What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

Irreducible complexity is discussed in the litterature, but it is not named this way. For example:

quote:

---

A major enigma in evolutionary biology is that
new forms or functions often require the concerted
efforts of several independent genetic changes. It is
unclear how such changes might accumulate when
they are likely to be deleterious individually and be
lost by selective pressure

---

Koch, A.L., Enzyme evolution: I. The importance of untranslatable
intermediates, Genetics 72:297—316, 1972.This is clearly a description of irreducible complexity before it was named by Behe. The proposed explanations come down to a watered-down version of the hopeful monster, where genes are rendered invisible to natural selection for some time, mutations accumulate, and then reappear all at once and are acted upon by natural selection all at once. It becomes a matter of chance if some good combination of mutations happened during that time.In fact, it is these alternative mechanism of the ''hopeful monster' type that Behe adresses in his recent book 'the edge of evolution' (which I did not read)

I myself am not a native speaker of english, and yet I put a great deal of effort to avoid spelling and grammar errors, and incoherent phrases. When I put this much time in my posts, I expect to have replies in which people have done the same.

This is not a coherent logical argument, as the conclusion does not followfrom the premises. Once again, that conclusion would not follow from the premises. (fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, maybe ?) I have done so here Message 149.I would suggest you work into understanding how syllogisms work before continuing in this vein.

Irrelevant. You cannot ask him to prove a universal negative. It is the same as if I asked you evidence if you claimed ''supernatural creation is impossible''.Likewise, if you disagree with the statement ''life cannot arise through natural processes'' you are the one who has to provide evidence that it can.In the same way, if havoc claims life was intelligently designed, he has to provide evidence for it. All I'm saying is that, if anything, the fact life is only found on earth can only be seen as evidence against life arising naturally. In no circumstances can this be taken as evidence that it can.Obviously, as you said, we haven't really searched a whole lot of places for this to actually have weight right now. I think that's the basic idea behind the fallacy of composition.In fact, my biology textbook when I was in Cegep would consistently emphasize that a biological system was more then it's individual components.

See previous reply to Taq for clarifications If I speak for myself yes it would. I probably would not feel that it is conclusive evidence, but it would certainly be evidence for a naturalistic origin of life over any ad hoc explanation I could come up with as a christian. My biology textbook disagrees with me, life as an emergent property of biological systems is probably the one thing it puts the most emphasize on, at least in the first few chapters. DO you agree that saying ''biology is simply chemistry'' is a fallacy of ocmposition ? Seems like a textbook example to me. I guess M. Clarke is entitled to his opinion, but logic has little to do with personnal opinions. The reality is that havoc is entitled to claim ''life cannot arise naturally'', even if it is unjustified, and that you are the one who has to provide counter-evidence to this assertion.

Well I'm not the one who brought this up. All I am saying is that, if anything, observed lack of extraterrestial life is evidence against the existence of a naturalistic mechanism to get life. But of course, and I'll repeat myself, I totally agree we haven't searched enough for this to hold any weight You can't really apply this ''test'' (I wouldn't have chosen that word but oh well) to a supernatural designer, unless you are willing to embark on the theology of what a designer would or would not do. Seeing you speak in absolutes, I assume you are very near 100% sure that we will eventually find extraterrestial life. Seems like a faith-based statement, however. You need more then physics to explain DNA, RNA and life. You also need information theory. I also currently study physics at university, and I understand what you mean, but you are neglecting the information aspect that life contains, and this is what seperates it from simply being ''special chemistry''.The chemical interactions between the molecules of a DNA strand tells us nothing about the information it contains, because it does not depend on the interactions but in the order of those molecules, and this must be viewed from the POV of information theory, not chemistry.This is why it is the fallacy of composition to attribute to life only the characteristics that it's individual components hold. ''Pigs can fly'' isn't a universal negative.

This is a fallacious reasoning once again. You cannot assert natural processes causes a particular thing just because we have observed natural processes in general.Think about it, suppose I turned lead into gold and you told me I did so via a natural mean. But when I asked why you think this is so, you answered ''because I have observed natural processes''. This would clearly be illogical, just because you saw an appl fall to the ground, or an electric current create a magnetic field, or any other natural process it does not mean anything concerning turning lead into gold. You actually need to have at least a plausible naturalistic mechanism, and/or observed revelant natural processes. I'll be honest jar, you have brought very little to this discussion appart from repeating useless things such as this ad nauseam ...

Hi Dr.A, There are a couple of crucial points that you are omitting:First, my example wasn't about an illusion trick. It was about a real observed phenomenon, lead really turning into gold. Just as none-life really turning into life, not just some illusion of it.Second, even within your trick illusion example, you are forgetting that to support the claim 'it was done by a natural process' I have relevant observation of natural processes, ie experience of previous illusion tricks. (This is why I had bolded 'relevant', apparently you missed it)But now imagine someone with no previous relevant observations, like a little kid who sees his first magic trick. From his point of view, the fact that he has seen 'natural processes' before is irrelevant, none of them correlate ot this.This is why I'm saying claiming a naturalistic origin of any phenomenon cannot simply be supported by the fact you know natural processes exist in general. As I said, you have to have relevant obeservations and/or a possible natural mechanism.When you think about it, this is all logical. When someone claims Jesus's ''ressurection'' had a natural cause, he isn't thinking ''because I have seen an apple fall to the ground'' but rather ''Because I know of certain natural plants that could produce this effect, or that I know that this could possibly have been a trick, etc.''.

Funny because I'm under the impression that you are the one quote mining me ...read what I wrote right under the Koch quote:

quote:

---

... The proposed explanations come down to a watered-down version of the hopeful monster, where genes are rendered invisible to natural selection for some time, mutations accumulate, and then reappear all at once and are acted upon by natural selection all at once. It becomes a matter of chance if some good combination of mutations happened during that time.
  —slevesque

---

I agree that this is a layman's interpretation of a lot of technical terms, but I certainly never hid that Koch proposed a mechanism how to explain it. ''IC is an argument from ignorance'' is an oft-repeated strawman that I have seen so many times I couldn't count. Those who say this either: misunderstand the IC argument, or willfully misrepresent it.The argument is proposing an accepted mechanism for IC systems: intelligent design. We have observed designers and engineers make IC systems fro mas long as we can remember, we know that intelligence can produce IC systems.Conversely, the argument says that there are no know natural processes that can produce IC systems. It never states that such a process won't ultimately be discovered, but those who claim one exists have to make a case for it.So the argument is actually an inference to the best possible explanation. But the quote I provided isn't just some random ''something we don't know yet'' in science. You are clearly undervaluing it. It is a clear description of IC systems.And all the naturalistic propositions to explain it all come down to the same thing: making multiple steps at a time. It is my contention that this could be deduced logically.What characteristics makes an intelligent capable of producing an IC systems ? It is, as I said earlier, it's capacity to plan ahead, foresight. It can plan ahead that if you put all these pieces together in a specific way, you will get a useful outcome.But as I said, nature (sorry for the reification) does not have this capacity. It deals only with the now, it cannot even learn from the past. So if each step towards any system is detrimental (as is the case with a IC system), it can't be done steo by step. The only logical option is therefore that, if it can do it, it will be by doing multiple steps at a time.This reasoning is confirmed by the multiple proposed mechanism that Woodmorappe cites: they all boil down to hoping that multiple mutations (which are the steps in a biological setting) accumulate neutraly, and then all appear at once and hope that they produce a useful system.

Hi fizz57, First time poster ? Welcome I am doing bidisciplinary mathematics and physics, so hopefully I'll have some courses on the math side that touches on this since you are right I find it very interesting. I agree there is nothing mystical about information, however I think there is a distinction to be made between what you are describing and the cas of DNA. The difference I see is that the information you are talking about is directly related to how it physically interacts with something else. For example, a protein's interaction with a receptor, or any other molecule, is what gives it any information.However, the case seems to be different with DNA. The information in DNA does not come from any interaction it has, but from an established code which we have all seen: Now, how this code was established is the crux of the matter. There seems to be no physical, chemical reason that this code should be what it is. It just is, and it is the sole thing that gives DNa any information value.Can you see that there seems to be a very real difference between what we could call 'physical information' and 'coded information' ?

But I didn't quote Woodmorappe, I just used the same Koch quote he used.And besides, I agree that I don't personnally like him as a creationist, but your whole post is just a big ad hominem, even if it is/were true. His claims still can be evaluated on their own merits.

I can admit that I should have posted his explanation in retrospect. However, I never left anyone wit hthe impression he didn't have an answer, because I explicitly stated it. You have advanced this multiple times already, and the refutation I posted earlier still stands, but I'll approach it from a different angle and hopefully it will get through to you.What characteristics of humans make them able to construct IC systems ? Is it the fact that they are a biped mammal ? Or is it their intelligence ? Or is it something else ?If it is there intelligence, then the argument is perfectly valid. I wrote the foundations of the reasoning right under what you quoted. No I have not, but that's not the point. It is that intelligent beings foresight makes them able to construct IC systems.Other then through foresight, random luck is the only other way to produce an IC system. It requires individually detrimental mutations, but collectively beneficial mutations. So these mutations must come about all at once, or at least appear to NS all at once. This is the basis of what Koch is talking about.

You're missing the point. The code isn't descriptive of the interactions; GAA isn't any more physically attracted to Glutamic acid then CAC. Nor is Phenylalaline more attracted to UUU then Leucine.There is no physical basis for the code, the code is simply descriptive of 'how it is', with no other reason for it.

Seems my reading comprehension was off that time. I thought the quote was from Koch, but it wasn't and didn't understand that you were telling me it wasn't.(Still, all I said is still valid if you replace 'Koch' with 'True and Lindquist'. This is why you clearly misunderstand irreducible complexity.IC has a clear definition that does not involve design in any way. It certainly isn't defined as ''any system that couldn't have happened naturally and therefore must be designed''.If you found a genuine natural mechanism to produce a particular IC system, it wouldn't be redefined as not being IC after all, it would simply mean that you would have a natural mechanism that could produce IC systems.Once again IC has a specific definition, and the IDers use it as evidence for design because it happens to be that the only currently known way to produce such a system is through design. This also shows the clear strawman of saying the ID arguments are just ''it looks designed so it must be designed''.

The information that DNA contains comes from the Code, and the code is an arbitrary convention with no physical basis for why it should be this one and not that one.Think of it in a hypothetical primordial soup, was there any physical reason that this code was established and not another ? (If you can find a conclusive answer to this question be ready to receive your Nobel)It's just like ink on paper. Sure there are physical itneractions between the ink and the paper, and this is why the molecules stay there etc. But the disposition of the molecules were arbitrary, and if a given disposition (a letter) carries any more information then another (a scribble) is strictly because we have all established an arbitrary code in which we decide that such a pattern means such and such, and that other pattern means nothing. Coded information only exists if their is a semantic aspect to it, without any code it has no information at all.It is the same thing with DNA. Somewhere along the line from none-life to life, a code was established either via randomness, via an as-of-yet-unknown natural process, or via an intelligent being. But it wasn't because of any particular physical interaction.With the proteins it seems to be different. It has information strictly because 'the key physically fits the hole', and this information comes from a real physical basis.