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

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.

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]

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?

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.