Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Defining a Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:54:50 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida
Lines: 253
Sender: r...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <3fa1958c.270047858@news-server.cfl.rr.com>
References: <80d0c26f.0310301052.6943492b@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1067554490 59763 128.100.83.246 (30 Oct 2003 22:54:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:54:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.8.223.17

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:52:54 +0000 (UTC),
seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:

snip>

>I have answered this question so many times already, but here it is
>yet again:

hark the ancient wisdom:  "They have ears but do not hear."  And "They
put their fingers in their ears to stubbornly keep from hearing." 

That is why you have to keep answering the question so many times,
Sean.  But your words are not entirely wasted.  There are those --
like me -- who will learn from you.

Thanks for giving a perfectly reasonable, SCIENTIFIC, foundation for
an origins perspective that is based on intelligence.

--

zoe

>I propose that it is in fact possible to test the hypothesis of
>intelligent design, in a falsifiable manner, when it is suggested as
>an explanation for a given phenomenon.  It happens all the time in
>science.  Forensic science and the scientific search for
>extraterrestrial intelligence are examples that are both based on the
>idea that the workings of intelligence, not just human intelligence,
>can be detected in a rational scientific way.
>
>For example, let's say that I walk by a house with a broken window in
>the morning and then when I walk by that house again in the afternoon
>I notice that the window is fixed.  What is the most rational
>assumption I can make to explain how the window got fixed? 
>Intuitively we all know by experience that the only rational
>assumption once can make is to implore the workings of an intelligent
>mind - most likely a human mind in this case.  But why is this?  
>Imagine now that I walk by this same house the next day and I see that
>the fixed window is broken again.  Is it as easy to assume a mindful
>process this time as a cause for the broken window?  No, it isn't. 
>But why isn't an automatic assumption of deliberate, intelligent cause
>an automatic default as it was when we saw the broken window get
>fixed?  Because, we all know by experience that mindless processes are
>actually quite capably of breaking a window.  In fact, it happens
>fairly often.
>
>Strangely enough, while mindless processes can break windows fairly
>easily, they never fix them - ever.  Of course, intelligent processes
>can do both.  The window could have been broken either by a mindless
>or deliberately designed process.  So, it is harder to know the cause
>of a broken window that it is to know the cause of a fixed window. 
>This is *not* because we know that humans are capable of fixing
>windows.  This is not enough.  Humans are also capable of breaking
>windows and yet we do not automatically assume an intelligent cause
>just because we know that a human is in fact capable of such an act. 
>No, we must have more knowledge than this before we can adequately
>assume and intelligent cause for a given phenomenon.  We must also
>have an understanding of the potential and limits of what mindless
>processes can do.
>
>If I find an amorphous rock in lying on the ground, I might quickly
>assume that a mindless process formed this amorphous rock.  However,
>it is also possible for a human or some other intelligence to have
>made this amorphous rock since humans are in fact capable of making
>and have in fact made amorphous rocks before.  Again, a mindful
>process can never be absolutely ruled out when we view a natural
>mindless phenomenon. However, a mindless process can be absolutely
>ruled out, beyond any reasonable doubt, when we see certain phenomena
>that go beyond what mindless processes have ever done or will ever do
>- even given a practical eternity of time.
>
>So, when one understands the potential and limits of mindless
>processes in this universe to at least some degree of predictable
>value, one can reasonably hypothesis an intelligent process when one
>recognizes that a given phenomenon has gone beyond what mindless
>processes are capable of.
>
>The question now is, do living things exhibit qualities of structure
>or function that go beyond what all known mindless processes are
>capable of?  If they do, then an intelligent cause is the only
>reasonable option to consider.  However, if a mindless process can be
>found that explains what we see in living things with a fair degree of
>predictive value, an intelligent cause cannot be adequately proposed
>in a scientifically significant manner.
>
>Obviously, I believe that no mindless process can explain much of what
>we see in living things.  Therefore, the only rational option I have
>left is to assume an intelligent origin for living things.  But how,
>exactly, is my position testable in falsifiable way?  The answer is
>very simple actually.  If someone can show a mindless process creating
>the functional mechanisms that exist in various life forms, my
>position will be falsified.  Of course, you will come back and say
>that there are many structures and functions in living things that can
>and have been evolved with mindless processes in laboratory in real
>time.  Of course, I would agree with you.  Ah ha!  My position has
>obviously been falsified - hasn't it?  Not so fast.
>
>There are many aspects of designed objects and systems that can also
>be achieved by mindless process and yet the object or system as a
>whole cannot be produced by any mindless process.  For example,
>mindless processes can produce glass, but they cannot fix a glass
>window.  Mindless processes can produce facets on a diamond, but they
>cannot make the symmetry of a cut diamond.  Likewise, mindless
>processes have been known to produce certain amino acids and other
>building blocks that are used to make living things.  But this does
>not necessarily mean that mindless processes are therefore equally
>capable of putting these building blocks together to form the higher
>and higher levels of complexity found in living things.
>
>Obviously mindless processes, such as random mutation and natural
>selection, can give rise to many new structures and even novel
>beneficial functions in living things.  But, what is especially
>interesting about these mindless creations is that they are all found
>at the lowest levels of functional complexity - as compared to the
>levels of functional complexity actually found in all living things. 
>Absolutely none of the higher levels of functional complexity found in
>living things have been shown to evolve via mindless processes alone -
>period.  This observation is repeatably testable and carries a very
>high predictive value.  The limits and relative time required to
>mindlessly evolve beyond a particular level of functional complexity
>can be fairly accurately determined with extraordinary predictive
>value.  So where, exactly, would I propose placing these limits?
>
>Before I discuss my own theorized limits to what evolution can do, I
>would like to ask what falsifiable prediction that evolutionists make
>concerning the genetic mechanism of evolution?  The mechanism of
>random mutation and natural selection is supposed to be the driving
>force behind the evolution of every novel function at all levels of
>functional complexity that we see in living things.  What testable
>prediction supports such a mechanism as the driving force for
>evolution?  Can you or anyone else that you know of make a falsifiable
>prediction that proposes what, exactly, such a mechanism can create in
>the future and when, if ever, such a creation may be expected to be
>realized?  No one has seemed able to put themselves out on the line in
>regards to such a falsifiable prediction.  In answer to this challenge
>I have received many historically assumed correlations, but no
>futuristic prediction concerning the mechanism of evolution.  It seems
>to me then that evolutionists like to chide IDists and creationists
>about moving their goalposts, while evolutionists themselves have no
>goalposts to begin with.  Your theory concerning the very mechanism of
>evolution is simply not testable in a falsifiable way, or at least I
>have yet to hear of any such falsifiable position.  On the other hand,
>my position is very prone to falsification with the use of real time
>experiments.
>
>Consider that very simple functions, such as de novo antibiotic
>resistance and other such functions, that are based on the
>interference with or destruction of a pre-established function or
>interaction, can be evolved by just about any life form in short order
>and with a relatively small population.  However, not all life forms
>or even large colonies of certain life forms can evolve certain
>functions that are based only on relatively short single proteins. 
>They just don't seem to have what it takes to evolve such functions
>given what they have.  Experimental biologists, such as Barry Hall,
>have described such unfortunate life forms as having, "limited
>evolutionary potential".  However, there are certain other fairly rare
>life forms that have evolved various single protein functions - almost
>always with the use of one or two point mutations to a pre-existing
>genetic sequence (perhaps as high as 2 to 6 neutral point mutations
>for the chloroquine resistance function in the malaria parasite).
>
>Already we are starting to see the limits of what mindless processes
>can do as we climb up just a short distance on the ladder of
>functional complexity.  What is really interesting, however, is that
>beyond the level of single protein functions, or series of single
>protein functions, to the level of multi-protein functions, there
>simply are no examples of evolution at all - period.  Of course, I
>will be asked what I mean by a multi-protein function since many
>evolutionists in this forum seem to get confused over what a
>multi-protein function is.  So, I will define it again here.  A
>multi-protein function is a where multiple proteins are require to
>work together at the same time in a specific orientation with the
>other protein parts.  Examples of such levels of multi-protein
>functional complexity can be found in bacterial motility systems and
>the like.
>
>But why do mindless processes stall out so quickly as we climb the
>ladder of interactive functional complexity?  I propose that neutral
>gaps are the problem.  As we climb up the ladder of complexity, the
>junk sequences expand at an exponential rate as compared to beneficial
>sequences at the same level.  What happens is that the ratio of
>beneficial sequences in sequence space, as compared to the total
>number of potential sequences, becomes so miniscule that a gulf
>develops between these potentially beneficial genetic sequences.  This
>gulf quickly grows so wide that mindless processes simply cannot find
>their way through all the junk sequences in a reasonable amount of
>time.  The reason that natural selection cannot save the day here is
>that natural selection can only select between different sequences in
>sequence space that are also different in function.  As it turns out,
>the gulf between beneficial functions is filled with many different
>non-functional sequences.  Nature is simply powerless to tell the
>difference between these different non-functional sequences since they
>all have the same non-functional function.  All that is left for
>mindless evolutionary processes to do then it to walk blindly and
>randomly through these sequences in the hopes of stumbling, by sheer
>luck, upon the very rare beneficial sequence that can be recognized by
>nature.  At higher levels of functional complexity, the rarity of
>beneficial sequences in the all the junk sequences becomes so great
>that the random walk required would simply take a practical eternity
>before success would be realized - even for a very large steady state
>population of individuals.
>
>For example, consider that the total sequence space of proteins 10aa
>in length is 10,240,000,000,000 - just over 10 trillion potential 10aa
>proteins.  The question now is, "How many of these 10 trillion
>potential proteins would be beneficial to a given organism?" 
>Certainly not all of them, but perhaps a fairly large ratio would be
>beneficial.  Let's say that the ratio is 1 in a million beneficial vs.
>junk sequences.  If this were the case, an average colony of 10
>billion bacteria would quickly evolve a large number of bacteria to
>cover the distance between what they started with (as a clonal
>population) and at least one and then quickly all of the beneficial
>sequences in this sequence space (one million junk sequences per
>beneficial sequence).  With 10 billion bacteria undergoing random walk
>and a chance of success in only 1 million random walk steps, success
>would be realized for this colony in just a handful of generations on
>average.  But, what happens when the level of functional complexity
>requires more than 10aa?  What happens for levels of functions that
>require, say, 100aa?  The total sequence space now is 10e130 potential
>proteins.  The question now is, "What is the ratio of beneficial vs.
>non-beneficial sequences?"  Is it still 1 in a million?  Some have
>suggested that the total number of beneficial sequences at such a
>level of complexity, for a particular life form, would be less than
>10e100.  If true, this creates a ratio of less than 1 in 10e30 (1 in
>one million trillion trillion).  This is a lot less than the ratio of
>1 in a million that we had for the 10aa level of function.  And, it
>only seems to get worse.  At the level of 500aa, the sequence space
>grows exponentially to over 10e650 while the total number of
>beneficial sequences still seems to hover at less than 10e100.  The
>ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial is now truly miniscule.  The
>average random walk to success, even for a large population to have
>even one individual achieve success, is quite difficult and relatively
>rare in real life experiments.  Note also that this is a very low
>level of complexity when compared to the much higher levels of
>complexity found in all living things.  When we start talking
>multi-protein functions, where several thousand amino acids are
>required, the neutral ocean of non-beneficial sequences becomes truly
>enormous (practically infinite) and evolution just can't get across to
>any new beneficial function in any life form or population - even in
>zillions of years of time.
>
>And yet, we do have such multi-protein functions and even far higher
>levels of functional complexity in all living things.  How are these
>very high levels of functional complexity to be explained if all known
>mindless processes stall out on the lowest rungs of the ladder?
>
>Sean
>www.naturalselection.0catch.com
>

----
zoe