Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What if Shakespeare Were an Alien?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the world’s greatest playwright, towering head and shoulders over all who came before and all who came after.  Maybe Shakespeare was so good because he wasn’t a human at all but a member of a hyper-intelligent alien race who happened to be visiting earth in the late 1500’s.  If you subscribe to Cromwell’s rule, you cannot dismiss this hypothesis out of hand.  It is not logically impossible.  Therefore, Cromwell’s rule suggests that we should assign some probability to the possibility even if it is one in a hundred billion.  Otherwise, like the “green cheese” example in the Wikipedia article, we would not be convinced even if we were to find the schematics to Shakespeare’s spaceship in a dusty old attic in Statford-upon-Avon.

Now assume that you are trying to determine whether a design inference is appropriate with respect to Hamlet.  You conclude that Hamlet is rich in complex specified information and infer that the best explanation for the provenance of the play is “intelligent design.”  Many times here at UD our materialist friends have argued that we can infer design only if we know the designer was human.  For example, we are often told that if we were to argue that an arrowhead is designed, we could do so only on the basis of our knowledge that Indians were humans who designed things like ourselves.

Now, since it is not logically impossible, assume for the sake of argument that Shakespeare was an alien.  If that were the case, Hamlet was not written by a human.

Here’s the question:  Is our design inference invalid if Shakespeare turns out to have been an alien?

Comments
Box: Why do non-PCD deaths have detrimental effects to neighbors?
Zachriel: It’s been a hypothesis for a while. And as you know, a scientific hypothesis is a tentative assumption for the purpose of testing its empirical entailments. See Durand, Rashidi & Michod, How an Organism Dies Affects the Fitness of Its Neighbors, American Naturalist 2011: “Cellular contents liberated during non-PCD are detrimental to others, while the contents released during PCD are beneficial.”
I have to say that this is an important contribution for a darwinian narraitive of PCD evolution. It may even be essential for the story. IOW PCD can only evolve in organisms where non-pcd death is detrimental for organisms. And I see little reason to assume that this is the rule through the animal kingdom.Box
December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Joe: That is for us to determine. Not everything? What designs that which the designer didn't? Vel:Human designers have to deal with effects of the natural forces on their designs, how does the designer contend with those issues? By intelligently designing organisms to evolve (by intelligent design). Except for the extinct ?velikovskys
December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Zachriel - I'm just catching your attention with a side comment related to something you said elsewhere but which I can't find right now ... There's a new post today on "The Disunity of the Sciences" arguing that sciences are irreducible and not inter-connected. You brought up a contrary point elsewhere in a discussion about the necessary, scientific limits of ID.Silver Asiatic
December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Box: Why do non-PCD deaths have detrimental effects to neighbors? It's been a hypothesis for a while. And as you know, a scientific hypothesis is a tentative assumption for the purpose of testing its empirical entailments. See Durand, Rashidi & Michod, How an Organism Dies Affects the Fitness of Its Neighbors, American Naturalist 2011: "Cellular contents liberated during non-PCD are detrimental to others, while the contents released during PCD are beneficial." EugeneS: What really needs to be explained though is the appearance of the PCD function itself. Good question. The process is very ancient, and there are no clear answers as yet. There are several hypotheses, such as the "original sin" hypothesis, which is that self-destruction is intrinsic to the origin of the cell itself, and that the original metabolic processes always had the capacity to destroy the cell, and that suppression and unmasking of this capacity evolved over time. Another hypothesis is that it is the result of an arms race with toxic invaders, a forced symbiosis called the "addiction module" hypothesis. No one knows with any certainty at this point, though.Zachriel
December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Zachriel #154 A good tentative post-hoc narrative. What really needs to be explained though is the appearance of the PCD function itself. All your explanation demonstrates is that probably PCD makes sense. It does not say how it came to be. Natural selection 'acts' (recall our conversation in another thread) upon already existing functions (programs), not future functions (future programs). Selection for future success is a capacity of an intelligent designer possessing forethought. There is no forethought in nature as such. That is the major weakness of all non-directed evolution models. Forethought and planning themselves are a prerequisite for anything functional or genuinely organized to exist.EugeneS
December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
vel:
What did the designer create specifically?
That is for us to determine.
Human designers have to deal with effects of the natural forces on their designs, how does the designer contend with those issues?
By intelligently designing organisms to evolve (by intelligent design).Joe
December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Both populations would be shrinking. Non-PCD deaths cause detrimental effects to neighbors, while PCD death provide beneficial effects for neighbors.
Why do non-PCD deaths have detrimental effects to neighbors? You mentioned this also in #162. Why not assume that all death is beneficial for neighbors?Box
December 4, 2014
December
12
Dec
4
04
2014
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT
Box All that our opponents have been doing is downplaying the problem that PCD presents to the unguided evolution "just so story". There comes a point when you have to dismiss their feeble attempts, I have shown paper after paper that PCD is a fundamental biological process, it is highly regulated and is also evolutionary conserved, and that is in ALL forms of life! Since they can't explain it in any unguided framework they down play it due to the fact that it stops their unguided evolution belief system dead in its tracks. This type of unrelenting dishonesty is shameful, but is to be expected of those that are unwilling to allow the study of Design in nature as legitimate scientific enquiry. They are truly scared of what might be found should they do.Andre
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
Box: probably not in “all parts of the colony”, because the PCD clones stay together – as you later argued? Not necessarily stay together (though many strains do tend to form films), but tend to be closer because of their place of birth.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Box: What happens at the borders of the PCD islands? There will be some advantage to non-PCD organisms, i.e. free-riders Box: The PCD organisms start committing suicide and the non-pcd organisms are benefiting from it and reproduce. The non-pcd area expands; the border advances and each round the PCD area becomes smaller. Both populations would be shrinking. Non-PCD deaths cause detrimental effects to neighbors, while PCD death provide beneficial effects for neighbors. Non-PCD organisms are more likely to be near non-PCD death with detrimental effects, while PCD organisms are more likely to be near other PCD organisms. PCD organisms will be more likely to persist. If you game it out, you'll find it largely depends on the selection coefficient.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Zachriel: There will be deaths in all parts (*) of the colony. Those with the trait are more likely to be near an organism exhibiting programmed cell death, so are more likely to have a beneficial effect.
Box: There are much more organisms without the trait, so it is much more likely that an organism without the trait is near an organism exhibiting PCD and will enjoy the beneficial effect.
Zachriel: That is incorrect. You are much more likely to be near your clone.
There will be small areas of organisms with PCD trait in an overall non-pcd colony. Under stress PCD starts. What happens at the borders of the PCD islands? The PCD organisms start committing suicide and the non-pcd organisms are benefiting from it and reproduce. The non-pcd area expands; the border advances and each round the PCD area becomes smaller. EDITED: (*) probably not in "all parts of the colony", because the PCD clones stay together - as you later argued?Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Box: photo was unclear Each of those dots is a colony. It shows non-motile bacteria remain localized. That means a mutant will tend to be surrounded by its descendants. Box: we have to factor in the chance that clones act in the same way under the same stress (pcd) Older or damaged cells are more likely to exhibit programmed cell death. Destroying damaged cells also reduces the chance of a reverse mutation and the creation of "cheaters".Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Zachriel: That is incorrect. You are much more likely to be near your clone.
Reference please - photo was unclear. BTW we have to factor in the chance that clones act in the same way under the same stress (pcd) ... which is yet another problem for reproduction of PCD trait.Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Box: There are much more organisms without the trait, so it is much more likely that an organism without the trait is near an organism exhibiting PCD and will enjoy the beneficial effect. That is incorrect. You are much more likely to be near your clone. http://sciencebrewer.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/dsc_0049_2.jpgZachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Zachriel: There will be deaths in all parts of the colony. Those with the trait are more likely to be near an organism exhibiting programmed cell death, so are more likely to have a beneficial effect.
No, that doesn't make sense. There are much more organisms without the trait, so it is much more likely that an organism without the trait is near an organism exhibiting PCD and will enjoy the beneficial effect.Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Box: Under stress lots of suicides will take place in areas with the trait, so those areas will become available for the benefit of the non-suicide members of the colony; more resources for them. There will be deaths in all parts of the colony. Those with the trait are more likely to be near an organism exhibiting programmed cell death, so are more likely to have a beneficial effect. Those without the trait are more likely to near an organism simply dying, so are more likely to have a detrimental effect.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Zachriel: No. It will reproduce normally. Some areas of the colony will have the trait, others not.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Zachriel:When the colony comes under stress, the areas of the colony with the trait will be more likely to persist.
Nope. Under stress lots of suicides will take place in areas with the trait, so those areas will become available for the benefit of the non-suicide members of the colony; more resources for them. Clearly this will subsequently lower the presence of the suicide-trait in the overall colony. So we did not solve the problem: 'how do we get to a population with PCD'.Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Box: Now one cell develops the suicide trait. Clearly it will not outperform the others in reproduction. No. It will reproduce normally. Some areas of the colony will have the trait, others not. When the colony comes under stress, the areas of the colony with the trait will be more likely to persist.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Zachriel: It does provide a selectable benefit to the colony, and as the colony is compose of clones, it means the death of the individual cell can help insure the persistence of the strain.
[Last attempt, because this is getting tedious] We have to start of with a non-suicidal colony. Now one cell develops the suicide trait. Clearly it will not outperform the others in reproduction. So are you are simply saying that the organism with a suicide trait gets isolated from the main colony and starts off a new colony?Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Box: So, the suicide-trait doesn’t have to be selectable to become a dominant trait in a population? It does provide a selectable benefit to the colony, and as the colony is compose of clones, it means the death of the individual cell can help insure the persistence of the strain. It's not the cell that counts in evolution, but the continuation of the genome. The genome is almost exactly the same in every member of the colony, so all that matters to evolution is that some of the colony survive.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Box: We have to start off with one non-suicidal population.
Zachriel: You only have to start out with a single organism with some minimal ability and an environment to grow into. That colony will be more successful in some environments than colonies without the trait.
So, the suicide-trait doesn't have to be selectable to become a dominant trait in a population? EDIT: you are simply saying that an organism with a suicide trait gets isolated from the main colony and starts off a new colony?Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Box: Your assumption avoids the problem. The problem is how to get to a population of suicidal organisms. Keep in mind they don't commit suicide willy-nilly, but only under certain stressful conditions. Box: We have to start off with one non-suicidal population. You only have to start out with a single organism with some minimal ability and an environment to grow into. That colony will be more successful in some environments than colonies without the trait.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Zachriel: It’s reproduction of the genome that determines evolutionary success.
Yes, that's exactly my point. Those without suicidal tendencies reproduce their genome more often; more offspring.
Zachriel: Consider two clonal populations. (...) The second has planned cell death (...)
No, you don't get it. Your assumption avoids the problem. The problem is how to get to a population of suicidal organisms. We have to start off with one non-suicidal population. Now one member develops suicidal tendencies. How does he outperform the non-suicide members in reproduction? How do we get to your "population with PCD"?Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Box: I still don’t get it. You stress the importance of “successful reproduction”. But suicide members of a group have less reproduction than non-suicide members of a group, since there is less time for reproduction. It's reproduction of the genome that determines evolutionary success. Consider two clonal populations. The first has no planned cell death. The population explodes to fill its container, then when out of resources, the organisms die in a manner that pollutes the local environment, so the entire populations starves and dies. The second has planned cell death so that when resources run out, some of the clones release their contents in a form that is of value to the remaining members. Some of the population survive. The second strain is more evolutionarily more successful.Zachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Joe: Ask the designer(s) and stop being such a child. Who said the designer(s) created all the trilobites? What did the designer create specifically? Human designers have to deal with effects of the natural forces on their designs, how does the designer contend with those issues?velikovskys
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Nothing if not predictable, our Andre:
So you agree with me then…… PCD is essential for life…..
Andre demonstrates, yet again, his inability to distinguish between death and programmed cell death. Oh boy.
And I don’t really understand that I don’t understand?
That's pretty much the definition of Dunning-Kruger. Entered into evidence: exhibit "A".DNA_Jock
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
I think I've made it up - the darwinian just so story: Somehow only those members in group, who also have suicide tendencies, benefit from the suicide of others. And they benefit in such a way that they can survive certain conditions that the non-suicide members of the group cannot. As per usual it ain't pretty, but there it is.Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Zachriel: That’s the conundrum, but the conundrum is only apparent. If neighbors are clones, or very nearly clones, then the genome persists. It’s not death, but successful reproduction that determines evolutionary success.
I still don't get it. You stress the importance of "successful reproduction". But suicide members of a group have less reproduction than non-suicide members of a group, since there is less time for reproduction. It seems impossible to me that suicide members, which equates to low reproduction, ever will outperform non-suicide members.Box
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Wow! Wow! Wow! DNA_Jock So you agree with me then...... PCD is essential for life..... Good! So when they die much quicker because PCD is dysregulated they don't really die much quicker? When something is a fundamental biological process it's not really a fundamental biological process? And I don't really understand that I don't understand?Andre
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Box: How can the suicide members outperform the non-suicide members of a group? The non-suicide members seem to profit without having to pay. So how can they ever lose the fitness battle? That's the conundrum, but the conundrum is only apparent. If neighbors are clones, or very nearly clones, then the genome persists. It's not death, but successful reproduction that determines evolutionary success. http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1422416/thumbs/o-WILD-SALMON-facebook.jpgZachriel
December 3, 2014
December
12
Dec
3
03
2014
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply