficient flagellar motor. Or the junction proteins could bind very loosely such that FliC monomers often escape from the hook complex.

You've yet to even try to address much less answer the big question: how do you distinguish actual design from things that have an appearance of design but that are naturally occurring.

Evolutionary algorithms create efficient things all the time. Mere efficiency is hardly enough establish something as designed, and not particularly probative as an indicator without criteria for ruling out design that occurs in nature.

What precisely do you mean by "fit adequately"?

I don't know. What do you mean by "fit neatly?"

I'm providing evidence that the flagellum displays properties of rational design; I am not attempting to provide evidence that the flagellum is indeed designed.

But you're doing so without telling us what the criteria are for design. Again, all you're doing is looking at an organism and creating an ad hoc rationalization for your a priori conclusion of design.

See: "Low Flagellar Motor Torque and High Swimming Efficiency of Caulobacter crescentus Swarmer Cells":

No.

Bring your evidence here. This is a debate forum, not a research forum.

"The energy conversion efficiency of E. coli is also very high, at 80% or more."

Show your math. Include an analysis of energy conversion efficiency for all similar organisms. It's irrelevant if E. coli has a "very high" energy conversion if that is typical of all similar organisms.

Nonetheless, the E. coli flagellum is highly efficient, which is a hallmark of rational design.

Why?

Still no evidence, just a bunch of you saying things. Why is efficiency a hallmark of design? How do you distinguish between designed efficiency and naturally occurring efficiency?

I gotta tell ya, Geno, so far you're leaving a whole lot of unanswered questions and not answering many, if any.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 2:57 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Panda, posted 02-17-2012 11:38 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 205 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 8:48 PM subbie has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1093 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(3)
Message 200 of 219 (653013)
02-17-2012 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by subbie
02-17-2012 11:16 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
subbie writes:

I gotta tell ya, Geno, so far you're leaving a whole lot of unanswered questions and not answering many, if any.


Yeah - but you gotta be glad to see someone that can actually write coherently, no?

I find Genomicus a refreshing change after the likes of Dawn Bertot.

Anyway - back to the discussion...
As you were.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 11:16 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2012 12:22 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 201 of 219 (653015)
02-17-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 3:16 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
No scholar of the philosophy of science has stated that an idea must be peer-reviewed in order to fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis. It seems to me that that's an idea you made up. Can you cite a single scholarly source that states an idea must be peer-reviewed in order to be a scientific hypothesis? I'll be waiting for that citation.

"Hey guys! Look at me! I just read a book by Mike Gene and I think it has some neat-o ideas that change the ID movement. I haven't actually done any work myself, all I have is some claims I am making. If you can't refute these unevidenced assertions of mine...."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've still provided none.

The front-loading hypothesis goes a step further and states that these life forms contained the necessary genomic information to shape future evolution.

Any evidence for that assertion since it seems to be such a big part of your idea?

The take-home message here: genetic diseases would exist even with the most optimal genetic codes.

No. Any designer who was half intelligent wouldn't make his prime candidate prone to genetic disease that was passed on from mother to child.


"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 3:16 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 8:54 PM hooah212002 has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11236
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 202 of 219 (653020)
02-17-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Panda
02-17-2012 11:38 AM


Yeah - but you gotta be glad to see someone that can actually write coherently, no?

I find Genomicus a refreshing change after the likes of Dawn Bertot.

Absolutely. I'm enjoying reading his writings. I think its a shame that hooah is being such a disrespectful jerk toward them. He's hurting the quality of this discussion board and tarnishing us as a community.

Stick around Genomicus, we're not all assholes.


Now I get to add "hypocrite" to Theo's list of qualities

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Panda, posted 02-17-2012 11:38 AM Panda has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11236
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 203 of 219 (653021)
02-17-2012 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 5:19 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
In essence, hooah asked why I think the bacterial flagellum displays properties of rational design.

The problem is that displaying the properties of rational design doesn't lead us to any conclusion. Things that aren't designed can look designed. Things that are designed can look like they weren't.

"Looking desinged" doesn't help us in distingiushing design.

If poor design is evidence against the telic hypothesis, then any system that displays rational design is evidence in favor of the telic hypothesis. There's no reason why the road can't go both ways.

Poor design is *not* evidence against the telic hypothese: it could have been a Poor Designer after all.

What poor design is evidence against is an intelligent powerful and benevolent God. Creationists typically get into that part while these neo-IDists seem to be seperating themselves from it. Although, we still have that "intelligent" qualifier and some of the 'designs' we see are quite silly and suggest that the presumed designer maybe wasn't all that intelligent afterall.

Make sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 5:19 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 9:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 210 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:49 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 204 of 219 (653073)
02-17-2012 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by bluegenes
02-17-2012 7:21 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
quote:
I don't think I can give you that because efficiency is also strongly favoured by Nature, and she's a superb non-telic engineer.

An intelligent designer could easily look at the bacterial flagella that you've implied are sub-optimum, and quickly engineer them up to the standards of E. Coli. But Nature's scatty, and although those lesser flagella may well gain increased efficiency over time, she can't act as quickly as an intelligent agent.


Efficiency is indeed favored by Nature - but hodge-podge systems also result from non-teleological processes. So if you cite poor, sloppy design (e.g., the backward wiring of the vertebrate eye) as evidence against the telic hypothesis, then rational design would be a clue that would count in favor of the telic hypothesis. At least, that's what it seems to me.

Remember how I'm using the "illusion" of rational design. I'm not using it as a knock-out punch or as a strong line of evidence in favor of teleology. Instead, I'm using it as a clue that is one criterion of several that would strengthen our suspicion of design.

Further, at the level of molecular machines, it's a bit hard to see how Nature could produce novel multi-part molecular machines that also display properties of rational design. For example, out of all the possible ways to construct a motility organelle, the vast majority will seem hodge-podge and jury-rigged. Yet the bacterial flagellum is not hodge-podge. It's structure gives a very strong appearance of rational design. Thus, given that there are far more ways to build jury-rigged, sloppy, hodge-podge biological machines than there are ways to build biological machines that appear to be structurally rationally designed, we must wonder why Nature happened to land on so many of the latter class of biological machines. I find it interesting that, for example, in TalkOrigins articles like "Evidence of Jury-Rigged Design," none of the biological features they list are molecular machines. It seems that the core architecture of life - the molecular machines - have a very strong illusion of rational design. And I find that suspicious.

quote:
When we know of one designer in the biosphere (Nature) it requires very good positive evidence to bring in an apparently unnecessary second one. Will you be arguing that Nature is incapable of doing what we see in life around us, or will you merely be arguing from analogy with reference to our own engineering efforts?

Well, as I said previously, rational design is just one criterion to strengthen the suspicion of design. If you couple it with, say, discontinuity, then the suspicion of design is even stronger.

quote:
If a system actually displayed rational design, that might be closer to proof than just evidence. Perhaps you meant to say "the appearance" or "hallmarks" of rational design?

Right - I meant the "appearance" or "hallmarks" of rational design.

quote:
Let's have a front-loading thread, and welcome to EvC.

Thanks - I'll post a front-loading thread as soon as possible.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by bluegenes, posted 02-17-2012 7:21 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2012 4:38 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 205 of 219 (653074)
02-17-2012 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by subbie
02-17-2012 11:16 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
quote:
But you're doing so without telling us what the criteria are for design. Again, all you're doing is looking at an organism and creating an ad hoc rationalization for your a priori conclusion of design.

Again, remember why I'm discussing the properties of the flagellum. The reason being that hooah asked me to provide evidence that the flagellum displays properties of rational design. And I provided that evidence. That does not mean that the flagellum is indeed designed. It does mean, however, that the flagellum gives a very strong appearance of rational design - which is what we would expect if it was indeed designed by a rational agent(s). Keep in mind the point of my discussion on the bacterial flagellum. That would help a lot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 11:16 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by subbie, posted 02-17-2012 9:57 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 206 of 219 (653075)
02-17-2012 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by hooah212002
02-17-2012 11:44 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
quote:
No. Any designer who was half intelligent wouldn't make his prime candidate prone to genetic disease that was passed on from mother to child.

In a previous response to you, I provided reasons why no matter how you design the genetic code, genetic diseases will still result. It's a problem that is the result of the very fabric of the way life works: proteins are the products of genes and are essential to the existence of all life on earth; proteins fold into distinct 3D shapes; these shapes (among other factors) are what determine the protein's function; some proteins, by the nature of their function, are tightly constrained in their sequence identity - thus, any radical mutation would result in the loss of the protein's function; loss of the protein's function results in disease. There's no way to get around this problem, no matter how you designed the genetic code. I'm sure all the biologists in this forum can confirm this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by hooah212002, posted 02-17-2012 11:44 AM hooah212002 has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 207 of 219 (653082)
02-17-2012 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 8:48 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
And you STILL aren't giving criteria for identifying design.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 8:48 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 208 of 219 (653083)
02-17-2012 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by New Cat's Eye
02-17-2012 12:28 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Catholic Scientist:

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but for the record, I will reply to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2012 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2991
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 209 of 219 (653147)
02-18-2012 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 8:35 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Genomicus writes:

Efficiency is indeed favored by Nature - but hodge-podge systems also result from non-teleological processes. So if you cite poor, sloppy design (e.g., the backward wiring of the vertebrate eye) as evidence against the telic hypothesis, then rational design would be a clue that would count in favor of the telic hypothesis. At least, that's what it seems to me.

Remember how I'm using the "illusion" of rational design. I'm not using it as a knock-out punch or as a strong line of evidence in favor of teleology. Instead, I'm using it as a clue that is one criterion of several that would strengthen our suspicion of design.

I understand that you're not making a strong claim at this point. But the problem with seeing the "hallmarks" or "illusion" of rational design as actual rational design is that the known natural designer (variation and selection) can produce that effect.

Take an example often pointed to because it illustrates very well that animals with necks evolved from animals without them: the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, which goes on a fifteen foot detour to get to a point just a few inches from where it started.

We see that example of irrational design alongside many examples of design in a giraffe that could be said to have the hallmarks of reason. Other nerves take routes from the brain to body parts that make perfect sense, and muscles that didn't exist in the neck-less fish ancestor seem very well designed and placed for their functions. So while the bizarre design of some features like the R. L. nerve tell us that the organism was "designed" with the constraints under which Darwinian evolution must operate, the apparently rational stuff alongside the bizarre shows us that a non-telic design process can also easily achieve effects that some describe as the illusion of intelligent design.

Genomicicus writes:

Further, at the level of molecular machines, it's a bit hard to see how Nature could produce novel multi-part molecular machines that also display properties of rational design. For example, out of all the possible ways to construct a motility organelle, the vast majority will seem hodge-podge and jury-rigged. Yet the bacterial flagellum is not hodge-podge. It's structure gives a very strong appearance of rational design. Thus, given that there are far more ways to build jury-rigged, sloppy, hodge-podge biological machines than there are ways to build biological machines that appear to be structurally rationally designed, we must wonder why Nature happened to land on so many of the latter class of biological machines. I find it interesting that, for example, in TalkOrigins articles like "Evidence of Jury-Rigged Design," none of the biological features they list are molecular machines. It seems that the core architecture of life - the molecular machines - have a very strong illusion of rational design. And I find that suspicious.

Perhaps you ought to consider the numbers and rapid reproduction speeds of single cells. Take E. Coli, for example.

From memory, there's an estimated 10^20 of them in the wild at any one moment, and I think they go through about 2,000 generations per. year. It doesn't surprise me at all that such an organism could refine a "machine" to the impressive level of its flagellum by mutation and selection.

Genomicus writes:

Thanks - I'll post a front-loading thread as soon as possible.

I'll look forward to it, especially to seeing what predictions the theory might make that either differ from Darwinian predictions or couldn't be explained by Darwinian processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 8:35 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 210 of 219 (653195)
02-19-2012 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by New Cat's Eye
02-17-2012 12:28 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
quote:
The problem is that displaying the properties of rational design doesn't lead us to any conclusion. Things that aren't designed can look designed. Things that are designed can look like they weren't.

"Looking desinged" doesn't help us in distingiushing design.


Quite true. The appearance of rational design does not help us in distinguishing design in a clear-cut manner. But it aids in assessing the degree of our suspicion of design. It is a clue. For example, if the structure of the flagellum was poorly designed and hodge-podge, wouldn't that be a popular argument against the idea that the flagellum was designed? But it is not hodge-podge, so it is one clue in favor of viewing it as designed.

Poor design is evidence against the thesis of a rational designer, is it not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2012 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Panda, posted 02-19-2012 6:08 AM Genomicus has responded
 Message 219 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-19-2012 3:18 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017