In a message dated 10/22/2000 8:11:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
DNAunion@aol.com writes:
> >>FMAJ: SETI is based on recognizing human like codes. The issue with
> evolution is quite different since RM&NS have been proposed as a way to
> explain information and genetic code. So in fact it is not our universal
> experience that "codes are always assembled by intelligent beings".
>
> DNAunion: But FMAJ's counter argument does not support this claim of his.
> He states that RM&NS has been *PROPOSED* as a possible mechanism of
> generating things like the genetic code - there is no evidence yet that it
> could or did. Our *ACTUAL* experiences (at least those that I, and
> apparently SeJones and others, are aware of) still point to intelligent
> agents as the only source of coding systems like the genetic code.
>
As far as evolution is concerned RM&NS has been shown to be sufficient to
explain the increase in information and complexity. This does not mean that
it is therefore correct but it does show how it is a viable mechanism that
can not be dismissed. Since ID is based on elimination of alternatives rather
than on positive data, it once again comes up empty handed.
> >>>FMAJ: Lacking any independent evidence of design in biology and genetic
> code, one should not jump to any conclusions based on a shakey analogy.
>
> DNAunion: Jumping to the conclusion based on inductive reasoning is not
> the
> problem. Stating that it is a *fact* that the genetic code was
> intelligently
> designed would be.
>
So would be concluding that since we "only know intelligent designers of
code" that therefore the "code" in genetics is also intelligently designed.
Such arguments based on analogy are as poor as they were in the days of Paley.
> >>>FMAJ: Especially when a natural pathways have been proposed.
>
> DNAunion: Again, natural pathways have been *proposed*, not validated.
>
That of course is irrelevant to the issue. Since they have been proposed ID
has to show that their explanation is a better explanation than the one
proposed by these natural pathways.
> Intelligent agents *can* create coding systems like the genetic code: that
> is
> verifiable fact. And unless you or someone else has evidence to the
> contrary, at this point in time, intelligent agents are the only
> *confirmed*
> sources of coding systems like the genetic code.
>
Sure, but that does not help us in any way to determine if this is the case
for genetic codes.
> >>>FMAJ: So in short, the logical fallacy is the assumption that "all
> complex things such as genetic codes are always assembled by intelligent
> beings".
>
> DNAunion: I would say it is not a "logical fallacy", but a conclusion
> based
> on inductive reasoning from our current knowledge. If our knowledge
> changes
>
Inductive reasoning is known for it's short commings.
> in the future in some way that effects the conclusion, then the conclusion
> should be modified. Is it really wrong to propose things based on our
> current knowledge because there is the possibility that some future
> discovery
> could change it? I don't think so, as long as the conclusion is presented
> with qualifications and not as undeniable fact.
>
Fine, so there is the possibility that genetic codes are unlike human codes
and therefore the analogy is faulty?
> >>>FMAJ: That is something ID has to show to presume. In case of evolution
> they cannot presume that which they have to support.
>
> DNAunion: Lost me there.
>
If you presume that only designers can created codes then you have presumed
that the genetic code is similarly designed rather than shown that this is
the case. As usual ID is based not on positive evidence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 02:48:39 EDT