Re: Gene duplication and design [ was Re: Dennett's bad word and Johnson's qu...

From: MikeBGene@aol.com
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 20:01:04 EST

  • Next message: David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu: "Re: Ah, it's 2d law time again (1/2)"

    I originally wrote:

    > Evidence of gene duplication is simply sequence similarity.
    > How is this evidence against ID and for RM&NS? Where in
    > ID is the requirement for the intelligent designer to employ
    > nothing more than completely different sequences?
    > Where is the evidence that those sequence similarities were
    > indeed generated by random gene duplications?

    Tedd replied:
     
    >Where is the evidence that a fossil found in the ground actually
    >was a living creature? An ID could have merely created the
    >bones and planted them in the ground. Why do you accept
    >the implication of fossils but reject the implication of
    >gene sequences?

    Now, in good faith, I answered Tedd's question. But it is
    worth highlighting that Tedd has not answered my original
    questions.

    My answer began as follows:

    > If a designer created artifacts that we call fossils to make it
    > look like life forms existed when they did not, I can think
    > of only one reason for doing this - the designer intended
    > to deceive someone.

    Tedd now replies:

    >Actually I can think of another reason. The designer
    >is the God of the Bible and he wants to see who will
    >believe his own Word over the words of fallen man.
    >Is this possibility easily ruled out? (I've heard
    >this seriously argued, by the way.)

    This seems like a subset of the deception reason to
    me and not "another reason."

    Tedd overlooks the fact that I have already expressed
    the opinion (in this very thread) that I think the concern
    over what is possible and impossible is a misguided
    way to approach history. No, I can't rule out such
    possibilities. So what? My interest in history is not
    guided by a need for certainty and I am not the one around
    here who thinks he has history basically figured out. If it
    turns out that fossils are some type of trick or test, then
    so be it. I won't lose sleep over this "possibility."

    Trying to explain my views further, I wrote:

    > In the case of sequence similarity,
    > intended deception is not the only reason to design them
    > as such. A better reason (IMO) is that similar sequences
    > often make good design sense.

    Tedd replied:

    >Does the designer duplicate an existing gene and modify it
    >or create a new gene and modify its sequences according to an
    >external blueprint? I.e. how does its actions differ from
    >processes already proposed for gene duplication?

    According to standard models, the gene duplications were
    random events that were then refined by a blind watchmaker.
    From an ID perspective, similar gene sequences may
    reflect merely the employment of certain design principles
    and reflect a *rational* strategy to bring about certain functions.
    To answer your first question would depend on me observing
    the designer-in-action or getting my hands on his/her design
    protocol (an great unlikelihood *even if* the hypothesis of
    design is valid in the particular case in question).

    I explained some more:

    > For example, see my posting on Muscle Machines a few
    > months back. In the case of fast- and slow-twitch muscles,
    > all the machinery in muscles exist in slightly different
    > forms due to slightly different gene products from slightly
    > different genes. By tweaking the basic machinery of muscle,
    > one can thus design two different types from the same
    > basic prototype. Now, we can indeed interpret these
    > different gene forms as the result of gene duplication
    > driven by RM&NS and that is the only good explanation
    > if we exclude, a priori, intelligent design. But the
    > system also makes good design sense and I see no
    > reason for thinking that an intelligent designer would
    > have used completely different components to design
    > fast- and slow-twitch muscles.

    Tedd replied:

    >That depends on your designer. Remember that "good design sense"
    >is an entirely human concept.

    Sure. And IMO a robust ID approach is constrained to detecting
    design from a human-like intelligence.

    >The idea of reusing design is
    >not good in any transcending way, it's what humans are forced
    >to do because we're so fallible.

    I was not talking about good in a transcending way; I was
    talking about good in a rational, engineering sense.

    >If this designer is capable
    >of designing any one of life's trillions of genes, then it seems
    >to be sheer laziness for it to reuse existing parts.

    First of all, there are not trillions of different genes among
    life. Secondly, ID does not entail the belief that every gene
    is the direct product of intelligent intervention. Thirdly, your
    subjective value judgment about laziness is fatally weakened by the
    fact that you speak essentially from ignorance. For example,
    if you had much experience designing organisms such that you
    can show us why such a design was lazy, I'd pay more attention.

    Reusing existing parts makes darn good design sense to me.
    In contrast, you seem to insist that a *real* designer would
    invent the wheel a million times over. And a *real* designer
    would use the wheel in only one of his/her designed
    constructions. Why?

    >This makes much less sense to me than proposing all-natural processes;
    >A designer can, I'd think, be expected to be consistent.

    We all have our own opinions. I simply fail to see why ID
    is supposed to *entail* the notion that every part in every
    organism would be completely different. In many ways,
    similar genes make sense. For example, they can form
    tight fitting dimers where one unit is catalytically active and the
    other unit plays other roles (i.e., regulatory, anchorage,
    etc.). They increase the chances that the buffer of redundancy
    can evolve. They can express themselves as highly specialized
    forms of a basic prototype (where the designer might exploit
    the functional potential of any particular design). And in many
    cases, similar gene products are the result of alternative
    splicing, which is a much more rational strategy (IMO)
    than simply creating a whole set of completely different
    genes (to do what one gene can do).

    Finally, I added:

    > Thus, that similar genes often make good design sense
    > does not require us to embrace the notion that similar
    > genes imply an intelligent deceiver.

    Tedd replies:

    >I am aware of a mosquito species that has many copies of a gene
    >that allows it produce an enzyme that breaks down a certain
    >poison. Should I include design rather than natural processes
    >as an explanation?

    This reply really doesn't address my point (which answered
    Tedd's question). But I'll reply anyway.

    I am not and have not argued that similar genes *lead* me to
    infer design. I am simply arguing that similar genes are
    not rendered incoherent by an ID perspective. That is,
    a non-ID explanation is not required to account for similar
    genes. In your example, I would need a lot more information
    before suspecting ID. After all, I am FAR more generous
    to the non-teleological approach than the non-teleologists are
    to a teleological explanation (in my experience, non-teleologists
    would rather die than give the slightest fraction of an inch to
    a teleological explanation).

    The bottom line is that similar genes, *interpreted* as the products
    of blind gene duplication, are not evidence that RM&NS has
    indeed been the mechanism behind the origin of major evolutionary
    innovations.

    Mike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 29 2000 - 20:01:40 EST