On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:00:26 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:I don't know how to explain it in simpler terms. And no. I do not think the moon
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47:56 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>
Ron Dean wrote:You wrote computer _code_. So everything i wrote applies to code: I did not >>> address the history or computers. But in any case, the changes in
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just >>>>> hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such >>>>> random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely
On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requestsI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if >>>>>>>>>>>> you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality. >>>>>>>>>>
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the >>>>>>> expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design.
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short
period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems >>>>>> patently absurd.
likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a
different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find >>>> similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as >>>> the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to. >>>>
computer design is the result of intelligence, not random actions.
Sigh... Yes of course not. That is the point. Neither the code itself
nor its implementation on a machine is the result of random actions
(neither is evolution, but that's by-the-be). I used the two
interchangeably as examples only because you too move between genetic
code and the animals on which the genetic code is expressed (the
equivalence to the computer)
Both are are clearly designed, we can all agree on that. But they do not
display the feature that you stated as indicative of design - having
highly conserved traits.
Therefore, something is wrong with your criterion, and therefore also
your argument that depends on it.
Maybe this analogy helps you to understand the problem with your line of
reasoning:
Imagine I told you that apples are dangerous. You'd be undoubtedly
surprised, and might ask: Why, why do you think that?
Now, in response I tell you: "Because they are red"
I'm pretty certain that answer would leave you non the wiser. Yes, we
all agree (some) apples are red, but why would that be evidence that
they are also dangerous?
At this point, you might decide to point me at things that are also red,
but very clearly not dangerous, for instance radishes, poppies, cardinal
beetle, ladybugs etc. And indeed, I'd be forced to agree that none of
them is dangerous. You'd then point me to lots of things that are in
fact dangerous, but not red - crocodiles, main battle tanks, white
phosphorous etc And again I'd be forced to agree that all these are
indeed dangerous, but not red
At this point, you should feel rightly dissatisfied by my initial
answer. Yes, we still all agree apples are red, but I failed to give any
good reason why they are in my view dangerous.
Your argument is very much like this. You state some observed
properties, and claim that they show design. But there is no logical
connection between them and "being designed". At this point, I and
others gave you examples of things that are not designed, but have the
features you claim are evidence of design, and things that are clearly
designed, but are lacking the features you gave as evidence for design.
(and we also gave you some of the things we observe in designed objects,
but are clearly missing in biological organisms)
With other word, your position that species are designed is not any
better supported than my claim that apples are dangerous, pointing at
their colour.
No, we were talking about different subject computer codes, rather
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnostic >>>> criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives. >>>> It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number >>>> of cases, and beats chance.
than computer history.
Not sure what you mean, My argument was that if we look at the evolution
of both computer code and computers, we do not find what you claim was
indicative for design, highly preserved sequences. Now my point in the
preceding paragraph says that this does not strictly falsify your
criterion - some counter examples are for a diagnostic tool permissible
(many tests have some false positives and false negatives) but you have
so far failed to give any reason to believe that your criterion is
correct even in the majority of cases.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it >>> negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the CambriaThen you haven't read carefully. Nothing in the theory of evolution
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution. >>
predicts that the earliest organisms fossilize so well that after
millions of years they are still identifiable for us, given current
technologies. Indeed, I gave several reasons why we should not expect
this. And for every historical study, you will at one point run out of
preserved evidence. "Fully Formed Schafers" are documented suddenly from
the 16th century onward, yet I'm perfectly certain that my ancestors
were not dropped on this planned by space aliens, or suddenly poofed
into existence from nothing.
Not just highly concerned, but also fully functional from the very first >>> evidence of their existence.
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highly
conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should >>>> be the case.
That is a different argument that I addressed in another section of my
post. The theory of evolution does not predict "non-functional traits"
Quite on the contrary. Design by contrast often creates not functional
or not fully functional objects: models, prototypes, worked examples etc
etc.
- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. AndI don't anyone would consider mountains as designed.
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern >>>> across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and >>>> b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they
will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as >>>> e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and >>>> knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a
common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now >>>> needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads >>>> to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should >>>> expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally >>>> give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I
gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the
globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance"
Indeed not. That's the point, and why they are a problem for you. They
clearly are not designed, yet they display the criterion you gave for
design, i.e. being largely immune to environmental change
Besides mountains
are know to change.
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They are >>>> rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to >>>> environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so >>>> than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and thatNo change was only one part.
means they ought to have been designed
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you >>>> gave for "being designed"
And I have shown the same problem for all the criteria that you gave.
None of them seems to pick out something that we find only, or even
typically, in designed things only.
The better of two options.
Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you >>>>>> describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What >>>> aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words, >>>> abrupt appearance and then stability?
Sorry, don't understand at all what you mean with this. Which two
options? Your claim is that designed things appear abruptly. I asked why
you think that. There is for me absolutely nothing in "abrupt
appearance" that indicates design, unless you think, as per my example,
that the moon also was designed.
is designed everytime it rises in the sky.
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from >>>> that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By
your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you >>>> would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a
real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything >>>> points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the
first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and
could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or
four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back - >>>> flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the >>>> time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the >>>> flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities. >>>> Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another >>>> 50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies >>>> of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of >>>> people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for >>>> a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters
etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor, >>>> but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to
take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small >>>> people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain >>>> that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were >>>> Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots >>>> of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of
documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have >>>> considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from >>>> the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of >>>> the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike
fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what
language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what >>>> ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were
just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across
most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that
things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took
just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns, >>>> in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any >>>> physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to
create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time.
From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they >>>> were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even >>>> less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period
survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces >>>> of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples >>>> heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you >>>> leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much >>>> higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things >>>> become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that >>>> the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets
destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck >>>> is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment >>>> to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify >>>> traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to >>>> reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again >>>> we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better >>>> analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were >>>> invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries
directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian >>>> explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of >>>> earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are >>>> asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there >>>> is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the >>>> phyla at least remain fixed?
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing. >>>>
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it. >>>> There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation,
there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest
surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that
the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere >>>> centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from >>>> as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have >>>> so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially >>>> the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something
remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now, >>>> in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical
factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two
elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again >>>> unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain >>>> controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out
more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In
that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to >>>> drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker, >>>> A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan >>>> evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again,
reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably >>>> controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and
Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but >>>> what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with >>>> other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of >>>> that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely >>>> zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new >>>> observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level >>>> of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in
the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the
time that for the first time provided the right type of environment.
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements. >>>> One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build >>>> on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for >>>> innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place, >>>> it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less >>>> restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then >>>> "break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the
Ron Dean wrote:
On Jan 8, 2023 at 12:00:26 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:I don't know how to explain it in simpler terms. And no. I do not think the >> moon
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47:56 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>
Ron Dean wrote:You wrote computer _code_. So everything i wrote applies to code: I did not
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just >>>>>> hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such >>>>>> random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explainOn Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly. Why is that?
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for theseJust a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that.
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short
period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems >>>>>>> patently absurd.
likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a
different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find >>>>> similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you
should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as >>>>> the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to. >>>>>
address the history or computers. But in any case, the changes in
computer design is the result of intelligence, not random actions.
Sigh... Yes of course not. That is the point. Neither the code itself
nor its implementation on a machine is the result of random actions
(neither is evolution, but that's by-the-be). I used the two
interchangeably as examples only because you too move between genetic
code and the animals on which the genetic code is expressed (the
equivalence to the computer)
Both are are clearly designed, we can all agree on that. But they do not >>> display the feature that you stated as indicative of design - having
highly conserved traits.
Therefore, something is wrong with your criterion, and therefore also
your argument that depends on it.
Maybe this analogy helps you to understand the problem with your line of >>> reasoning:
Imagine I told you that apples are dangerous. You'd be undoubtedly
surprised, and might ask: Why, why do you think that?
Now, in response I tell you: "Because they are red"
I'm pretty certain that answer would leave you non the wiser. Yes, we
all agree (some) apples are red, but why would that be evidence that
they are also dangerous?
At this point, you might decide to point me at things that are also red, >>> but very clearly not dangerous, for instance radishes, poppies, cardinal >>> beetle, ladybugs etc. And indeed, I'd be forced to agree that none of
them is dangerous. You'd then point me to lots of things that are in
fact dangerous, but not red - crocodiles, main battle tanks, white
phosphorous etc And again I'd be forced to agree that all these are
indeed dangerous, but not red
At this point, you should feel rightly dissatisfied by my initial
answer. Yes, we still all agree apples are red, but I failed to give any >>> good reason why they are in my view dangerous.
Your argument is very much like this. You state some observed
properties, and claim that they show design. But there is no logical
connection between them and "being designed". At this point, I and
others gave you examples of things that are not designed, but have the
features you claim are evidence of design, and things that are clearly
designed, but are lacking the features you gave as evidence for design.
(and we also gave you some of the things we observe in designed objects, >>> but are clearly missing in biological organisms)
With other word, your position that species are designed is not any
better supported than my claim that apples are dangerous, pointing at
their colour.
No, we were talking about different subject computer codes, rather
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnostic >>>>> criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives. >>>>> It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number >>>>> of cases, and beats chance.
than computer history.
Not sure what you mean, My argument was that if we look at the evolution >>> of both computer code and computers, we do not find what you claim was
indicative for design, highly preserved sequences. Now my point in the
preceding paragraph says that this does not strictly falsify your
criterion - some counter examples are for a diagnostic tool permissible
(many tests have some false positives and false negatives) but you have
so far failed to give any reason to believe that your criterion is
correct even in the majority of cases.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of itThen you haven't read carefully. Nothing in the theory of evolution
negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without
any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution. >>>
predicts that the earliest organisms fossilize so well that after
millions of years they are still identifiable for us, given current
technologies. Indeed, I gave several reasons why we should not expect
this. And for every historical study, you will at one point run out of
preserved evidence. "Fully Formed Schafers" are documented suddenly from >>> the 16th century onward, yet I'm perfectly certain that my ancestors
were not dropped on this planned by space aliens, or suddenly poofed
into existence from nothing.
Not just highly concerned, but also fully functional from the very first >>>> evidence of their existence.
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highly >>>>> conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should >>>>> be the case.
That is a different argument that I addressed in another section of my
post. The theory of evolution does not predict "non-functional traits"
Quite on the contrary. Design by contrast often creates not functional
or not fully functional objects: models, prototypes, worked examples etc >>> etc.
- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. AndI don't anyone would consider mountains as designed.
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern >>>>> across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and >>>>> b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they >>>>> will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as >>>>> e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and >>>>> knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a >>>>> common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now >>>>> needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads >>>>> to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should >>>>> expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally >>>>> give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I >>>>> gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the
globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance"
Indeed not. That's the point, and why they are a problem for you. They
clearly are not designed, yet they display the criterion you gave for
design, i.e. being largely immune to environmental change
Besides mountains
are know to change.
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They are >>>>> rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to >>>>> environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so >>>>> than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and that >>>>> means they ought to have been designedNo change was only one part.
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you >>>>> gave for "being designed"
And I have shown the same problem for all the criteria that you gave.
None of them seems to pick out something that we find only, or even
typically, in designed things only.
The better of two options.
Ok, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena you
describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What >>>>> aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words, >>>>> abrupt appearance and then stability?
Sorry, don't understand at all what you mean with this. Which two
options? Your claim is that designed things appear abruptly. I asked why >>> you think that. There is for me absolutely nothing in "abrupt
appearance" that indicates design, unless you think, as per my example,
that the moon also was designed.
is designed everytime it rises in the sky.
It's more a question of grammar of the sentence. What are the two
options, for starters. And my point is not the that moon is designed
every time it rises in the sky, it was designed when the earth first
got a moon.
There was a time when the earth did not have a moon. The, rather
suddenly, it got one.
And you "should" argue that the Moon is designed, because it appeared suddenly, without precursor. That is the criterion of design that you propose.
So if, as is of course very sensible, you argue that the moon is not designed, then you have to drop your criterion for design - "sudden appearance" obviously is not connected to design
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no
moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from >>>>> that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By >>>>> your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you >>>>> would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a >>>>> real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything >>>>> points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the >>>>> first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and >>>>> could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or >>>>> four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back - >>>>> flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the >>>>> time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the >>>>> flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities. >>>>> Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another >>>>> 50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies >>>>> of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of >>>>> people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and
often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for >>>>> a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters >>>>> etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor, >>>>> but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully
formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are
clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to >>>>> take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small >>>>> people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start
with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain >>>>> that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were >>>>> Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots >>>>> of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of >>>>> documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have >>>>> considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from >>>>> the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of >>>>> the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike >>>>> fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what >>>>> language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what >>>>> ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were >>>>> just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across >>>>> most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that >>>>> things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took >>>>> just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns, >>>>> in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any >>>>> physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to >>>>> create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time. >>>>> From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they
were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even >>>>> less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from
documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period
survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces >>>>> of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples >>>>> heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you >>>>> leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much >>>>> higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things >>>>> become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that >>>>> the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets >>>>> destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck >>>>> is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment >>>>> to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify >>>>> traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved
massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to >>>>> reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again >>>>> we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better >>>>> analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were >>>>> invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries >>>>> directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian >>>>> explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of >>>>> earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or
features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are >>>>> asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there >>>>> is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the >>>>> phyla at least remain fixed?
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it. >>>>> There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation, >>>>> there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest >>>>> surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that >>>>> the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere >>>>> centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from >>>>> as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have >>>>> so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially >>>>> the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have
looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something
remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now,
in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical >>>>> factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two >>>>> elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again >>>>> unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain >>>>> controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out >>>>> more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of
inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In >>>>> that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to >>>>> drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W.,
Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker, >>>>> A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan >>>>> evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again,
reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably >>>>> controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development
(Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and
Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but
what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with >>>>> other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as
wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of >>>>> that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely >>>>> zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new >>>>> observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level >>>>> of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in >>>>> the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the >>>>> time that for the first time provided the right type of environment. >>>>>
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
On Jan 9, 2023 at 6:04:33 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:There is a difference between something being alive with decendents
On Jan 7, 2023 at 10:54:41 PM EST, "jillery" <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 01:11:44 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47:56 AM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>
Ron Dean wrote:You wrote computer _code_. So everything i wrote applies to code: I did not
On Jan 4, 2023 at 12:34:20 PM EST, "Burkhard" <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 6:55:40 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jan 3, 2023 at 5:17:12 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Software code is intelligent, however if a monkey set at a computer just
We have indeed gone over this a few times. You have always failed to explain
On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 05:37:10 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Jill, the main point I was trying to make is the fact that these genes are
On Jan 2, 2023 at 11:26:45 PM EST, "Lawyer Daggett"
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2023 at 4:34:19 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Humans have not designed new information coded biological systems, but rather
On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 08:06:41 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Absolutely! Homeobox genes are beyond anything human engineers are capable of.
On Jan 1, 2023 at 11:06:54 AM EST, "Mark Isaak" <spec...@curioustaxonomy.net>
wrote:
On 12/31/22 11:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Engineering is design to meet a need by applying science, mathamatics
On Dec 31, 2022 at 4:42:26 AM EST, "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Also, even if your claim was true, you don't say how that factI have on numerous occasions. I consider homeobox (hox) genes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a marvel of engineering, beyond anything we can engineer
suggests deliberate and intentional design, despite repeated requests
for you to do so. Instead you merely assert it repeatedly and
baselessly. Why is that?
today.
I'm always amused by this argument. "It does NOT look like what
designers do, or even can do; therefore it must be designed." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A point that this argument misses is that evolution excels at producing
complexity. Evolution (specifically, evolutionary algorithms) is what
designers turn to when their own intelligent design efforts are not up
to the task.
But to look at your reasons . . .
A hard empirical evidence of systematic, foward looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and elegant engineering design and for these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons:
1) Thes are called _master_control_genes_ and for these reasons.
These genes about 180 base pairs long and 2 dozen so far known
Just a description; nothing to connect with design. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) They are universal in all phyla of the animal kingdom, from fruit flies
(a singles of genes); to zebra fish;(doubled - 2 sets of genes) to
mice; to humans(doubled again to 4 sets).
Evidence for common descent, which is evidence for evolution, not design.
3) they are ancient going potentially back to the Cambrian explosion;
even theorizes as the possible cause of this "explosion" IE a massive
number of animals of every phyla that exist today (less possible 2 phyla
ariving later in the fossil record).
Nothing to do with design.
4) these homeobox genes are said to be highly conserved (IE little of
no change) from their first appearance shown by their commonality
throughout the animal kingdom.
Nothing to do with design. Potentially evidence against evolution if it
were the case that they were extremely conserved, with evidence for
almost no change, but that isn't true. Hox genes show clear evidence of
evolving differently in different lineages.
So I must echo jillery's criticism: When asked for evidence for why you
see design, you rattle off irrelevant facts and say "design!" (Plus,
the original subject was eyes; now you are off on another tangent.) We
already know that those things are connected with design *in your mind*;
we want to know why. I think I know the answer (religion), but I want
to give you a chance to make your case.
Here's a suggestion for how to start: Leave biology out of it. Tell us
what properties indicate design and exclude non-design. Don't mention
biology at all until you get an answer to that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and engineering manuals for the purpose of designing electical.electronic
circuits, building a structure, bridges, mechanical devises, etc, to resolve
problems AND TO DESIGN WITH QUALITY, SIMPLICY AND COST EFFICITIVENESS AS A
HIGH PRIORITY, as simply and to utilize tried and true methods when possible.
BTW, I am an electrical engineer (forced to retire because of health issues)
I acknowledge that what you describe above is a fair summary of human
engineering. Will you acknowledge that what you describe above is the
very opposite of the complexity you previously claimed as the hallmark
of purposefully designed systems in nature? Will you admit that if
you designed electrical systems as complex as living organisms, those
systems would be way overpriced, and the company you worked for would
go out of business for lack of sales, and you would be out of a job?
Procducts, and systems by human engineering is virtuall never stable or
connstant. Engineering constantly, improves, methods change >>>>>>>>>>>>> and building systems become more and more efficient. This compared to homeobox
genes that remain "highly conserved" virtually unchanged and constant,
controlling the genes involved in the expression of body parts today, as at
time of their inception during the Cambrian. Human engineering is nowhere near
as capable as functioning in the distant future.
Homeobox gene are just genes for proteins that bind to specific DNA sequences.
Humans have designed new DNA binding proteins that use the same protein
folding motifs that homeobox genes use. Many other transcription factors
use essentially the same fold. So you are factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>
turned to existing coded info. A person can build a house using brick, wires,
glass etc
but the person generally could not make bricks, wire or glass. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The "magic" of homebox genes lies in the arrangement of the sites that theI understand that homeobox genes do not themselves express for body parts
homebox genes bind to. The arrangement of these binding sites adjacent
to a selection of proteins that need to be turned on (or off) in concert is the
special part, not the homeobox genes themselves. And so, the things you write
suggest that you don't even understand the system.
You keep writing that it is the homeobox genes themselves. You could swap
out a different transcription factor if you also swapped out the associated
binding sites and you would have pretty much the same functionality.
Moreover, you have effectively the same "design" present all over the genome.
Except the "design" varies from a protein that turns on or off just one
subsequent
gene, to turning on or off two, and upwards in complexity to larger networks,
with additional conditional regulators, and with inhibitory feedback that
function like timers, and environmental sensors that provide further feedback.
In summary, you apparently misunderstand the actual design of this thing
you claim looks designed. You apparently don't understand the analogous
regulatory circuitry that covers a broad range of complexity, from very simple
to very complex. Claiming to see design in a system that you don't actually
understand renders your claims about seeing design suspect. >>>>>>>>>>>>
but they are master control genes that bind with downstream genes that
express body parts in animal phyla.
As a self-identified electrical engineer, you should appreciate what >>>>>>>>>> Lawyer Daggett said about complex regulatory networks. Regulatory >>>>>>>>>> genes do more than turn other genes on and off, but also amplify and >>>>>>>>>> reduce other genes' expression, including other regulatory genes. In >>>>>>>>>> this way, they create biological logic subsystems, ex. and, or, xor, >>>>>>>>>> inverters, memory, time delays, op amps, with multiple inputs and >>>>>>>>>> feedback, all naturally; no designer required. As with the most >>>>>>>>>> sophisticated digital computers, the complexity of genetic logic >>>>>>>>>> systems can be simplified to its component parts.
ancient present at the beginning of complex animals and involved in the
expression of body parts and organs of the phyla at the beginning of the
Cambrian. It is believed by some paleontologist that these hox genes are
what initiated the Cambrian explosion.
They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>>>>>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design. >>>>>>>>
why these would be evidence of design - that is something we are more likely
to find in designed things, and less likely to find in undesigned things. I've
given you in the past the example of software code where even in the short
period of time that it is around, constant changes, some of them quite major,
can be observed.Does it mean software code is not designed? That seems >>>>>>>> patently absurd.
hitting keys constantly changing code, it's highly unlikely that by such
random actions, beneficial code would be the result. This would be extremely
likely to damage the code.
Stop right here. You are not addressing the point and shifting to a >>>>>> different issue. Your claim was that "being highly conserved" is
evidence of (or diagnostic for) design. I then gave you a
counterexample: if you look at the history of computers, you do not find >>>>>> similar "highly preserved" sequences. So by your own criterion, you >>>>>> should consider computer programs not as designed (but quite possibly as >>>>>> the result of monkeys doing random acts, or some other non-design
mechanism). That is the conclusion that your own analysis would lead to. >>>>>>
address the history or computers. But in any case, the changes in
computer design is the result of intelligence, not random actions.
You wrote:
"They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design"
Burkhard's "computer code" is counterexample, as it's almost never
conserved, yet you agree is designed. Since even I understand this,
there's no good reason why you don't.
Now, this alone I'd say does not falsify your position. Any diagnostic >>>>>> criterion will produce some false positives, and some false negatives. >>>>>> It is enough that it gets the right result in a sufficiently high number >>>>>> of cases, and beats chance.No, we were talking about different subject computer codes, rather
than computer history.
I read everything you wrote, however, i do not think any of it or all of it
negates the fact that complex life suddenly came during the Cambria
without any ancestry prior to the Precambrian (Ediacaran era) without >>>>> any evident ancestors. This single fact, effectively falsifies evolution. >>>>
Your comments above imply you have evidence which shows Ediacaran
biota are *not* ancestral to Cambrian biota. Yet you specify none.
Why is that? If you have no evidence, this would be another case of
basing your conclusions on a lack of evidence aka GOTG.
It's not my place to prove a negative.
One of the most important aspect of compound life is: how did it get started?.
IIUC your comments above imply you think unless ancestry can be
proved, then the most parsimonious explanation is created kinds which
falsifies evolution. If so, how do reconcile this with your repeated
refutation of spontaneous generation? If not, then how does "this
single fact" falsify evolution?
It's the beginning of all complex animal life. If this is unresolved, then >>> it's pointless to try proving further evolutionary changes. That should be >>> first.
No, why would that follow? We can study e.g. the evolution of morphology
of English, e.g. the trisyllabic laxing that started in Old English and
then became widespread in Middle English without having any idea where
Old English came from, let alone the origins of language.
In pretty much all disciplines that deal with historical change, the
most recent changes were studied first, issues of origins come at a very
late stage
You think fully functional simply means capable of reproduction and nothing >>> more?
But so far you have only given a bare assertion - that "being highly >>>>>> conserved is somehow indicative of design" but no reason why this should >>>>>> be the case.Not just highly concerned [conserved?], but also fully functional from the
very first
evidence of their existence.
You keep using that phrase "fully functional". ISTM any living
organism which reproduces itself is by definition "fully functional".
So what you mean by that phrase?
Yes, pretty much so. an organism that was capable to live, and to
reproduce, was fully functional in the only meaning that matters
Mountains are caused by volcanoes, continental drift, also they change
- and here we have at least one clear counter-example. AndI don't anyone would consider mountains as designed. Besides mountains >>>>> are know to change.
things get worse for you I'd say, because a) we find the same pattern >>>>>> across designed things - that is they change quickly and abruptly, and >>>>>> b) that also makes intuitive sense. If a designer is in charge, they >>>>>> will keep looking after their product, and quickly make changes to it as >>>>>> e.g. market demand, fashions, customer preferences or our expertise and >>>>>> knowledge etc change. Indeed "going back to the drawing board" is a >>>>>> common saying to indicate that an approach has run its course, and now >>>>>> needs new solutions. As designers, we constantly do this, and this leads >>>>>> to the opposite of "highly conserved" traits
So you need at the very least a good argument why in your view we should >>>>>> expect to find "highly conserved" traits in designed things (and ideally >>>>>> give an explanation for why we don't find it in the counterexample I >>>>>> gave, but that would be a bonus)
By contrast, mountains are ancient and can be found universally across the
globe - does that mean they are designed?
I do not get the connection!
Really? You wrote: [...] "to be highly conserved (IE little of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no change) from their first appearance"
Once again, you wrote:
"They are said to be highly conserved, and universal in animals of the >>>> animal kingdom. This to me implies deliberate purposeful design"
Burkhard's "mountains" is counterexample, as they are universal yet
you agree are *not* designed. Since even I understand this, there's
no good reason why you don't.
by arising from sea floors, in some cases, and wear away, not in our
liferime, but they do not remain constant or concerned.
And neither does DNA, not even the highly conserved parts. and in
comparison mountains change slower.
and dead with no offspring. The change one would expect would be
over time with gradual change leading towards a different family or
order even to a different phyla: as in some fish species to a spider
monkey or to you and me.
But mountains also change little, from their first appearance, They are >>>>>> rally old, much older than genes, and they are remarkably resistant to >>>>>> environmental change - not totally of course, but arguably much more so >>>>>> than genes. So by your definition they are highly conserved, and that >>>>>> means they ought to have been designedNo change was only one part.
And I most certainly would not present mountains
as an example of design.
Indeed not. And that's a problem for you, as they meet the criterion you >>>>>> gave for "being designed"
Review what you wrote and reconcile that with Burkhard's
counterexamples.
The better of two options.With other words, I fail to see any connection between the phenomena youOk, design, i believe is the better of the two option. Because phyla appeared
describe, and the conclusion you draw from them, and despite repeated queries,
you never attempted as far as I can remember to substantiate the connection.
in the strata without any known history.
The phyla was fully functional in that they most of the 30+ phyla remain alive
even today. There was virtually
no new phyla that came later. These phyla appeared ialmost instantly(froom
ageographic prospective) about 13
million years or less. How I tied this to design is the fact that these >>>>>>> organisms appeared abruptly (in geographic terms)
and since this constituted the necessary phyla, no new phyla appeared in the
following eras. This to me, seems
especially fitted to the key elements of design.
sorry, but again: which element of design does it "fit to" and why? What >>>>>> aspect of design (and design only) is it that leads to, in your words, >>>>>> abrupt appearance and then stability?
That's your *opinion" without basis. Do you understand what
"evidence" means?
Here another counterexample: There was a time when the earth had no >>>>>> moon. Then one day a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth, and from >>>>>> that point on there was a moon, and it was pretty stable moon too. By >>>>>> your criteria, that means the moon was designed - is that a position you >>>>>> would want to take?
And that counter-example even grants that the sudden appearance is a >>>>>> real feature of life, and not a mere sampling artefact. And everything >>>>>> points into that direction:
My grandparents, for rather terrible historical reasons, had to
establish their ancestry, as far back as possible. Very easy for the >>>>>> first two generations- they knew their parents and grandparents, and >>>>>> could ask where they had their birth certificates. More difficult3 or >>>>>> four generations back. Things got mere complicated 6 generations back - >>>>>> flooding at the time had submerged several villages in the area at the >>>>>> time, destroying many of the paper based birth registries, and after the >>>>>> flood the district lines had been redrawn, leading to discontinuities. >>>>>> Still, they managed to find some good candidates for ancestors. Another >>>>>> 50 years back and the area had been invaded by the revolutionary armies >>>>>> of France, leading again to the destruction of records, displacement of >>>>>> people, a new administrative systems that treated "from fresh" 9and >>>>>> often recorded names with the wrong spelling, as the officials were for >>>>>> a decade to so not native speakers etc etc. With every generation
further back, there was less evidence preserved from records, letters >>>>>> etc The last thing they could find was a fleeting reference to a
"Martinus Schaffer" from 1640 who may or may not have been my ancestor, >>>>>> but absolutely nothing before him.
Now, in your analysis, that would mean that we Schafers came fully >>>>>> formed into existence at around 1600 or so, out of nothing, and are >>>>>> clearly designed de novo. I don't think that's a rational position to >>>>>> take. It is much much more plausible that, as one would expect, "small >>>>>> people in small villages" don't leave much evidence behind to start >>>>>> with, and over time most of that will get destroyed. I'm pretty certain >>>>>> that "Martinus Schaffer" had ancestors of his own, and taht there were >>>>>> Schaf(f)ers in the 15th century too.
The same we find of course across all historical studies. We have lots >>>>>> of evidence from the battle of Battle of Arnhem in WW2 in the form of >>>>>> documents, records, artefacts like guns or uniforms etc. We already have >>>>>> considerably less from the battle of Waterloo, and much much less from >>>>>> the Battle of Chersonesus. In fact, we know next to nothing about one of >>>>>> the belligerents, event though their name alone was enough to strike >>>>>> fear in their contemporaries, Attila and his Huns. We don't know what >>>>>> language they spoke (just 3 words of Hunnic have been preserved), what >>>>>> ethnicity they were (and indeed if they had "one" ethnicity, or were >>>>>> just a loose coalition of heterogeneous tribes) etc etc - Yet as
recently as 1500 years ago, they had an empire that stretched across >>>>>> most of Europe.
So the further we go back in history, the less likely it becomes that >>>>>> things from that time will have been preserved, and there will
inevitably come a time were we run out of traces altogether. It took >>>>>> just 1500 years to destroy pretty much any physical remains on the Huns, >>>>>> in the light of that I find it quite remarkable that we should have any >>>>>> physical remains from beings that lived millions of years ago.
And it is not just time, it is also the nature of the entity that
generates the traces. Big, heavy and solid things are more likely to >>>>>> create remands that are hardy enough to survive the passing of time. >>>>>> From the middle ages, we have stone castles preserved very much as they
were then. Rust by contrast has eaten into the swords they had, and even >>>>>> less is preserved from their clothes. And even though we know from >>>>>> documents they liked meat pies, no single meat pie from that period >>>>>> survived. Again, mere centuries were sufficient to wipe out any traces >>>>>> of some of the things they had or did.
Same with the history of life. If you are a big dinosaur that tramples >>>>>> heavily on the earth and is made from big strong bones, chances that you >>>>>> leave something behind that can be found even millennia later are much >>>>>> higher than if you are a tiny worm. So as we go back in time, and things >>>>>> become smaller, and "more squishy", we should hardly be surprised that >>>>>> the breadcrumb trail of traces stops at one point.
Final point: quite a lot of the evidence of any historical event gets >>>>>> destroyed over time. Of this, we only ever find some, and massive luck >>>>>> is often needed. But thirdly, we also need the right tools and equipment >>>>>> to find it, and as our tools get better, so are our chances to identify >>>>>> traces. For instance, our knowledge of medieval diets has improved >>>>>> massively due to advances in chemical analysis, which now allows us to >>>>>> reconstruct the diet from excavations of latrines from that time. Again >>>>>> we find the same in the history of life. Better microscopes, and better >>>>>> analysis tools, have increased our chances to "recover" traces that were >>>>>> invisible to previous generations. And here the trend of discoveries >>>>>> directly contradicts your claim about the "abruptness: of the Cambrian >>>>>> explosion, that is we have by now, and continue to, discover traces of >>>>>> earlier life.
I presented what I consider evidence of design and the reasons I arrived at my
conclusions.
I don't think you have. You have not shown for any of the traits or >>>>>> features that you identified why they are linked to design
Whether ot not
you agree is your right and I respect that. But please extend to me the same:
the evidence and the reasons you
came to the conclusions you did. I requested this before and got nothing.
Well, not of me I'm pretty sure. And I'm not sure what exactly you are >>>>>> asking of me - why I accept the ToE, of who I would explain that there >>>>>> is little preserved from pre-Cambrian times, and after the Cambrian the >>>>>> phyla at least remain fixed?
If it is the latter, the above explanation should deal with much of it. >>>>>> There is just nothing to explain. With any historical investigation, >>>>>> there will inevitably come a cut-off point that gives us the "oldest >>>>>> surviving remnant". Every year that passes increases the chances that >>>>>> the traces and remnants of the past get destroyed. Sometimes that's mere >>>>>> centuries, sometimes it's millions of years. That we find anything from >>>>>> as far back as the Cambrian is already really remarkable, that we have >>>>>> so far found little from the time before not so much. That's especially >>>>>> the case once we consider how the hypothesized ancestors would have >>>>>> looked like, i.e. very small and very squishy.
That explains the illusion of an abrupt appearance. Now, something >>>>>> remarkable did arguably happen in the Ediacaran–Cambrian radiation. Now,
in biological evolution, we have a tension between universally
applicable natural laws (the chemistry etc) and contingent historical >>>>>> factors (again typical for all history, really)How exactly these two >>>>>> elements interacted to bring about the explosion is debated, and again >>>>>> unsurprisingly given how far back our theories reach here, will remain >>>>>> controversial. But the mainstream approach has allowed us to find out >>>>>> more about the time, and what happened. So for instance one line of >>>>>> inquiry looks at the oxygen levels in shallow marine environments. In >>>>>> that approach a couple of environmental changes had to come together to >>>>>> drive the the Cambrian Explosion (Johnston, D. T., Poulton, S. W., >>>>>> Goldberg, T., Sergeev, V. N., Podkovyrov, V., Vorob’eva, N. G., Bekker,
A., and Knoll, A. H.. 2012. Late Ediacaran redox stability and metazoan >>>>>> evolution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 335:25–35) Again, >>>>>> reconstructing history millions of years ago is difficult and inevitably >>>>>> controversial, others have downplayed the role of this development >>>>>> (Lenton, T. M., Boyle, R. A., Poulton, S. W., Shields-Zhou, G., and >>>>>> Butterfield, N. J.. 2014. Co-evolution of eukaryotes and ocean
oxygenation in the Neoproterozoic era. Nature Geoscience 7:257–265.) but
what these discussion do is to enhance our knowledge of that time. with >>>>>> other words, even if some of these ides will turn out eventually as >>>>>> wrong, proposing, testing and discussing them increases our knowledge of >>>>>> that time considerably. "Design theory" by contrast has made precisely >>>>>> zero contribution to our understanding of that time, did not lead ot new >>>>>> observations, concepts, ideas or testable hypothesis on the same level >>>>>> of granularity.
So that is partly the answer to the second aspect, "why (suddenly) in >>>>>> the Cambrian": a mix of deterministic, law-guided processes (the
chemistry) together with some contingent historical conditions at the >>>>>> time that for the first time provided the right type of environment. >>>>>>
Why no new phyla after that? Again, the answer will be a mix of
contingent historical factors together with some deterministic elements. >>>>>> One is that the earth stayed reasonably stable afterwards.
Another factor is more interesting for the design debate though.
Evolution is heavily path dependent: it can, unlike design, only build >>>>>> on what is there already. One consequence of this is that the scope for >>>>>> innovation decreases over time. Some once a range of forms was in place, >>>>>> it cold just be that these exhaust the ecologically viable
morphologies. That is very different from design, where we are much less >>>>>> restrained. Someone who engineers aircrafts can also observe and
understand what engineers that build ships or cars are doing, and then >>>>>> "break the mold" by creating a new hybrid that borrows ideas from the >>>>>> other two lineages, and build e.g. a plane that can also swim on water. >>>>>> With other words design has possibilities to create radically new body >>>>>> plans that evolution is lacking. So leaving aside that your
characterization of the Cambrian explosion is simply not quite right, >>>>>> (as John as shown to you - some body plans emerged in the Palaeozoic or >>>>>> even more recent) it is if anything an argument against design, not for >>>>>> it.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHY-NO-NEW-PHYLA-AFTER-THE-CAMBRIAN-GENOME-AND-Valentine/a1fa8ae1e6754595deba46d5e26725f5e0191169
That sort of connection could be either some sort of law of nature, or a
similar abstract rule. Or it could be good evidence of a pattern between the
two things. But it needs some form of "warrant" that justifies the inference
from "being conserved" and "being designed"
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:23:47 |
| Calls: | 6,706 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,235 |
| Messages: | 5,349,922 |