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