Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Ilities” – Judging Architecture and Design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Sometimes we seek to infer from a design what its requirements might have been, and in ID thought this question comes up. As a practitioner in the architecture of large scale computer environments (the composite set of applications, databases, and communications networks) in major enterprises, I wonder if some of the principles my profession uses in design could be useful in understanding what is going on in biology.

First a little background. What I am describing applies, in my opinion, to architecture and I would submit there is a rather considerable tension between architecture and design. But I am not going to get into that now, so let’s assume they are the same and call them “architecture”. Next, in my field you should be aware that Carnegie-Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute (the “SEI”) has been responsible for the development of a lot of the thinking in this area. One of the SEI’s insights is that there are “Architectural Quality Attributes” (AQA’s). These are a whole set of characteristics that the global architecture of an enterprise may have.

Examples include “availability”, “customizability”, “extensability”, “understandability” and so on. A list is available here. Because the AQA’a tend to end in the suffix “ility” they are informally known as the “ilities”.

It is simply impossible for one architecture to have all the “ilities” because many conflict. For instance, if I want high “security” I am going to have to give up a good deal of “interoperability”. A large part of architecture is actually deciding what you are going to give up, which incidentally affects how the architecture can change in the future (i.e. usually it cannot “evolve” to conform to different “ilities”). This is all still fairly new, but we are now able to judge architectures in terms of the “ilities” they match and the “ilities” they do not match. A better understanding of the conflicts between certain “ilities” is gradually developing.

If we could similarly develop a taxonomy of “ilities” for biological systems we could then judge the qualities of different biological designs and understand the trade-off’s among them. They key is to have a standard taxonomy that most biologists would accept. A key issue might be that by accepting such a taxonomy biologists would be accepting that there is such a thing as “design”. Furthermore, figuring out the trade-offs between biological “ilities” would render evolution based on random chance more transparently preposterous. Lastly, this approach offers a way to infer, and perhaps, predict from an ID perspective.

Comments
Is it just me, or has it become a trend lately for people who refuse to educate themselves about ID to think that they can utilize their ignorance as a tool to critique ID Theory?
I could say the very same about Darwinian evolution.RDK
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
More specific and complex than the information theoretic measure of the probabilistic resources (time and trials) available.
We've already explained to you why evolution isn't simply "time and trials". It doesn't botch a bad gene combination and say "Oh well!", just to start from scratch again. There's a history involved. Brand new proteins are improvements on a previously existing gene combination. They are quite literally "standing on the shoulders of giants". When you portray evolution via Darwinian mechanisms as consisting solely of chance mutations, time, and trials, you are attacking a strawman.
No such assumption of intervention is required. It is more likely the result of a goal oriented program which merely unfolds previous information in a goal directed procedure — you know, how evolution was originally envisioned to operate.
Once again, your definition is vague enough for me to easily attribute it to modern evolutionary mechanisms. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "how evolution was originally envisioned to operate". Perhaps it's some secret esoteric creationist jargon?
If in truth the design is bad, then it could have been done by the little green men that Richard Dawkins thinks might have been the creator. Maybe we should ask Sir Richard.
Nice misrepresentation. Dawkins certainly doesn't think with any certainty that little green men planted the seed of life on earth. When pressed with Ben Stein's inane attempts at getting him to concede a point for creationism, Dawkins said he might entertain the idea, but it was highly unlikely in the face of zero compelling evidence. And even that doesn't account for where the little green men came from! Your argument spirals into an infinite regress. You guys either don't watch your own mockumentaries very closely, or you're just that good at skewing what other people say.
Another deluded comment. Maybe this person should refrain from commenting till they read more here.
Am I mistaken in thinking that ID proponents start out with the a priori assumption that the universe is imbued with a specific design in mind? CJYman, I quoted the following from the specific post you gave me:
1. Observe that intelligence precludes physically inert “meaning/function.” 2. Use that observation to predict that any system purported to be intelligently designed will, upon further investigation, be found to contain physically inert function/meaning. 3. Provide a falsifiable and testable statement such as “law and chance absent intelligence will not generate physically inert function.” 4. Continue to “do science.”
You go on to say that "physically inert", another obfuscating, Aristotlean term, can readily be replaced with "formally organized". Before we go on, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what exactly that term implies? In detail?
Are you implying that good design = the result of intelligence and bad design = the result of law + chance. Then I turn your question to you and ask how much “good design” it would take to convince you of ID Theory?
I was under the assumption that you, like Dembski, propose a Biblical creator as the foundation of your viewpoint of intelligent design. If my assumption is wrong, please let me know so I can continue from the appropriate angle.
However, you don’t have to completely negate law and chance operating within a system in order to arrive at the conclusion that the system itself is intelligently designed. In fact, that is not how reality works. Even a car, although it is intelligently designed, can show the effects of law and chance. Look at a rusty old beater car. You can’t explain the “rust” feature by design, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the car itself was intelligently designed. Furthermore, you can’t point to the rust as a “faulty feature” and thus arrive at the conclusion that the car could have or must have been created by only chance and law.
Too bad a car is not analogous to a living, breathing, reproducing organism! But even so, let's run with your analogy, just for kicks. If evolution can account for later changes to a group, and those changes are indistinguishable from earlier "changes" (or even the origin of said organisms), why then is there a need for a creator? You even said yourself:
2. Not many people here deny evolution. If you want to argue for a non-telic variant, then you’ll have to provide evidence rather than just assertion and assuming your conclusion.
At what point exactly was the creator (or intelligent designer; whatever tickles your fancy) needed to start / interfere / help develop the process? At the origin? Sometime after? Again, the Nobel awaits...RDK
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
RDK: "It seems you’re unfamiliar with the way the scientific process works. Argument from design is invalid unless you can actually demonstrate specifically where the designer interfered in the development process of said organisms. Just because an organism (or system) has the appearance of design and fulfills a function does not mean that it was actively created by an intelligence. This has been proven patently false, and why you still assert it is beyond me." That's a lot of ignorance and assertion without evidence in one paragraph. Please follow this discussion especially comments #112 and #147 to learn a bit about the fundamentals of ID Theory in terms of inference, observation, prediction, testing, and potential falsifiability. Is it just me, or has it become a trend lately for people who refuse to educate themselves about ID to think that they can utilize their ignorance as a tool to critique ID Theory?CJYman
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Hi jerry,
When anyone uses the concept of bad design against ID they are essentially making a theological argument which ID does not address. The supposition is that because something is apparently of bad design, then an omnipotent creator had not done it and this somehow in their deluded minds undermines ID. But ID does not presuppose an omnipotent creator though it does not rule it out.
If so, then how can ID theory predict anything specific about "junk" DNA? For example, if the designer is fallible and incompetent, we might expect to find lots of junk in the genome, whereas with an efficient or omniscient/omnipotent designer, we would expect to find little or no junk. So, in order to predict even a general proportion of "junk" DNA, doesn't the ID theorist have to take a stand on the nature of the designer first?Dave Wisker
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
RDK: "Perhaps you should enlighten us to how horrifically bad a design has to be to constitute “bad design” in your mind. What would it take to convince you?" Are you implying that good design = the result of intelligence and bad design = the result of law + chance. Then I turn your question to you and ask how much "good design" it would take to convince you of ID Theory? However, you don’t have to completely negate law and chance operating within a system in order to arrive at the conclusion that the system itself is intelligently designed. In fact, that is not how reality works. Even a car, although it is intelligently designed, can show the effects of law and chance. Look at a rusty old beater car. You can’t explain the “rust” feature by design, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the car itself was intelligently designed. Furthermore, you can’t point to the rust as a “faulty feature” and thus arrive at the conclusion that the car could have or must have been created by only chance and law. Another example is if random processes create a new function or strengthen an older function by damaging or clogging a system, does that prove that the original system was the result of only chance and law? Let’s look at a lock and key mechanism. Just because natural processes can increase the security function of an ancient castle door by “gunking” up the lock, making it unopenable even with the original key, does that mean that unguided law and chance can create the castle, the door, the lock, and the key? Of course not! RDK: "If you agree that it’s not about what’s “best”, but rather what works, or what’s “good enough”, then you’ve conceded that there’s nothing special about nature–nothing that couldn’t have proceeded from countless evolutionary changes. Because that’s exactly what evolution does." 1. To say that something is "good" or "bad" you need an external set of rules to make that determination. You would have to hold each example against a non-arbitrary standard. The argument about whether or not this universe (or the processes within it) is the "best" of all possible is a metaphysical discussion; not science. Can you define "best" such that it is useful in a scientific investigation? 2. Not many people here deny evolution. If you want to argue for a non-telic variant, then you'll have to provide evidence rather than just assertion and assuming your conclusion. RDK: "The argument from designed purpose is vague at best, and dishonest at worst. Anything from a microwave oven to a thermostat displays purpose, either in the design itself or in its use. If people are designed, what is the purpose? If the purpose is to eat, poop, and procreate, I can think of a plethora of better designs. If the purpose is to glorify some sort of deity, once again, I could do better." The identification of previous intelligence is the science part. Guessing as to the exact purpose (psychoanalyzing the designer's intentions) is the philosophy and psychology part. Although, as previously mentioned, we can see that the purpose of some part appear to be obvious -- the purpose of DNA is information storage; the purpose of RNA is information transfer, the purpose of the eye is sight, etc ... The point is not whether you could do better (although I'd love to see you try -- or was that just a useless rhetorical bluff on your part?). The point is whether chance and law absent previous intelligence can even create certain patterns in question.CJYman
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
"Design is only the default when you start out with presuppositions; oddly enough, kind of like the entire field of ID" Another deluded comment. Maybe this person should refrain from commenting till they read more here.jerry
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
When anyone uses the concept of bad design against ID they are essentially making a theological argument which ID does not address. The supposition is that because something is apparently of bad design, then an omnipotent creator had not done it and this somehow in their deluded minds undermines ID. But ID does not presuppose an omnipotent creator though it does not rule it out. If in truth the design is bad, then it could have been done by the little green men that Richard Dawkins thinks might have been the creator. Maybe we should ask Sir Richard.jerry
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
RDK: "Why this requires intelligence needs to be explained in detail, instead of vague allusions to the “design implies designer” argument." For starters, I've begun to explain the connection here at my comment on May 21, 2009 at 10:22 am (for some reason I can't get the link to bring you directly to my comment). RDK: "Tell us, then, exactly where the line in the sand is? Exactly how specific and complex does an organism that fulfills a certain function have to be?" More specific and complex than the information theoretic measure of the probabilistic resources (time and trials) available. RDK: "Are we to assume the Creator interfered with said organism’s development process in order to produce new proteins?" No such assumption of intervention is required. It is more likely the result of a goal oriented program which merely unfolds previous information in a goal directed procedure -- you know, how evolution was originally envisioned to operate.CJYman
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
RDK, design is the default assumption based on logical necessity.
Design is only the default when you start out with presuppositions; oddly enough, kind of like the entire field of ID.
then we are not justified in claiming it happened spontaneously, simply based on inference from interpreted data. Think about it. If we have no detailed plans in our brain as to “how” these thresholds were broken through,then we are left with such narratives like the organism acquired, or the organism somehow adapted a new use, or the organism most likely evolved a new trait, etc. I mean, are “acquired”, “somehow”, and “most likely” rigorous concepts we can sink our teeth into? What is it that prevents science from modeling any of the above threshholds?
It seems you're unfamiliar with the way the scientific process works. Argument from design is invalid unless you can actually demonstrate specifically where the designer interfered in the development process of said organisms. Just because an organism (or system) has the appearance of design and fulfills a function does not mean that it was actively created by an intelligence. This has been proven patently false, and why you still assert it is beyond me. But even so, ID fails by your own rigorous test that asks for proof of the Darwinian method's effectiveness. All you have to do is display some evidence of interference. Not number-juggling, not poking holes in modern evolutionary theory. Actual evidence. Point to any stage / phase / frameshift / transposition and say “Here. Right here. Some Designer interfered here at some point, somehow.” Then you can move on to just what was done. Then, maybe, one day, how the designer did it. You don’t even have to name the designer, not that it would make a difference. The Nobel Prize awaits.RDK
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Paul Giem, You had a great reply to “bub”. I think the evolutionist argument for bad design or vestigial structure more often than not is an argument from ignorance. Not necessarily willful ignorance but simply a misunderstanding of the extent of the role of the structure in debate. More often than not evolutionary charges silently evaporate as we come to learn more; as in the junk DNA idea. On another note: I am wondering if you are the same Dr. Paul Giem I met in Lancaster, CA a couple years ago. That Paul Giem gave a presentation on carbon dating.
Perhaps you should enlighten us to how horrifically bad a design has to be to constitute "bad design" in your mind. What would it take to convince you? The human esophagus, which is a no-brainer (eating and breathing through the same orifice)? The spinal column, which works quite well for quadrupeds, but when placed upright causes slipped discs, pinched nerves, and lower back pain? The botched design of the reproduction period, which delivers human babies prematurely compared to most other mammals and takes a heavy toll on the health and condition of the mother? Also, there's the little problem of why the Creator didn't design his creation for optimum efficiency. If you agree that it's not about what's "best", but rather what works, or what's "good enough", then you've conceded that there's nothing special about nature--nothing that couldn't have proceeded from countless evolutionary changes. Because that's exactly what evolution does. The argument from designed purpose is vague at best, and dishonest at worst. Anything from a microwave oven to a thermostat displays purpose, either in the design itself or in its use. If people are designed, what is the purpose? If the purpose is to eat, poop, and procreate, I can think of a plethora of better designs. If the purpose is to glorify some sort of deity, once again, I could do better.RDK
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
bb, Yes, that was me. If you wish to contact me, click on my name, which brings you to my website, http://www.scientifictheology.com. Then look for the e-mail link at the bottom. (The instructions are so as not to attract undue spam.) We'll see what can be arranged.Paul Giem
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Indeed, just look all around you: directed contingency, usually towards a goal or purpose that requires a balance of elements that work together to achieve a function.
Why this requires intelligence needs to be explained in detail, instead of vague allusions to the "design implies designer" argument. And by the absurdly vague definition you gave above, I could very well use that to describe the evolutionary process (albeit directed by necessity rather than any sort of interference of intelligence).
Second, the point where designs — contra BZ’s linked — unambiguously point to intelligent not spontaneous (chance + undirected necessity only) cause is where the functionality is complex and specific enough that the other source of high contingency, chance, is maximally unlikely to land us on the shores of an island of function from which any optimising algorithm may act. [NB: Necessity is manifested in low contingency -- a heavy and unsupported object, reliably, falls.]
Tell us, then, exactly where the line in the sand is? Exactly how specific and complex does an organism that fulfills a certain function have to be? And what of organisms (or perhaps we should call them systems, in keeping with your purposely vague terms) with multiple functions, or components that have been co-opted for new functions? What of organisms that have been shown to produce new proteins with brand new functions? Are we to assume the Creator interfered with said organism's development process in order to produce new proteins?RDK
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Paul Giem, You had a great reply to "bub". I think the evolutionist argument for bad design or vestigial structure more often than not is an argument from ignorance. Not necessarily willful ignorance but simply a misunderstanding of the extent of the role of the structure in debate. More often than not evolutionary charges silently evaporate as we come to learn more; as in the junk DNA idea. On another note: I am wondering if you are the same Dr. Paul Giem I met in Lancaster, CA a couple years ago. That Paul Giem gave a presentation on carbon dating. If it is you, I would like to know how I can contact you with an invitation to speak. Perhaps the moderator will send either one of us the email of the other kept in our word-press profiles on this site.bb
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
beelzebub, Your first question,
of the infinitude of possible designs, why did the Designer specifically choose ones that give the overwhelming appearance of having been produced by a mindless Darwinian process?
is the equivalent of a lawyer asking, "Why are you beating your wife?" You have not established the premise. In fact, there are a number of Darwinists who strongly disagree with the premise. For example, take Dawkins:
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
This is not taken out of context. Read the entire first chapter of The Blind Watchmaker. Or, as George Gaylord Simpson put it:
A telescope, a telephone, or a typewriter is a complex mechanism serving a particular function. Obviously, its manufacturer had a purpose in mind, and the machine was designed and built in order to serve that purpose. An eye, an ear, or a hand is also a complex mechanism serving a particular function. It, too, looks as if it had been made for a purpose. This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature.
Now if you want to disagree with men such as Dawkins and Simpson, be my guest. But don't expect your position to be persuasive. You go on to cite the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe as an example of bad design. In fact, you fail to see that this very post may have the answer to your argument. The recurrent laryngeal nerve has the path it takes because of the requirements of embryology. It passes under an embryonic aortic arch that eventually becomes the innominate artery. Thus unless it were to re-splice, which we don't know how to do and may not be possible, it must run down to the thorax and back up to the larynx, which in the giraffe is close to 3 meters each way. Two comments can be made. First, the charge of "bad design" is inaccurate. The design is perfectly functional. The only real charge that can be made is that it is suboptimal. And second, part of what requires optimization is embryological development. If we knew that there was a way of developing embryos that was (1) simple, not requiring extra megabases of DNA, (2) functional, not killing the embryo for some other reason, and (3) could route the recurrent laryngeal nerve directly to the larynx rather than sending it down to the thorax first, and instead we have the present anatomy, we could make a strong case for suboptimal design. But we do not know that the present design can be avoided that easily. So the charge of suboptimal design is a charge that is presently without proof, and therefore faith-based. If that's your faith, fine. Just don't expect everyone to share your faith. It would be interesting to try to assess the design constraints for embryological development of blood vessels and nerves, and their interactions. Perhaps we will eventually understand whether the design of the design of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is suboptimal, or truly optimal when all the relevant factors are taken into consideration, and why. The approach of this post seems to offer the best promise of answering those questions.Paul Giem
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Mr Kairosfocus, Who is the living treasure from Japan? I didn't know there was a reference to Japan in the NT. I see you are using the phrase "maximally unlikely", which I saw was also used by Mr Upright BiPed. He was using it to mean "independent trials". If you are using it in the same way, then you should consider that no one is arguing that chance plus independent trials is a part of the definition of an evolutionary process. The opposite is true. Chance plus history is a part of the evolutionary process.Nakashima
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Mr Oramus, First, on a personal note let me say that I think textile design is a very interesting topic! Thank you for sharing a bit of your technical and professional background. I would nominate "mutability" as key component of the list under discussion. (Not really helpful to call it a taxonomy at this point.) There is an idea in engineering called "Design For Change" that recognizes the need to expect change and design in such a way as to not make the inevitable also difficult and costly. In the area of evolutionary computation, there is the study of the evolution of evolvability. In this sense, the observed rate of copying errors in DNA is a "fine tuning". Too great, and organisms could not sustain function. Too small, the population could not react to changes in the environment.Nakashima
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
RDK, design is the default assumption based on logical necessity. If we cannot model life breaking the below thresholds from: 1)amino acid to uni-cellar life 2)uni-cellular life to multi-cellular organism 3) multi-cellular organism to multi-cellular organism with appendages, 4) multi-cellular organisms with appendages to multi-cellular organisms with appendages and simple systems. 5) Multi-cellular organisms with appendages and simple systems to multi-cellular organisms with appendages and complex systems (cognition of other organisms) 6)multi-cellular organisms with appendages and complex systems to dissimilar multi-celled organisms with complex systems. 7)and probably more thresholds I have missed (well we can get the picture now I think), then we are not justified in claiming it happened spontaneously, simply based on inference from interpreted data. Think about it. If we have no detailed plans in our brain as to "how" these thresholds were broken through,then we are left with such narratives like the organism acquired, or the organism somehow adapted a new use, or the organism most likely evolved a new trait, etc. I mean, are "acquired", "somehow", and "most likely" rigorous concepts we can sink our teeth into? What is it that prevents science from modeling any of the above threshholds?Oramus
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Beelzebub writes:
Isn’t that a bit less strained than asserting that “this isn’t bad design, it’s just good for a reason that we’re not aware of yet!”
Ah, but experience tells the wise scientist that too often conclusions drawn from observation turn out wrong, like with junk DNA. So to the wise scientist, it is better to just sit patiently and wait for further information that could possibly change the tragectory of the investigation; say discovery of a relationship of the laryngeal nerve to the circulatory system or a secondary function unrelated to the larynx. It is very plausible and worth considering rather than jumping to the conclusion that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is "bad design" or no design. Looks like only exhaustive testing on the recurrent laryngeal nerve of giraffes could potentially resolve this question.Oramus
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
RDK: We are all -- yourself included -- very familiar with the nature and characteristics of design, thank you. Indeed, just look all around you: directed contingency, usually towards a goal or purpose that requires a balance of elements that work together to achieve a function. Second, the point where designs -- contra BZ's linked -- unambiguously point to intelligent not spontaneous (chance + undirected necessity only) cause is where the functionality is complex and specific enough that the other source of high contingency, chance, is maximally unlikely to land us on the shores of an island of function from which any optimising algorithm may act. [NB: Necessity is manifested in low contingency -- a heavy and unsupported object, reliably, falls.] So, the issue of the architecture of a complex object or system or process or network, and the balance of tradeoffs required to achieve adequate function is a real issue. One we may with profit focus on in light of Alfred Russel's suggestions. GEM of TKI PS: BZ (As in "Lord of . . . ") my good friend Mikey the Archie -- and he is fingering the keenness of edge of that sword our living treasure from Japan who got in under Rom 2:6 - 7 helped him sharpen up, and grinning -- is reminding us that a giraffe as a whole has a great many highly specific functional and highly complex adaptations that point to careful and balanced design; whether or not you may find the design of its nervous system well-fitted to your particular provisional views of the moment.kairosfocus
May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
Orasmus, perhaps you should stop beating around the bush and actually define for all of us exactly what the term "design" entails, and why the product of many generations of beneficial mutations doesn't constitute it.RDK
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
Oramus asks:
But then again, what else could you think about that 19 feet?
You could draw the obvious conclusion that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is the product of a mindless process that did not realize it could shorten the nerve by 19 out of 20 feet simply by unlooping it from around the lung ligament. Isn't that a bit less strained than asserting that "this isn't bad design, it's just good for a reason that we're not aware of yet!"beelzebub
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
Mr. Russel, Your take is interesting. In my field of technical textile production, I have to consider what it is the buyer wants in their textiles. Do they want a nice optic, functionality, hand, bulk, pricepoint? Some buyers want it all, which is my nightmare. This compels me to think of new ways of coming up with options that do not necessitate the dropping of features, but rather adjusting the degree of "quality" in a feature. For example, hand is directly proportional to cost. Optic (outward appearance) is cost sensative in proportion to the level of creativity of the designer; i.e. some designs require changing yarn and/or changing to a higher guage machine thus reducing production yield, increasing cost; whereas changing the construction only does not add to cost. Function created with topical treatments are cost sensitive. However, function can be achieved (thermal / breathable) through design changes utilizing novel construction methods, which often can avoid cost increases. Optic may affect function and visa versa. Likewise, bulk (loft) and optic are intertwined. You cannot increase bulk without changing the optic. Also, there are many trade-offs that keep cost stable; i.e. I may have to change to a pricier yarn, yet I can slightly reduce the g/m2 weight of the fabric to compensate for the higher yarn cost, keeping my overall cost per yard unchanged. I think it would be worthwhile to pursue your line of inquiry to get more insights as to the characteristics of decision nodes in organisms.Oramus
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
Bub,
Translation: Have faith, Bub! The bad design is only apparent. The 19 extra feet of the RLN are there for a reason, I just know it!
But then again, what else could you think about that 19 feet? Hedging is intrinsic to "provisionalism". Pronouncements of "there is no design" are not altogether of a scientific nature.
For example, we know that E. coli is extensible because we have extended it ourselves (to produce human insulin, among other things).
It has yet to be established that e.coli's extensibility (as you put it) is an acquired trait rather than a design feature. So I am not sure what you are driving at here.
I’m not talking about superficial appearance. I’m talking about how things look after 150 years of scientific investigation.
150 years of scientific investigation seems to have created a long laundry list of exceptions to the rule. Darwinism: That gnarly behemoth being crushed under the weight of its own hedge bets.Oramus
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
StephenA, no worries.Oramus
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
Hmm. I just realised I should have made it clearer that I was actually responding to beelzebub in my first post. Apologies.StephenA
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
Say what? I don't actually disagree with you, but I don't see what it has to do with my previous post.StephenA
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
StephenA, Uh, the default setting is design (which we can observe) until such time that a lack of design can be shown(empirically). It is so much easier to show design than it is to show no design. Disproving current observations of design can only lead to discoveries of higher orders of design, not NO design.Oramus
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
They key is to have a standard taxonomy that most biologists would accept. A key issue might be that by accepting such a taxonomy biologists would be accepting that there is such a thing as “design”.
That's a good idea. Anyone want to propose some "ilities" for biological designs? It seems to me that in architecture the focus is on human interaction with the design features of the architecture, whereas the ilities in biology would need to have a different focus (e.g., interaction with the environment and so forth).TCS
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Oramus writes:
Bub, FYI you are only experiencing the appearance of bad design. Remember, your scientific knowledge is only provisional. You will without doubt stumble upon the ingenuity of the apparent bad design.
Translation: Have faith, Bub! The bad design is only apparent. The 19 extra feet of the RLN are there for a reason, I just know it!
Curiously, how would you show methodoligically that “ilities” are the product of natural selection?
By showing, as has been done over the past 150 years, that organisms are the product of natural selection (and other evolutionary processes), and that they exhibit one or more of the "ilities." For example, we know that E. coli is extensible because we have extended it ourselves (to produce human insulin, among other things).
Further, overwhelming appearance seems an appeal to the obvious. I thought Darwinism was counterintuitive, where design is only apparent. But in the same breath, you are telling us that overwhelming appearance of Darwinian processes is a slam-dunk?
I'm not talking about superficial appearance. I'm talking about how things look after 150 years of scientific investigation.beelzebub
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
StephenA, I think you're too generous in sharing the credit. That vision of the debate might just be unique to you.beelzebub
May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply