>>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.
>>>FMAJ: 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.
DNAunion: Two points. First, shouldn't your statement be worded, "RM&NS has
been shown to be sufficient to explain *AN* [and not *THE*] increase in
information and complexity". The use of *the* implies that RM&NS has been
shown to be capable of explaining *the* increase in information and
complexity associated with all of life, from the first bacteria up through
man. That is not the case, only that it can lead to *an* increase in
information and complexity (note I did not say irreducible complexity), from
which others then extrapolate to its total adequacy.
Second, you seem to be discussing changes to *preexisting* things instead of
their *origin* (I could be wrong here). I believe the real issues are
origins, not subsequent operation and changes. I have no problem stating
that a 4-stroke reciprocating internal combustion engine needs only the laws
of physics and chemistry to operate, but not so for its design and creation,
which required intelligent input. I (and I believe SeJones) are discussing
the ORIGIN of the genetic code.
Note that the genetic code life uses has been referred to as just about the
"best of all possible genetic codes", and it was hit upon very very early in
life's reign on Earth, being "universal" among all life, from bacteria to
archaea to eukarya (basically, yeasts, protozoa, plants, & animals). From a
theoretical point of view, these could be judged as *indirect* evidences for
the genetic code's being designed elsewhere, reaching Earth in its
fully-functional and optimized state (as opposed to the "single best of
quintillions of possible genetic codes" evolving so quickly under what were
likely "adverse" conditions here on Earth).
>>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.
>>FMAJ: 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.
DNAunion: I still disagree. The conclusion is sound based upon our current
knowledge; it is just open to being modified or rejected should counter
examples be found in the future. You have basically worded your counter
argument in line with what I said would be wrong to do anyway, state as fact
that the genetic code arose by intelligent design. If it is understood (or
made clear) that the conclusion/statement is based on inductive reasoning of
a somewhat limited scope (but nonetheless, an exhaustive scope of all codes
with a known cause currently), then there is no problem. Note that other
statements based on inductive reasoning are accepted as true: (1) all numbers
whose sum of digits is divisible by 3 are themselves divisible by 3; (2) the
laws of physics are the same throughout the universe; etc.
>>>FMAJ: Especially when a natural pathways have been proposed.
>>DNAunion: Again, natural pathways have been *proposed*, not validated.
>>FMAJ: 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.
DNAunion: Already done (in my opinion). Of the number of coding systems
known to man, for which the origin is known, they were all (as far as I know)
generated by intelligent agents. None were generated by purely-natural
processes. It does NOT mean that it is TRUE that the genetic code was
designed, just that it is the better explanation at this time based on this
inductive argument.
>>DNAunion: 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.
>>FMAJ: Sure, but that does not help us in any way to determine if this is
the case for genetic codes.
DNAunion: Agreed. It does not tell us the TRUTH, it just helps point us in
the design direction instead of in the purely-natural direction. The
"compass needle" can be swung around 180 degrees (or incrementally) if future
evidence points in the other direction.
>>>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.
>>FMAJ: Inductive reasoning is known for it's short commings.
DNAunion: Yes, but that does not equate to "logical fallacy".
>>DNAunion: If our knowledge changes 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.
>>FMAJ: Fine, so there is the possibility that genetic codes are unlike
human codes and therefore the analogy is faulty?
DNAunion: No, not faulty. It is not flawed until contradicting evidence is
*actually* presented. The *possibility* that one might exist is no reason to
label the conclusion as a "logical fallacy".
Otherwise, we would need to label the statement "the same laws of physics
apply everywhere in the universe" as a logical fallacy, because it is
*possible* that somewhere they are different. One could even say that *in
some sense*, this already occurred. Classical physics (the physics from
about Newton until around 1900) were considered to operate the same in "the
heavens" and on Earth, but it's "laws" were later found not to apply at
relativistic speeds (where time and length become altered: yes, it is a lot
more technical than that, but that is the basic "untechnical" concept) or at
the subatomic level (classical physics would have electrons spiraling into
the nucleus in less than a second instead of remaining in stable "orbits").
Is there the slightest possibility that our current understanding of physics
are likewise wrong or incomplete, even if not here on Earth, 10 or 12 billion
light years away where we cannot observe anything but ancient photons?
>>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.
>>FMAJ: 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.
DNAunion: Agreed. I am not stating as fact that the genetic code was
intelligently designed. I am claiming that ID is the best explanation based
on the inductive reasoning discussed in this post; and, ID is a "live"
possibility that should not be excluded automatically because it invokes
non-purely-natural processes.
>>FMAJ: As usual ID is based not on positive evidence.
DNAunion: But neither is the purely-natural origin of the genetic code. You
seem to be objecting to a proposal that even though an intelligent agent
*could have* created a coding system like the genetic code, it doesn't mean
that an intelligent agent *actually did* create the genetic code. Agreed.
But let's turn this around. If in the future, RM&NS is shown to be *capable
of creating* de novo a coding system like the genetic code, would you state
that such evidence still doesn't mean RM&NS actually *did create* the genetic
code? If I may be so bold as to claim what you would do, I would guess no,
that you would claim that such IS evidence that the genetic code arose
purely-naturally.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 13:08:41 EDT