Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How does the actor act?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Although ID continues to gather supporters, it happens now and again that erstwhile ID supporters lose their enthusiasm and jump ship. One such former supporter is a very prominent European scientist. I met him first in 2004, when he was still attracted to ID. Now he is no longer. I asked him about this recently:

Question: If not ID, what then? The Darwinists are bankrupt. And the self-organizational theorists are hopelessly fuzzy. James Shapiro — he presupposes the very thing that needs to be explained, namely, the origin of systems that perform their own “natural genetic engineering.” Kirschner and Gerhardt are no better with their “facilitated variation” — whence the facilitation?

He responded:

Excellent question of course. So the search continues… [sic] As for ID, more fundamental work on the practicality of design detection is crucial — and your strength. But in the end, ID will only fly if a more concrete story can be told about the mechanism of design implementation, how the actor acts.

This objection has always seemed to me, at least in part, to miss the point, seeking to reduce an act of creative intelligence to a mechanism (on the order of reducing consciousness to computation). And yet, the question of how design gets implemented in natural history does seem to be critical to understanding ID.

Thoughts?

Comments
"The mechanism is irrelevant." HI TRoutMac I would suggest that in both of your productions (computer based and Neolithic), you are using what I call "Teleological Targeted Newtonian Vector Clusters" to get the job done. In the computer-based model, a lot of helpful pre-targeting has been done by others, but the TTNVC fundamentals are still the same. Significant physical (energetic) typing and mouse-ing was required. Dave Scott, "Newton discovered (gravity) through its effects but we still don’t know the mechanism behind it." Hi Dave, and thanks for inviting me. While it is true that Newton did important work in science without any knowledge as to mechanism (and so can ID), this doesn't stop us from trying to figure out what these mechanisms might be. WRT gravity, I am seeing a destructive interference mechanism between two cosmological targeted vector groups. These two vector groups fall short of perfect orthogonality (mathematical X/Y axis "independence") and subsequently produce gravity. The Targeted Newtonian Vector Cluster for localization (mass) and the Targeted N-Vector Cluster for a de-localized background (spacetime) attain less-than-perfect orthogonality due to the pull of the singular proto-fabric from which they are both derived/projected. Co-interference therefore is distorting the spacetime-mass complex resulting in gravitational force and its characteristics. --- Also, by using Newtonian linear, vectors as primary (instead of Einstein curvature as primary) the topological conflict at the core of the Quantum Gravity problem is removed. (The quantum wavefunction can be described as a unitary state *vector*). Moreover, as horrible as this sounds to the non-teleologically, this model also solves (by teleological constraint) the problem of Dirac's runaway (unconstrained) solutions in classical physics. Ultimately the universe, as I see it, is the product of a fundamental, experience-seeking proto-vector or "God." Through the production and projection of more and more complex, subtle patterns/structures "All That Is" or "God" accrues more and more complex, subtle and vivid experiences. Production/projection work in "physical" systems at our level requires the use of targeted vector clusters. When devout materialists ask for mechanisms they are of course asking for, nay demanding, material-only mechanisms and not psycho-physical (unified mind/matter mind/body) mechanisms, such as TTNVCs. Materialist "explanations" that ignore teleology and targeting (fine tuning) in a finely tuned universe, will ultimately satisfy no-one and I am convinced we must press on.William Brookfield
October 31, 2007
October
10
Oct
31
31
2007
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Based on what I see in the responses above, I think my suspicions are correct. ID needs more work on the internal links of it's argumentation. Specifically, a bridge between Dr. Behe's argumentation and the informatics approach supplied by Dr. Dembski is critical. In dealing with mechanisms: Mechanisms are nice, but are a faulty concept to look for when considering ID. Think about it, if one is considering a non-natural (if only as a possible option even) being to be an effector in the universe-at the quantum level or otherwise-the mechanism through which this occurs necessarily lies, if only in part, outside the observable universe. ID looks to the final product to say that it is necessarily designed, while admitting that the perturbations that brought this about may never be reproducible. Design is a characteristic, not a process. The value of mechanisms then lie in the ability to show that something might have been derived by a natural process. So, in fact, NOT having a mechanism is quite possibly a better proof of ID in some cases! Scientists still remain skeptical however I think in part because they do look to mechanism, but also because they fail to see the connection between the explanitory filter and the biology. Stephen Meyer's work regarding DNA and the information therein is a start to the work that needs to be done. In essence, the relationship between information as a concept and information as found in biology needs to be more rigorously explored, along with its exposure to the explanitory filter. Behe's arguments are founded in the biology he investigates day to day. The arguments he presents are mired in mechanisms, or the lack thereof. What Behe's arguments fail to do are make the connection between the information embedded in the protein complexes and biochemical pathways and the irreducible complexity argument. ID's strength is in Information Theory (and in fact is based upon it). Until the battle begins to be fought in the arena of information theory-in accordance to the biology-then requests for mechanisms will still remain, and ID will still be pushed away.xveinx
October 28, 2007
October
10
Oct
28
28
2007
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
It seems to me that the search for the mechanism of ID--the methods by which design is implemented--depends on one's own characterization of the designer(s). There are those, for example, who take a strictly mechanistic tack, such as some form of panspermia, and for those folks a mechanism might be ultimately discernible on a purely local level. I say "local level" because it's inevitable that with such an hypothesis, the problem of infinite regression looms large. On the other hand, for a Christian such as me, there is recognition of the fact that comprehension of miraculous events (mechanisms) is both beyond our grasp and antithetical to even consider. The best we can do to keep ID on a purely scientific level is use the process of elimination--that is to say, methodically eliminate possible naturalistic causes through active engagement in research. Such a strategy may or may not be fruitful, but due to our own human limitations it's all we have to work with, and we shouldn't be put off by challenges from Darwinists to suddenly evince a mechanism. I think we also need to be careful about confusing design and the mechanisms invoked to implement it; it's not particularly helpful to claim that design is the mechanism, as it's trivially simple to demonstrate the difference.Mickey Bitsko
October 27, 2007
October
10
Oct
27
27
2007
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
This seems appropriate to this topic: 'And they feared exceedingly, and said to one another, "Who can this be, that even the wind and the sea obey Him!" ' -Mark 4:41 'But He said to them, "Where is your faith?" And they were afraid, and marveled, saying to one another, "Who can this be? For He commands even the winds and water, and they obey Him!" ' -Luke 8:25bornagain77
October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
WJM: The ability to identify that design [so, agent action] has credibly happened, as you doubtless know, is a frequently met with and significant issue. A theory that provides tools for such identification relative to observable empirical data is therefore of material significance and use. In particular:
1] the identification that in observed phenomena, chance, mechanical necessity and agency are all possible causative/ explanatory options is important [and BTW exposes the worldview-level question-begging involved in so-called methodological naturalism] 2] The further identification that stituations dominated by contingency are materially shaped by chance or agency is also crucial. [Air + wood + heat = fire, by mechanical necessity. The content of a digital data string is by contrast contingent.] 3] The yet further identification that sufficiently complex situations [i.e of high enough contingency and with a sharply restricted set of functional configs relative to the overall space] exhaust the available probabilistic resources in say our observed cosmos, then allows us to credibly distinguish chance and agency. [For instance,this post has in it sufficient digital data that the best explanation is agent action not lucky noise. In ALL cases of FSCI that we directly observe the origination process, such CSI has its origin in agency. And given the relevant stat mech of such config spaces -- cf my always linked, Appendix A for details -- we have good reason for why that is so. That is we have a reason for distinguishing cause.] 4] Application of same to for instance the origin of the cellular nanotech-based information systems, and to the further increments in information to get to the body-plan level biodiversity we see, immediately implies that the [extended] NDT-style evolutionary materialist account of random variation and natural selection is incapable of explaining the observed data. Behe's recent work on P falciparium underscores the point empirically. In short, ID has already shown that something is very wrong with the dominant paradigm/ research programme in life science. 5] The recent rise in popularity of models that hinge on a quasi-infinite array of sub-cosmi with randomly distributed parameters and opportunities for such OOL and macro-evolution to happen by vastly extending the assumed probabilistic resources, is itself eloquent testimony to the force of the just noted. 6] Further to this, the fact that such models are in fact a naked resort to speculative metaphysics rather than empirically anchored scientific theorising, is telling. 7] Now, on OOL and macro-level biodiversity, inference to agent action is not the same as inference to an extracosmic agent; though obviously such an agent is possible. 8] On the origin of the observed cosmos, such an extracosmic agent is a viable worldview option, but not one as yet scientifically observed -- just as a quasi-infinite super-cosmos is not empirically observed. 9] Thus, at this philosophical, metaphysical (i.e. beyond scientific) level, Evolutionary Materialism and Design stand on the same footing as paradigm core postulates, and can be compared across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. IMHCO, already at the stager of accounting for origin of a trustworthy mind that is needed to even think such evolutionary materialist thoughts, the materialist option is incoherent and self-refuting.
So, even before we look at issues of mechanism, design thinking is relevant and powerful, as well as being empirically well-anchored. Then also, agency brings to bear a great mystery: mind in action. We presently have no concept of how mind affects matter to trigger mechanical cause-effect chains, but from our own conscious lives, we are highly confident that it does so. As soon as you type out your own response to this comment, you instantiate this. So, mind acting on matter is a basic empirical fact, even though we have no scientific theory of how precisely that happens -- and even though it cuts clean across the Evo Mat paradigm. (That is, Evo Mat is contra-empirical, i.e factually inadequate. Grossly so.) To insist that ID "must" solve this problem that if anything counts against ALL current candidate explanations [as all such explanations have a gap here], before it can be seen as a credible identification of the occurrence of design in cases of particular interest, seems to me to be selective hyper-skepticism. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
The nature of claiming design in nature by an intelligence which precedes all physical forms (if we accept that all physical forms are the product of said designer) leaves us the conclusion that however designs are implemented within "nature" that they had to have been done originally without the aid of a physical form. Therefore we are dealing with an intelligence which wields abilities which we cannot understand because all processes which we as conscious intelligent entities endeavor with are done through the physical forms we are living within. The nature of the designer is that he/she/ doesn't need a physical form to control the elements to the degree needed to build bodies. Since we have no prior experience of such an ability therefore we are at a loss at trying to explain how it has been done.mentok
October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
I think that for ID to be a meaningful scientific theory, it has to successfully describe something. I'm not a geneticist or a biologist, but I would think that, if one assumes that A got to Z by design rather than by non-design, there would be an entirely different set of occurrences and perhaps a different way of investigating it. This might be a stupid question, but for example, wouldn't one way to do this be to predict cross-species, family, genus, or domain bacterial (or other carrying agent) transfers of information to compliment hereditary information leading to a successful innovation? I'm not saying that an NDE can't claim it was a "natural" pathway, I'm just saying that if a designer is designing things, and moved those materials through physical pathways to accomplish a goal, couldn't a theory be developed that would describe and predict this process, at least in general? I read in another thread where bacteria in labs haven't been observed to evolve in any meaningful way; couldn't this be beause the sanitary aspect of the lab is preventing the designer from outsourcing materials and design plans in order to effect meaningful changes? I mean, do we think that if we had a plane, we could build a space ship from the same parts? Don't we need information and parts from outside that particular thing to make something else? That might not be a particularly relevant idea, but something along the lines of a predictive model describing the pathways predicted by assumption of design needs to be introduced, IMO. Otherwise, it's a nice explanation, but what does it offer other than philosophical satisfaction?William J. Murray
October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Dave Scot, This site is of interest to the topic: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000598/index.html Of special note; Time is running out “One livestock breed a month has become extinct over the past seven years, and time is running out for one-fifth of the world’s breeds of cattle, goats, pigs, horses and poultry,” says Müller. “This report, the first-ever global overview of livestock biodiversity and of the capacity within countries to manage their animal genetic resources, is a wake-up call to the world.” And this may only be a partial picture of the genetic erosion taking place, according to the report, as breed inventories are inadequate in many parts of the world. Moreover, among many of the most widely used high-output breeds of cattle, within-breed genetic diversity is being undermined by the use of a few highly popular sires for breeding. “Effective management of animal genetic diversity is essential to global food security, sustainable development and the livelihoods of millions of people,” says Irene Hoffmann, Chief of FAO's Animal Production Service. “While sometimes less productive, many breeds at risk of extinction have unique characteristics, such as disease resistance or tolerance to climatic extremes, which future generations may need to draw on to cope with challenges such as climate change, emerging animal diseases and rising demand for specific livestock products,” Hoffmann adds. Notice that loss of genetic diversity from parent species is only remedied through reintroduction of information from a species closer to the parent species... Of course Evolutionists dream, and wave their magic wand, postulating that a selection event (adaptation) will produce a new better species SOMETIMES,,,yet every selection event (adaptation) will in fact be found to lower genetic diversity ...Genetic information will never be found to rise above the level that is found in a parent species, every sub-speciation event will always be found to lose information from parent species with never a gain of information being observed and recorded.,,,thus conforming to the foundational principle of genetic entropy.... The burden of proof is truly on evolutionists to conclusively prove information is being created since they maintain foundation principles of science are being violated constantly!!! Naturalists do not seem to notice that their theory of evolution expects and even demands there should be clear evidence for a genetically and morphologically unique species on earth somewhere since man first suddenly appeared on earth. Indeed there should be many such unambiguous examples that they could produce. "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) ... every decade." Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)bornagain77
October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Tim: You have just summed the core of the matter up excellently, and with a deft application of knowledge of Greek too:
“How does the actor act?” How does an actor act? Actors act according to a script if the actor in question is THAT type of actor. But an actor in the sense of one who simply “moves” or “puts into action” is another beast entirely. That person is allowed innovation, creativity, invention, and selection — choosing one thing over another according to his own arbitration. Such selection, of course, must be imbued with intelligence and freedom. Let’s see, se-LEC-tion . .. inte-LECt . . . lec . . . lego . . . . logos.
Thus, we see that the core issue is that minds/agents/intelligences CHOOSE towards purposes of their own, then act into the world based on choice. Such choices are not merely random or chance-driven, nor are they inevitable products of mechanical necessity: contingency plus intent. That is our core conscious experience, and it is our central observation. Applying to the ID question, we see massive contingency and vastly isolated islands and archipelagos of functionality, whether we look at the fine-tuned life-habitable cosmos, or the requisites of a habitable planet that fosters intellectual and scientifically inquisitive life, or the requisites for cell based DNA-RNA-enzyme-ribosome nanotech life. Such beyond-astronomically isolated islands of functionality simply cannot plausibly be accessed by chance and lucky noise in the ambit of our observed cosmos. But, in our routine observation [even this post is an illustration] they are routinely produced by agents. Thus, we see the power of the explanatory filter to detect agency at work! Thus, too we see why materialists are increasingly resorting tot he speculative metaphysics of an infinite cosmos as a whole, with randomly distributed sub-cosmi, to try to escape the force of that isolation of functionality. But not only is this a resort to speculative metaphysics without a shred of the vaunted empirical data, but there is a far simpler and even obvious explanation, one that is well supported by our experience of agency in action. So, it seems - and as Expelled documents -- ideology and agenda are trumping consistency and sticking to where the empirical facts point. (But then, too, evolutionary materialism is inherently inconsistent -- cf the Aug 20 Charles Darwin thread.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 26, 2007
October
10
Oct
26
26
2007
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
A ha! Thank you. And there lies the problem. "How does the actor act?" How does an actor act? Actors act according to a script if the actor in question is THAT type of actor. But an actor in the sense of one who simply "moves" or "puts into action" is another beast entirely. That person is allowed innovation, creativity, invention, and selection -- choosing one thing over another according to his own arbitration. Such selection, of course, must be imbued with intelligence and freedom. Let's see, se-LEC-tion . .. inte-LECt . . . lec . . . lego . . . . logos. How (or is it why?) the actor acts is for the theist a theological question. Some of the remnants, results, or outcomes of that action will be open to scrutiny, but that scrutiny may be outside the purvue of science. One way then to approach the question of how design is implemented in natural history is to make distinctions about other instances of creativity v. recurrences of design. I am unqualified to comment on this in biology, but I liked SPAMALOT, and would suggest that novel creative acts are not open to scientific scrutiny because of their singularity. Design, however, evinces pattern, and pattern suggests repetition. So, ignore implementation, i.e. the moments of creation, simply enjoy the show. The implementation of design in nature's history may be a non-starter. How far can we get scientifically when trying to analyze moments of implementation? Patterns of implementation are not going to help us in this respect because creativity is unpatterned except in retrospect. All arrows will find targets if the quiver holds a paintbrush. Instead, focus on design. How the actor acts, brings us back to that first actor -- the one who follows the script. Avoiding any talk of the demiurge, let's just assume for simplicity right now that the script written for the actor was written by the actor. . . . and here the physicists and chemists chime in that they know all about the script. The question seems reduced to how much does the actor allow himself to improvise. Unfortunately,the answer seems somewhat murky. Imagine that you attend the first run of a one-man show. You enjoy the lively repartee and the fluid interaction with the audience, so out of curiosity you return the next night to see what was improvised only to find that it only had one showing . . . Use what is at your disposal. Design is easily recognizable when it is observed as a whole (the whole play). Design of component parts (when the actor cleared his throat 13 minutes and 22 seconds into the play) is less obvious. I think it is because we so easily consign those individual "ahems" to what could be "mechanism" because "ahem" is known to be a mechanism for, ahem, clearing one's throat. But how exactly did THAT "ahem" GET THERE? What effect did it have? We don't actually need to know whether or not it was scripted, a post-script improvisation or even unplanned!! The point is that the "ahem" can not be the starting point, nor can the first line, or the soliloquy, nor the exit. The demand that we (as righteous theatre-going intelligent design proponents) parse the exact working mechanisms vis a vis original, read creative, implementations of novel structures seems disengenous to me. ID folks have already done the job of saying, "Dudes wake up, we are watching a PLAY!" To respond by saying, well, which parts are patterned and which are not doesn't really confront the fact that it is a play. A play follows certain rules. If you follow enough of those rules, guess what? It's a play! Design follows certain rules. If you follow enough . . . It is easy enough to say that any novel structure or action that is still evidenced in some observable way is only observable by nature of its repetition or continued extension. Thus it was at one time novel, and is no longer novel by nature of its repetition. Of course, such assertions fall outside the realm of science. Would a scientist understand that? Would a scientist care?Tim
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
duncan (17): "The fact that we can delineate the boundaries and qualities of gravity gives it meaning – quite apart from the fact that we can put the knowledge to huge practical use eg. satellites orbiting. This can’t be said of ID." and (31): "Surely we have to be able to say that ‘such and such is ID’, and conversely that ‘such and such is the material world’?" Like identifying active information vs. exogenous information? (See www.evolutionaryinformatics.org )j
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
[...] point- I must say I do agree with absolute moral standards when an action is done to me…... Tina: Tim: In case you havn’t worked it out yet the question was basically ‘what is the [...]What exactly is the “design” part of “intelligent design”? | Uncommon Descent
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Tim: In case you havn't worked it out yet the question was basically 'what is the mechanism through which design is implemented'. The posts are numerous but they are always worth reading - you just have to find the wheat among the weeds.Tina
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
After 80 posts, I only have one thing to add. . .. What was the question?Tim
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
DaveScot, I'm looking for this Genetic Entropy pattern in sheep and found this site. Low levels of genetic variation were detected in both subspecies, ..... Is the decline of desert bighorn sheep from infectious disease the result of low MHC ... www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v99/n4/full/6801016a.html I can't open the article (no subscription), but the description is clear, loss of diversity within subspecies of sheep. I was hoping to find better studies for the genetic diversity of parent and sub-species of sheep, but at least this one study is conforming to the pattern of Genetic Entropy I've found so far in humans and dogs,,, As well this other study I found seems to indicate that the closer a sub-species is to a parent species the more robust it is and the more resistant to the problems of inbreeding. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070309103157.htm of particular note: A Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity. A mouflon (sheep) population, bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents. This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time. "What is amazing is that s of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we've found that it has been maintained," said Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta. As well I found this study: Evidence of three maternal lineages in near eastern sheep supporting multiple domestication events. of special note: Research including samples of the different mouflon subspecies is necessary for a better understanding of the origin of domestic sheep. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1559946 When they get the genetic studies done of sheep sub-species,,,My money is riding on loss of genetic diversity for each sub-species when compared to the parent species,,as well as compatable genetic diversity when the entire range of sub-species is compared to parent species.... This pattern should hold for all sub-speciation events,,,Thus, conforming to Genetic Entropy. Tommorrow?? Bovine...LOLbornagain77
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
ba77 I'm over halfway through Sanford's book. Early on he tries to establish as fact that there are at least a hundred single nucleotide copy errors in germ cells from parent cell to daughter cell. This is contrary to everything I've read about the frequency of errors in DNA replication which in eukaryotes is one error per one billion nucleotides which in humans means about three errors on average in any parent/daughter comparison. I certainly agree that the vast majority of the mistakes are nearly neutral. If they weren't nearly neutral then it seems impossible for a single egg cell to replicate into the trillions of cells in the adult form. The cumulative errors would cause something to go so horribly wrong that the developing organism would die before reaching adulthood. So I agree with Sanford that the vast majority of mistakes must be nearly neutral and I also agree that beneficial mistakes that add information are so rare as to be practically non-existent. I need to check the references he cites in establishing a mutation rate an order of magnitude greater than any I've read before. I also agree with Sanford that nearly neutral mutations are invisible to natural selection and, even at one in a billion copy errors, natural selection is incapable of doing much at all except culling the more debilitating mutations. Natural selection is a conservative force which stabilizes a species - it doesn't foster descent with modification but rather resists it. In species with obligatory sexual reproduction the mechanism of variation is recombination and it is limited to the alleles already established in the population. Thus genetic entropy is indeed a real problem for population genetics even at one in a billion copy errors. At this point I merely question the magnitude of the problem. At the error rate Sanford assumes I can't see how a species could possibly last millions of years before becoming extinct through the accumulation of slightly deleterious copy errors. If he goes on to use this high rate of copy errors to support young earth creationism I'll be quite disappointed to say the least but I can't see anywhere else he's heading at this point. Please don't ruin the suspense by telling me how the book ends. I'll be finished with it in a week.DaveScot
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Jerry re; transformations Every vertebrate begins life as a single cell that's phenotypically indistinguishable from the first cell of any other vertebrate. Yet they transform before our very eyes in a brief period of time into any one of phenotypically diverse organisms from flounders to ferrets. Obviously the great phenotypic differences in the adult form are all somehow contained in the first cell. When a transformation like that can be observed I fail to see what basis there is in saying that a retrovirus vector altering the genotype of a germ cell can't cause the adult form to be phenotypically different in some significant way. Jack re; what would it look like if we could watch it It would look like descent with modification. You wouldn't see the retrovirus invading a germ cell and unless you could sequence the altered genome and find the ERV embedded in it there would nothing to see except offspring that are different in some way from the parent. The difference could be anywhere from quite subtle to quite obvious. I repeat again the examination of the fossil record is the best way to determine the magnitude and timing of the steps. The fossil record doesn't support phyletic gradualism. It supports saltations. All the digging up of fossils since Darwin proposed phyletic gradualism through modification and natural selection has failed to come up with any support for phyletic gradualism. Phylogenetic change as revealed by the fossil record occurs in large abrupt steps.DaveScot
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Here is a Paper that has confirmation of dogs and grey wolves staying within principle of Genetic Entropy. http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf of special note: Some sequences found in dogs were identical to those in wolves... The sequence divergence within (breeds of) dogs was surprisingly large: the mean sequence divergence in dogs 2.06 + or - 0.07% was almost identical to the 2.10 + or - 0.04% (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (notice that sequence divergence is slightly smaller for dogs than for wolves) Coupled with the diverse morphology of domesticated dogs and known hazards of dog breeding, this evidence strongly indicates "front loaded adaptations" at a loss of information from parent species. Thus, this is genetic confirmation of the principle of Genetic Entropy for dogs from wolves! This overall pattern of evidence (morphology and genetic diversity) conforms strongly to the evidence supporting the principle of Genetic Entropy found for humans. i.e.;Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world. “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”bornagain77
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Patrick (32) Thanks for your answer. I hadn’t heard of the EF, but I’ve now read a paper of Dr Dembski’s on it. I do have a further query, though – does one have to presume a materialistic world in order for the EF successfully to operate? What exactly is a “law” in a non-materialistic world?duncan
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Very interesting post Jack Krebs, At the present moment, I am torn between two competing views as to how a "transcendent" Being from a higher dimension could implement His purpose and design into this lower physical dimension. One is like as it was at the Big Bang, with a sufficient amount of light being Encoded with all necessary information for what is being created in this dimension. The other method for implementing design, is similar to a miracle I once saw, in which the timing of snowflakes was in perfect synchronization for the music our congregation was singing at a Easter Sunday Sunrise Service. One method would have the designer implementing the design directly from the higher dimension and the other method would have the designer exercising complete domi^nance of this dimension, in effect suspending the second law of thermodynamics, in order to make a parent species "from the dust of the ground". Although we have more scientific leverage for the first postulation since the Big Bang has been studied in great detail. I hold that quantum entanglement (spooky action at a distance) holds the possibility of the second postulation open scientifically...Plus, I kind of like how the second postulation fits my world view. Of course, many will hold that a third possibility is open with a Higher dimension Designer with "directed mutations" and thus "directed evolution", but that third postulation still falls under the second postulation since it requires a suspension of the second law.bornagain77
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
So is this an offer of a hypothesis: that a fairly major change from one type of creature to another is implemented in a single, or small group of reproductive events? And if so, the question would be: does this happen early in the life of the new creature, for instance in a number of large genetic changes at the moment of conception?, or during development, or when?
I would say that the first step would be to (try to) determine whether or not the range of change suggested- "from one type of creature to another"- is even possible via any mechanism. Unfortunately science at this point in time has no clue as to whether or not the anatomical and physiological changes required are even possible.Joseph
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
what would we observe happening in the world if we could see design being implemented?- Jack K
What do we observe now when we see design being implemented? I would expect a similarity.
What aspects of the world are changed by the designer: just biological aspects or more; if biological, just genes or more; if just genes, at conception or when?
1- The designer need not be changing anything at this point in time. IOW all the designing could very well be finished. 2- "The Privileged Planet" makes it clear that the design inference extends well beyond biology. 3- Science has demonstrated that although genes may influence every aspect of development they do not determine it.
But at some point the designer must interact with the world, and at that point we in theory could be able to see something happening.
That is false. The correct wording should be: But at some point the designer must have interacted with the world.Joseph
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
I am old enough to remember "The Chariots of the Gods" by Eric Von Danigan. He looked at many of the wonders of past civilisations and postulated alien help was needed to achieve such feats. He may have been a fool, but he wasn't such a big fool as to claim that these wonders were made by natural law working over long time periods, without intelligence. ID calls biological design what it really is. How it was done does not need to be discovered before we can definitely conclude that there is real intelligence involved. As many of you will know, for a number of designers, once the thinking and planning has been done, the interesting part is over and the construction is mere detail.idnet.com.au
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
Dave added, after I had posted my reply,
This of course won’t make you happy. Your motives are transparent. You want nothing less than an interview with the designer in his lab developing the retrovirus components then followup footage of him in his aircraft dispersing it like a terrorist spreading anthrax.
No, the question I am asking is specifically not about identifying (much less interviewing) the designer. It is not even about how the designer makes changes in the world - I made it clear in my first post that my question was not about mechanism either. My question is what would we observe happening in the world if we could see design being implemented? What aspects of the world are changed by the designer: just biological aspects or more; if biological, just genes or more; if just genes, at conception or when? I am not asking about who the designer is, or about how the designer affects the world - those may in fact be metaphysically beyond our observation. But at some point the designer must interact with the world, and at that point we in theory could be able to see something happening. What would we see? That's my question.Jack Krebs
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
I respectfully disagree that insertion of a retrovirus with "new sequences" of genetic material is the "mechanism" by which new parent species appear in the fossil record. This is because most of the differences are not in fact minor sequential changes but, as scientists are able to look more closely at differences, reflect fundamental differences on every level of the cells studied, i.e. The changes in the genome (and even architecture) are found throughout the genome not just in a few sequences. Plus, The astonishing integrated complexity hinted at by Sanford, and somewhat revealed by 1% ENCODE study, heavily suggests that it (appearance of parent species) is a "All or Nothing proposition". Therefore I hold that future research into the complexity of the genomes, will further confirm that it is required for the "Intelligent Design" to be implemented all at once, with of course sub-speciation away from parent species always being found to obey the foundational principle of Genetic Entropy. http://www.genome.gov/15515096 Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, like most mammalian genomes, contains about 3 billion base pairs. In addition, there are another 5 million sites that differ because of an insertion or deletion in one of the lineages, along with a much smaller number of chromosomal rearrangements.bornagain77
October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Jack, a retrovirus loading up a germ cell with new genetic information is called an endogenous retrovirus. Once it is established in the germ line it could cause immediate change (large or small within the bounds of not changing fish into a mammal in a single step), delayed changes in subsequent generations, or any combination thereof. Endogenous retroviruses can remain intact in a genome for a very long time. I suggest we continue using the fossil record for a guide in the timing and size of the steps. You ask what it would appear like. It would appear like punctuated equilibrium. You may find the following article helpful: Rapid_modes_of_evolutionDaveScot
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
So is this an offer of a hypothesis: that a fairly major change from one type of creature to another is implemented in a single, or small group of reproductive events? And if so, the question would be: does this happen early in the life of the new creature, for instance in a number of large genetic changes at the moment of conception?, or during development, or when? I know no one knows the answers to these questions, but I am interested in what design advocates think might happen, irrespective of whether a mechanism for these things happening can be known.Jack Krebs
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
It could be any of those things, Jack. Obviously you're not going to change a fish into a mouse in one generation through a retrovirus vector but as Richard Goldschmidt wrote in Material Basis of Evolution (1940; 1982 reprint edition), p. 395
The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.
This of course won't make you happy. Your motives are transparent. You want nothing less than an interview with the designer in his lab developing the retrovirus components then followup footage of him in his aircraft dispersing it like a terrorist spreading anthrax. Don't test my patience. DaveScot
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
This backs the question up a step. What we see when the retrovirus developed: an instantaneous materialization of a whole population, a single retrovirus, a set of genetic changes in a population of existing retroviruses, or what?Jack Krebs
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Jack Anyone have any hypotheses? A retrovirus seems like the most efficacious means of spreading a genetic change through a population at large. Thanks for asking. Are we all happy now that we have a hypothetical mechanism on the table? DaveScot
October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply