>Ralph:
>>You realize that this puts you outside of Behe and most current ID
>>thought. Behe clearly says that this scheme *can not* produce
>>irreducibly complex systems, like the molecular motors that drive
>>flagellum. Adding minimal intelligence to the menu means nothing.
>>Behe is adamant: IC systems can not be produced gradually by small
>>steps. Period. And, of course, evolutionists say it's chance, not
>>intelligence, so, once again, you find yourself in a lonely position.
>>But probably you don't mind.
>
>Bertvan:
>ID is not yet a dogma. Anyone looking an alternative to "chance variation
>and natural selection" is welcome. I had Hoyle's Intelligent Universe more
>in mind than what you describe below. The intelligence I had in mind would
be
>a component of all life, perhaps its defining characteristic. I understand
>Margulis believes a degree of consciousness is characteristic of all life.
>(Margulis, having paid the obligatory lip service to natural selection, is
>still recognized by the establishment. Right?)
ID, then, is just about anything except Darwinism? "Anyone" with an
alternative is welcome? I have to give more weight to the criticism
I've seen that ID is so amorphous it can't even define itself except in
terms of anti-Darwinism.
>Ralph:
>>I want to look at your ideas as though they were the reality for a
>>moment. I'm going to assume that this minimal intelligence you
>>posit is within the organism. If the intelligence is imposed on
>>the organism from outside, then all bets are off because anything
>>is possible. The outside intelligence can be made as large as
>>necessary to make the system work.
>
>>Let us suppose that we have a bacterium that is without flagellum.
>>Tired of being pushed about by its environment, this bacteria has,
>>by its intelligence, conceived of a limited goal of developing
>>locomotion. It is at a slight disadvantage since it has never seen
>>a molecular motor or a flagellum but, being of minimal intelligence,
>>this doesn't bother it.
>
>>Now it has to make some sort of change in its DNA. It can't just
>>change some DNA at random and wait to see what happens. Being
>>intelligent, it wants to head straight for its goal instead of
>>floundering around like evolution. Waiting around for a
>>beneficial mutation to come along sounds a lot like evolution
>>too, and would not seem to be putting its intelligence to the best
>>possible use.
>
>>Now we have a bacterium with sufficient intelligence and know-how
>>to change its own DNA. Pretty good. We've barely gotten there
>>ourselves. More than that, though, the bacterium has to *predict*,
>>accurately, the result of the change it is making. As I pointed
>>out above, if the bacterium is just going to change DNA at random
>>and wait to see what happens, why do we need to impute intelligence
>>to it?
>
>>Even if it *did* change its DNA at random and waited to see what
>>happens, to *intelligently* recognize when a change is beneficial
>>*and* moves it towards its goal, would seem to require a degree of
>>consciousness of self that is quite amazing. Not even animals
>>as complex as cats and dogs seem to possess that degree of awareness.
>>To anticipate you, can I say for *certain* that Fido doesn't know
>>he's Fido and not Rex? No, I can't.
>
>>Now, what do we have? We have a bacterium that:
>>1. Can set a goal and formulate plans to add a device to its
> structure that it hasn't possessed before;
>
>Bertvan:
>Devices were added. (either by chance or as the result of intelligence) I
>see no reason for any awareness of a goal. Creative ability, and awareness
of
>increased efficiency might be enough.
Are we not talking about ID--Intelligent Design? If there is no overall
goal, if the organism has no idea how these new changes will be used,
how is this different from Darwinism? Where does the intelligence
come in?
>>2. Can create said device from scratch.
>
>Bertvan:
>Pretty hard to figure out how that happened as the result of minimal
>intelligence - much less by chance. (no intelligence at all)
By "scratch" I mean using or modifying material already at hand.
The process for that is very well understood by biologists. You
accept it, too, except you claim there's some intelligence in
the mix somewhere instead of only chance. Some IDs favor a special
act of creation for new devices, but that requires an outside
designer/creator.
>>3. Can change its own DNA in an intelligent manner;
>
>Bertvan:
>Perhaps the greatest intelligence in contained in the DNA itself.
Scientists
>keep speaking of genes "assuming a new function". DNA does chang, either by
>chance or due to some rational mechanism. Maybe DNA is the designer.
Why not my fingernails? They keep changing. To posit DNA as the ID we have
to move self-awareness from the organism to its DNA. In other words, the DNA
needs some way of knowing that changing 1 or 100 of its genes would result in
an improvement in the health and viability of the overall organism. That
means the DNA would need some way to evaluate the changes it made. How would
it decide which genes to change or what type of changes to make? Remember,
according to you, it needs no goal.
>>4. Can predict, with accuracy, the results of its DNA changes;
>
>Bertvan:
>Don't see the need for predictions
If the ID, whatever it is, cannot *predict* (before they happen) the
results of its induced changes, then it must fall back on chance to
find a useful change, which makes it no different from evolution.
Whatever happened to your idea that the ID would be able to move
directly to a beneficial change? That requires prediction.
>>5. Can recognize when such a change will help it achieve
>>at least one step towards its goals.
>
>Bertvan: . Feedback mechanisms. "Use" could provide pressure for
development
>of an organ. Lack of use could lead to atrophy.
An organism could use these tools but only *after* the change has been made.
If the ID knows none of this before the change, then the ID has no
significant advantage over chance.
>But hey, it isn't anything I'm trying to sell. To me anything sounds more
>plausible than "chance variation and natural selection".
>
>Bertvan
"Anything"? Pixie dust? Unicorn chips? I got some nice water-front
acreage in Florida I'm willing to sell--cheap and quick. :)
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 00:10:40 EDT