Me:
> 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.
Tedd:
> I'm still confused. *Nothing* is rendered incoherent by an
> ID. The only practical way to tell the difference to me is
> to apply Occam's Razor.
That's fair. While I admit it's a nice rule of thumb,
I personally am not convinced that the Razor
applies when trying to distinguish between the teleological
and non-teleological world views. I think the Razor is too
blunt to be of much help with such a large-scale ambiguity.
Me:
> 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.
Tedd:
> But this does not sound reasonable given that gene duplication is
> observed to happen.
That it is observed to happen does not mean that RM&NS have
indeed been the mechanism behind the origin of major evolutionary
innovations. Let me make something clear. I am not arguing that
RM&NS were not the mechanisms of evolution. It is also clear to
me that random mutations, natural selection, and gene duplications
happen. And evolution has happened. What I am trying to get at
is the basis behind the beliefs of people like Dawkins, Shermer,
and Dennett (and so many others). These people believe, claim,
and teach that RM&NS were indeed the primary driving force
of evolution. Given that they are non-teleologists, I can
can understand how they get from "it happens" to "it was the mechanism
that generated every biological feature known to exist" - they have
no real alternative. But if one is open to a teleological explanation,
they don't have to make this leap because there is another serious
alternative - intelligent intervention of some kind.
Now, as I see it, evolution and life's history is wide-open and
vulnerable before ID. Even beings as modestly intelligent as
we can shape and alter evolution through artificial selection (where
selection is guided) and genetic engineering (where mutations are
planned). Thus, I am trying to determine if there is solid evidence
behind attributing major evolutionary innovations to RM&NS
rather than planned mutations and guided selection. But it appears
that the belief is simply a function of metaphysics and game rules.
And that doesn't help someone who is seriously open to a teleological
explanation.
Tedd's example is as follows:
> "A mosquito species called Culex pipiens can now survive massive
> doses of organophosphate insecticides. The mosquitoes actually
> digest the poison, using a suite of enzymes known as esterases.
> The genes that make these esterases are known as alleles B1 and
> B2. Many strains of Culex pipiens now carry as many as 250 copies
> of the B1 allele and 60 copies of B2." -- quoted from The Beak
> of the Finch p.254.
> Mutation (point or otherwise) is observed to happen-- which
> means a newly duplicated gene can, if condititions are right
> (there are open questions regarding this process, of course),
> mutate into a slightly different function and continue to evolve
> in whatever direction is dictated by environment or other
> pressures.
I am well aware of this. But to me, it's not a question of simply
showing something can happen. History is about what did happen,
not what can happen. And like I have been claiming, this is a
historical inquiry and not a philosophical inquiry.
> Now, we observe a pair of genes that are close together --consistent
> with the duplication mechanism-- and have common sequences as well as
> differences --consistent with an original duplication followed
> by mutation. What is the simplest explanation for this observation?
> It is obviously gene duplication. How can anyone suggest an ID
> and not be guilty of multiplying entities?
Given the information you provided, I see no reason to suspect
ID (although I would point out that both of the features
consistent with gene duplication cannot be criteria as they
are abandoned depending on the case). In fact, I grant the
standard gene duplication stories a tentative, default status.
That is, unless there is other reason to suspect ID, I don't.
But there are three points worth making.
1. I am simply arguing that similarities in gene sequences
are insufficient to rule out ID. Thus, if there are data that
lead me to infer ID, the mere similarity of sequences fails
as an argument against that inference.
2. History is contingent and evolution is natural history.
Many people think of evolution as a natural law akin to
gravity where the discovery of one set of events here
automatically explains all events. Yet evolution is not
a law of nature - it is only a series of life events that become
history, and unlike gravity, evolution is completely vulnerable
to the intervention of modestly intelligent beings. Thus,
simply because RM&NS may have been behind the evolution
of these two alleles is no reason, in my book, to think all
evolutionary innovations were the products of RM&NS.
3. It doesn't seem to me that this type of change qualifies as
a truly major evolution innovation (such as the origin of
sex, endothermy, etc.). This is simply one of many examples
of tweaking that doesn't appear to entail a significant functional
acquisition.
Me:
> First of all, there are not trillions of different genes among
> life.
Tedd:
> Life has existing for some.. billions of years?; so yes, there
> are very probably a mind-boggling number of different kinds
> of genes.
There may have been many variants, but the recently sequenced
genomes are showing us the number of different kinds of genes
is not mind-boggling.
Me:
> Secondly, ID does not entail the belief that every gene
> is the direct product of intelligent intervention.
Tedd:
> If an ID is responsible only for the complicated genes, then my
> point is enforced. If an ID is responsible only for the simple
> genes, well... I doubt anyone would propose that.
For me, it's not an issue of complicated vs. simple. It's
an issue about which explanation generates the most
coherent account in light of all the data. For example,
I do suspect that ID is responsible for the original stem
set of genes that gave rise to evolution. And that some of
these original genes may have been similar does not pose
any kind of argument against ID (as I see it).
Me:
> 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?
Tedd:
> I mentioned this because I think a very important thing in the
> ID debate right now is for the ID side to admit that the evidence
> shows that the ID must not be an omnipotent being. Thus, we
> can continue discussion without fear that it is really, beneath
> the surface, one of those ugly theist -vs- atheist confrontations.
Yes, I think it very important to clarify that a debate about ID is
not a debate about theism vs. atheism. And I do agree that the
intelligent designer of ID need not be an omnipotent being. But
are you saying it is impossible for an omnipotent being to create
our planet ("ID must not be an omnipotent being")?
> At that point, it would become more productive to imagine what
> kinds of ID aliens exist in this universe, where should we look
> for evidence of their existence, what kinds of genetic engineering
> they're capable of, and perhaps most importantly, where did
> *they* come from?
I disagree, as I don't think it would be more productive for ID
proponents to act like those in search of the Lost City of Atlantis.
After all, it's about detecting design and not detecting the designers.
Let's look at each of your suggestions.
1. Evidence of ETI existence. SETI is already doing this and even
though many scientists strongly suspect the existence of ETI, the same
scientists also expect SETI to fail. Yet it would be more productive
to look for a subset of the ETI - those that designed life on this planet?
I think not. For all we know, they no longer exist or exist in another
universe. Thus, even if the ETI designers exist (or did exist) there is
no reason to think we would find them if we only tried. A more
productive route, in my opinion, is to better refine criteria for detecting
traces of design and study the world we can easily study with those
criteria in hand. And at all times, be sure that make any ID inference
tentative.
2. Kinds of genetic engineering. This depends on #1 and is thus
not likely to be productive.
3. Where did they come from? This is a simply an emotive expression
that reflects the way we humans desire to control our surroundings. We
feel that if we can understand everything, we acquire control in this
often chaotic world. If they designed us, we may never be able to know
where they came from. But it doesn't matter to the investigator, as
the investigator is simply trying to explain our proximal reality and
ID agents of unknown origin satisfy this objective fully. In fact, I
think it would be unproductive to focus all (most) energy on speculations
of where they came from (especially not knowing who they are) simply
because this increases the likelihood that we will force data into a belief
due to the emotive nature of this inquiry. In other words, if our objective
is to come up with an explanation that explains Everything, we are likely
to be mistaken when explaining something.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 10:35:39 EST