A Time-Travel Thought Experiment

_{Gil Dodgen

September 17, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s 1859 and Charles Darwin has just discovered a modern computer, transported back in time to his era. He turns it on.

With a microscope he discovers a Core i7 920 CPU. Upon more investigation he discovers that it has approximately 781 million transistors.

The computer has a terabyte drive, with an operating system that was compiled from more than 50 million lines of intelligently designed computer code.

In my time-travel thought experiment, Darwin is transported into our contemporary era. Much to his amazement, he discovers that modern science has revealed that the simplest living cell is far more complex and sophisticated than the computer he discovered in 1859.

What would Darwin do?

Comments

Selection can only select that is available. It's a filter, it can preserve; It can not generate anything at all. Selection can not solve the problem of generation. All known natural processes are incapable to generate anything beyond the trivial. (Don't agree? Just try to give me one clear counter-example!) I've never observed designers at work without also observing non-trivial evolution in the designs they generate. Then testing them out in real life and continue work on the once that show the most promise. Evolution of design is clearly a feature of continued design over time. However, I've never observed non-trivial evolution without an designer generation them. Natural processes can't generate non-trivial evolution, only in the most trivial, strictly with in chance and necessity, but never resulting in any kind of non-trivial utility.AAAM_{September 25, 2011
September
09
Sep
25
25
2011
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Too many typos. Sorry.Petrushka_{September 20, 2011
September
09
Sep
20
20
2011
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

The problem is this: For your principle to work you need to assume that natural variation must be some kind of oracle which (intelligently) generates exactly the right kind of variations at the right time to be tested for their reproductive succes.
Evolution does have an oracle -- seletion. I demonstrably does not produce the right variations at the right time. Ninety-nine percent of all species known to have existed are extinct. Your're confusion evolution with some hypothetical system that has foresight.Petrushka_{September 20, 2011
September
09
Sep
20
20
2011
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Another of those funny things people tend to overlook when thinking about life is that if life has actually been designed by an intelligence then biological life is in fact an artificial artifact, there would be nothing natural about it. We humans would in fact be the prime evidence that artificial intelligence is posible. Something to ponder: Perhaps even the whole of our reality might have been created, perhaps it's not natural at all but just as artificial as we are. We keep using the world "natural" but maybe it does not mean what we think it means?AAAM_{September 20, 2011
September
09
Sep
20
20
2011
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

A hypotheses for you this think about: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." (David Able's The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness) This hypothesis is consistent with everything we currently know about reality; No refuting evidence has ever been observed. It might very well be taken as a law. But you are free to try to disprove it. The key to understanding the boundary is quite simple and yet most people just don't see it: While natural processes might (self) order matter, natural processes can not (self) organize matter. Self-ordering is not equivalent to self-organization. There is no evidence for any kind of self-organization. The only known source of organization (or any kind of non-trivial algorithmic utility) is from an intelligence that creates something that would not have existed otherwise, like a computer or a car or even a self-reproducing machine. The problem is this: For your principle to work you need to assume that natural variation must be some kind of oracle which (intelligently) generates exactly the right kind of variations at the right time to be tested for their reproductive succes. In actual observed reality we have however discovered that there are quite hard limits on what naturally occurring variation could generate, exactly fitting within the bounds that the hypotheses above would allow. Note that even with design one would expect to see evidence of evolution: We clearly see an evolution in the design of cars, computers, etc. Evidence of evolution does not disprove intelligent design, for that you need to show actual evidence of natural evolution; In fact disproving that intelligent design was the cause.AAAM_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

77, As you know, I was once Dawkins and Matzke, only significantly more obnoxious and prideful, if such a thing can even be imagined. But my interest in, and passion for, legitimate science eventually trumped all. In addition, I eventually came to realize what a pathetic, fallen, sinful, unworthy creature I am. The first realization led me to design. The second realization led me to Christianity.GilDodgen_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Yes, Darwin Day was our idea.ScottAndrews_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Have there been any new species produced in a test tube to date? I am amazed by the strength of belief on the part of evolutionists. It really is amazing.Eugene S_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

It is creationists and the IDists that keep on bringing up Darwin, trying to shame him as a false god. The rest of us recognize the man's achievements as well as his errors. He is not a "master" to anyone of any sort. Darwin is easy for you to pick on because you know as well as the rest of us that he wasn't perfect. The best you can do is attack 150 year old science. Why don't you stay focused on the present?thud_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

That's fine Elizabeth. Unfortunately for you you don't have any evidence that demonstrates we are wrong...Joseph_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Ha! As if an atheistic evolutionist has any choice about adopting that 'view'.Chris Doyle_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Darwin’s pangenesis theory shows clearly that any complexity he attributed to the cell he viewed as reducible. And that’s just the opposite of what modern biology is discovering.
Would that include the flagellum, for which there are dozens of examples of motile and non-motile bacteria having subsets of the genes used by the iconic e.coli? I'm kind of curious what the current definition of irreducible is.Petrushka_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

In my view you are both wrong.Elizabeth Liddle_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

The triumph of the absolute a priori, no matter how counter-~~intuitive~~ [to the evidence and otherwise known best causal explanations] . . .kairosfocus_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

And those mechanisms have never been observed to do what evolutionists require.Joseph_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

The best argument against design is the one Darwin actually used: that living things vary from individual, that variation is heritable, and that some variants more success in reproducing. Once you have that principle you have a research program and can work out the details. I haven't seen the ID research program. I haven't seen the list of research projects that would be perused if ID people weren't expelled. I've looked. I look at Bio-Complexity, and I've looked at half a dozen of its predecessors. One would think that the resources of the Discovery Institute could at least produce conceptual outlines of research projects that might produce positive evidence for ID. Physicists do this all the time, discussing hypothetical research for which funding is not available.Petrushka_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

They sure as heck are not arguing from the evidence...Joseph_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Why? On the contrary, it provides us with the mechanisms that Darwin lacked.Elizabeth Liddle_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

I don't see the point behind the question. Unless the assumption is that scientists are Arguing From Authority with regard to Darwinism, which is not the case.Elizabeth Liddle_{September 19, 2011
September
09
Sep
19
19
2011
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

In the same sense had the tools advanced to the point of revealing the inner workings of the cell, prior to Darwin's time, 'evolution' never would have been. The discovery of the microscopic world should have marked a scientific turning point and been the end of 'evolution'.butifnot_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

"And I don’t think he’d view the kind of complexity seen in the cell as an argument against his theory:" Of course he wouldn't. Any careful reading of The Origin will quickly reveal that Darwin's *main* argument (which continues to be the primary argument of evolutionary proponents today) is a purely philosophical/religious argument: namely, God wouldn't have done it this way. The facts are servant to the theory, not the other way around. If the man thought eyes, wings, hearts, lungs, whole body plans and structure could come about through blind natural processes, why should the complexities of the cell be any different?Eric Anderson_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Nick, give it a rest with your revisionist history, under which Darwin, His Holiness, was an unparalleled genius, as have been his disciples after him, and all falsehoods relating to biology have been propogated by those evil deniers. It's OK to admit that neither Darwin nor anyone of his era had the faintest idea about the detailed workings of the cell (shoot, we've barely scraped the surface), which is part of the reason their ideas have turned out to be so wildly wrong. Also, you provide a quote about the complexity of an organism and then try to apply it to the cell. Did you misread the quote you provided, or are you deliberately equivocating?Eric Anderson_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

Or perhaps this is more to your taste Gil; Programming of Life - Biological Computers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRooe6ehrPs&NR=1bornagain77_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Gil, I think you will be thoroughly impressed by this brand new video that is based on Don Johnson's 'Programming In Life'; The Animation is very good: Programming of Life http://programmingoflife.com/watch-the-video This short 8:00 minute clip is particularly interesting: Programming of Life - DNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GV1xI-DSQbornagain77_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

It was in the first edition (1868) here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28897/28897-h/28897-h.htm But at some point disappeared. Quite a few parts were drastically rewritten over time. For some reason I couldn't find an edition number or year of publication within the version you linked, but I see citations within that edition for things that were published in 1875.goodusername_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Nick, Get a grip and try to calm down. You're attempting to defend phlogiston theory after Lavoisier. The only reason you and your cohorts have been as successful as they have is that you and they have the power to destroy the lives and careers of those who challenge you, even when those challenges are based on perfectly rational and evidential grounds. Your priesthood is in decline, and will eventually collapse as a result of the transparent desperation of its arguments and evidence.GilDodgen_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Indeed. The irony is that for some, Darwin has become the new Aristotle, and the new Ptolemy. He substantially had it all figured out 150 years ago, and there is nothing left for us Medievals but to footnote what the Master has told us.Matteo_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

page sequence 419) Book: Darwin, C. R. 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray. 1st edition, first issue. Volume 2Petrushka_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Dr. Matzke, The crucial sentence which you cited wasn't written by Darwin, as far as I can tell. Here's the sentence:
We cannot fathom the marvellous complexity of an organic being; but on the hypothesis here advanced this complexity is much increased.
I don't know where you got this sentence from. Have a look here at this online edition of The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication Volume II and scroll down to Chapter 2.XXVII – Provisional Hypothesis of Pangenesis. You won't find it there. I think you may have been deceived by a popular online misquotation of Darwin - unless perhaps Darwin added those words in a later edition of his book. Even if the sentence should prove to be genuine, the critical question is this: is the complexity of the cell reducible or irreducible? Darwin's pangenesis theory shows clearly that any complexity he attributed to the cell he viewed as reducible. And that's just the opposite of what modern biology is discovering. See here: http://www.discovery.org/a/14791vjtorley_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Try this as a handy 101, and kindly provide a substantial -- not dismissive -- answer.kairosfocus_{September 18, 2011
September
09
Sep
18
18
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply