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

OK, here it is. What difference does it make at what organism, population of organisms or populations of organisms, life (as we today classify it) started and evolution began?I get to go first Looking at this evolution v Creation (and to a lesser extent ID) debate I see one of the main differences is the starting point for evolution. Also it is not whether or not evolution, as in the change in allele frequency over time, occurs or not, but to what extent can an organism, a population of organisms or populations of organisms evolve.That said, does knowing something's origins, aid in any way, someone's ability to understand its function, deduce its (a) purpose and conduct proper maintenance on it?Absolutely NOT. All that is accomplished by searching for that 'thing's' origins is to satisfy a curiousity. Human's have a 'need-to-know' complex, which isn't a bad thing but it isn't always a good thing. Sometimes that complex just gets in the way, clouds the real issues, cause some interesting debates and needlessly put peoples against each other.So which is more important? Knowing something's origins? Or knowing how it functions so you may attempt to maintain it (as required)? I'll go with the latter. (And I do understand it could be more better to have both) And if forced to choose that is where I would pour my resources- function & maintenance.What would change in our way of maintaining life if it were proven that we are here by Divine intervention (i.e. Common Creator) pretty much like the Bible says? Ya know, bacteria will always be bacteria, have always been bacteria and will continue to be bacteria. Or that life on Earth is a direct result of alien (back then, at least at first, they would have been ) seeding and colonization. (both of these scenarios would put the current ToE in the crapper)I'll tell you what I think would change- we would know an organism (or population if you prefer) was confined. In knowing that I believe we could better figure out how bacteria and viruses evolve and therefore be more able to counteract that ability. How so? Predictability will be increased due to the limit we would have knowledge of. Computer simulations could be made showing all possible viable mutations (and combinations of mutations) an organism could handle and what mutation (combination) caused what effect. (I wonder if anyone has done that with amino acid sequences. Load one in a computer, allow it point mutations and see when it breaks down) And then how to alter that effect if it is detrimental. (But that will only work if there is a limit and we know what it is.)------------------
John Paul

To further the point, is it also necessary to know something about the designer in order to understand his/ her design? True I know the guy who designed the CPU that is used in the system I debug/ analyze. But even if I didn't I would still be able to debug it and it would not affect my fault analysis. Therfore I conclude it is not? a necessary component to know the designer in order to determine the function and therefore hopefully maintain what it is that he/ she designed.Also it is not necessary to know the designer to deduce that something is designed. Stonehenge is a classic case. We don't know who or what 'designed' Stonehenge but we have deduced that it is in fact designed.Although it might help to know the designer in order to deduce a purpose for that design, it is not necessary. However without input from the designer we may deduce a purpose but it may not be the one that was intended.------------------
John Paul

If it doesn't make a difference then why are evolutionists so adamant about keeping ID and the Creation model out of public schools (in the USA)?------------------
John Paul

So why are we having this debate if all that matters is functionality and maintenance which are unaffected by the starting point of evolution?Seems to me searching for the (alleged) starting point is a waste of time and resources that could be better used figuring out the functionality and maintenance. Sure it would be great to satisfy our curiosity but if the materialistic naturalism PoV is not indicative of reality, what good is it? (yes the same can be said of any PoV)------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, does knowing something's origins, aid in any way, someone's ability to understand its function, deduce its (a) purpose and conduct proper maintenance on it?
Absolutely NOT.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Actually, knowing the origin of an organism is quite important to understanding it's function.John Paul:
No, not at all. All we need to do is study that organism now to gain an understanding of its function and the function of its components.schraf:
For example,humans and other primates are very closely related, therefore we can conduct medical tests upon our evolutionary relatives and be quite confident that the results will apply to humans.John Paul:
But closely related how? Common Creator or common descent? And why would it matter?schraf:
Understanding function is knitted together with understanding origins in many cases. The more one understands function, the more one sees the obvious interrelatedness of organisms. There's no getting around it.John Paul:
Considering we don't know squat about the origins of life and yet appear to understand at least some of life's functions, that is demonstratably incorrect. And again is the 'obvious interrelatedness of organisms' due to a Common Creator or common descent? That's like saying I must not be able to debug computer systems unless I knew of ENIAC.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All that is accomplished by searching for that 'thing's' origins is to satisfy a curiousity. Human's have a 'need-to-know' complex, which isn't a bad thing but it isn't always a good thing. Sometimes that complex just gets in the way, clouds the real issues, cause some interesting debates and needlessly put peoples against each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scraf:
There is no debate within the legitimate, professional scientific community about the fact of evolution. (There is, however, debate about the *mechanism* of exactly how evolution occurs.)John Paul:
Did you read my original post or not? What part of
"Looking at this evolution v Creation (and to a lesser extent ID) debate I see one of the main differences is the starting point for evolution. Also it is not whether or not evolution, as in the change in allele frequency over time, occurs or not, but to what extent can an organism, a population of organisms or populations of organisms evolve."
don't you understand?schraf:
The only people who have a problem with the ToE do so due to religious reasons.John Paul:
That would be a lie. I have a problem due to the lack of compelling evidence.schraf:
Are you saying that, because a certain small minority of Protestant Christian fundamentalists object to the ToE, we shouldn't persue the study of the origin of species any longer?John Paul:
That's another lie. I am a Muslim and many of my Catholic friends (and wife) are also Creationists. Besides it appears that Creationists are hardly a minority. That is if you believe Gallup.schraf:
Why should this minority have any influence over the ideas Biologists persue?John Paul:
Truth be told it is the people who believe God had nothing to do with it that are very much the minority.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya know, bacteria will always be bacteria, have always been bacteria and will continue to be bacteria.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
I wonder if you know that you are stating things rather too simply when you say the above.John Paul:
OK then show me (don't assume) that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. Hasn't happened yet even after millions (or billions) of generations.schraf:
Here is why: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html"The common ancestor of all life probably used RNA as its genetic material. This ancestor gave rise to three major lineages of life. These are: the prokaryotes ("ordinary" bacteria), archaebacteria (thermophilic, methanogenic and halophilic bacteria) and eukaryotes. Eukaryotes include protists (single celled organisms like amoebas and diatoms and a few multicellular forms such as kelp), fungi (including mushrooms and yeast), plants and animals. Eukaryotes and archaebacteria are the two most closely related of the three. The process of translation (making protein from the instructions on a messenger RNA template) is similar in these lineages, but the organization of the genome and transcription (making messenger RNA from a DNA template) is very different in prokaryotes than in eukaryotes and archaebacteria. Scientists interpret this to mean that the common ancestor was RNA based; it gave rise to two lineages that independently formed a DNA genome and hence independently evolved mechanisms to transcribe DNA into RNA.The first cells must have been anaerobic because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. In addition, they were probably thermophilic ("heat-loving") and fermentative. Rocks as old as 3.5 billion years old have yielded prokaryotic fossils. Specifically, some rocks from Australia called the Warrawoona series give evidence of bacterial communities organized into structures called stromatolites. Fossils like these have subsequently been found all over the world. These mats of bacteria still form today in a few locales (for example, Shark Bay Australia). Bacteria are the only life forms found in the rocks for
a long, long time --eukaryotes (protists) appear about 1.5 billion years ago and fungi-like things appear about 900 million years ago (0.9 billion years ago)."John Paul:
Thanks. Just what I need, another 'just-so' story. If there were no oxygen in the early atmosphere (something that has no supporting evidence) UV would kill anything that tried to live. Even in the most favorable experiments all we have 'created' is some amino acids and quite a bit of toxic muck.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll tell you what I think would change- we would know an organism (or population if you prefer) was confined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Why and how would we know this, particularly since we have observed no mechanism which limits the occurence of evolution?John Paul:
Then explain why bacteria always remain bacteria and a virus always remains a virus? Both even after billions of generations?schraf:
Remember, back in science's early years, religious folks DID put these kinds of arbitrary limits into the mix, and look where it got us; Scientists imprisioned and prosecuted for going against Church doctrine. Scientific discovery slowed down by people looking for evidence in nature of Biblical events instead of looking at nature FIRST, then trying to figure out what happened without the constant filter of a religious book.John Paul:
I guess you are talking about Creationists like Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Mendell, Pascal et al. who were so blinded by Scripture thay made no contributions to science. LOL!------------------
John Paul

To further this point- sure we can 'guess' at something's origins but it is not required to understand its function. Cases in point- vision, the blood clotting cascade, reproduction and the bacterial flagellum.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
I guess you are talking about Creationists like Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Mendell, Pascal et al. who were so blinded by Scripture they made no contributions to science. LOL!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Strange you mentioned Newton and Kepler but not Copernicus and Galileo could that be because of the treatment these got at the hands of the church?John Paul:
Do you know what et al. means? As if I have time to list all the Creationists who helped with the advance of science. Did you know that Galileo was opposed by the Aristotelians at the universities? It was their influence that did in Galileo & Copernicus.joz:
Schraf was saying that If the church is involved it tends to repress any findings it doesnt like...John Paul:
schraf can say whatever she wants to. It doesn't make it so.joz:
Not that religious people are incapable of good science... It does however require that any preconceptions (i.e. God made everything, there was a global flood etc) are not allowed to influence the study....John Paul:
That didn't stop the likes of Newton or Kepler (and I am sure countless others) who attributed what they observed to the Lord our God. Does your premise also apply to materialistic naturalism? Somehow I get the feeling it doesn't.------------------
John Paul

schalldampfer:
Kepler? I take it youve never been to this interesting site .John Paul:
Please link to a specific site on that page where it discusses Kepler.schalldampfer:
Why is knowing something origins a necessity in understanding functionality?Development tends to show this kind of thing. It allows us also to have a model for prediction of future changes. I can understand how it works now, but unless I understand how something worked then, I will not understand how to make something better.John Paul:
That is demonstatably false. You don't need to know how the car worked at the turn of the 20th century in order to make it better in the 21st. All you need is an understanding of how it works now in order to improve upon it. That is what drove me to engineering. I can't tell you the number of products I have 'improved' without knowing their origins.schalldampfer:
Oh, and the comment about alien seeding?That really doesn't throw ToE into the crapper, as you stated.John Paul:
OK I should have been more specific. My bad. If the alien seeding was done in such a way as to give rise to many different types (kinds) of organisms it would throw the common descent from one single population of unknown single-celled organisms in the crapper.schalldampfer:
So aliens seeded life at some point in the billion year ago range. How the hell does that destroy the whole changing and evolving of life from that point?John Paul:
Creationists (IDists also) do not question whether or not evolution occurs. See my opening post.schalldampfer:
It changes origin only--which is important only in undertanding how something works, and how it will work in the future.John Paul:
Funny we aren't sure how the blood clotting cascade originated but we understand it and know how to maintain it. Seeing that we can't predict what will be selected for at any point in time how can we know how it will function in the future? Nope, I can understand how something works without knowing its origins. Maybe I'm just special. ------------------
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...------------------
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...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

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

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

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]