A funny way to look at ID

McHrozni

Penultimate Amazing
M
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
11,919
Hello all

I don't know if this was covered before or not. The idea is mine, but I don't know if someone else thought up before me or not. It matters relatively little, since the whole thing has at least some merit.
Here goes.

It is an indusputable fact that the principle of intelligent design works and that intelligent design is taking place right now. However, rather than being a product of some supernatural being, it is driven by humans. Selective breeding is arguably exactly intelligent design and at the very least, it has elements of intelligent design. The mechanism behind it is survival of the most desirable (the fittest), which is the same as in natural evolution, yet it is not random, but both deliberate and directed - sometimes more, sometimes less.
Genetic technology, on the other hand, offers us much more in this regard. The principle of survival of the fittest is used primarily to clean the modified organisms from unmodified ones. We are currently not able to build life from scratch, but this is because we don't yet see any value in it and it may still change with time.

The real question should be not wheater or not intelligent design exists or it could work. Both are demonstratedly true. The real question is wheater or not there is non-antropogenic intelligent design in existence, if there ever was before or will be in the future, and secondly, if it had any significant impact on life on Earth.

I'd say the answer to the first question is "probably there is" and to the second "probably not", but both are pure speculation.

I find the entire thing quite ironic and mildly amusing. Your thoughts?

McHrozni
 
My thought is that what you say is pretty much true, but trivial. This kind of intelligent design is not the kind of intelligent design that is usually talked about.
 
One of the best ways to refute an argument is to agree with the other person. This could be one such argument. There are many plants and animals that have been changed drastically because of humans. Just about every farm animal are examples of this, as well as several plants such as corn and bananas (ID people would go bananas on this point).
 
arthwollipot said:
My thought is that what you say is pretty much true, but trivial. This kind of intelligent design is not the kind of intelligent design that is usually talked about.
Click to expand...

This is partially true (see below), however while it might be trivial in this particular debate about intelligent design, it doesn't mean it is trivial in all other potential debates regarding development of life on Earth and elsewhere. Intelligent design both exists and works, as described above. Some of it's impact is known. We shouldn't ignore that.

There is another potential point which makes it less than trivial in this debate. When arguing evolution versus intelligent design this argument proves intelligent design is possible and that it exists, but it also proves the concept of macro evolution works. Micro evolution is fairly obvious, typically accepted by intelligent design supporters and so on, but selective breeding over many generations also turned some wolves into chiuauas. Granted, this was done through human influence, but this only used existing natural patterns and sped them up considerably. I think this argument could be useful for such cases.

McHrozni
 
There's a vast, vast difference between what we, as humans, can "design" and what a purported intelligent designer could design.

For a start, selective breeding is not at all intelligent design, but rather intelligent selection. We don't design the animals, we just interbreed the ones that have the best examples of the traits we want, in the hope that the offspring will also have that trait, but better developed. And it can take a long time.

Secondly, we have a full working set of blueprints, so that even if we did "build life from scratch" it wouldn't be an original work, but an adaptation of the existing blueprints. Rather like taking the best aspects from various buildings and incorporating them into a new piece of architecture.

So, ummm, no, it isn't anything like ID.
 
No, he's right!!! Looking at it this was IS funny. In fact, taking it seriously is always funny. That whole post made me laugh. :D

By the way, based on your statements:

The mechanism behind it is survival of the most desirable (the fittest), which is the same as in natural evolution, yet it is not random, but both deliberate and directed - sometimes more, sometimes less.
Genetic technology, on the other hand, offers us much more in this regard. The principle of survival of the fittest is used primarily to clean the modified organisms from unmodified ones. We are currently not able to build life from scratch, but this is because we don't yet see any value in it and it may still change with time.
Click to expand...
proves to me that you don't understand the Theory of Evolution at all. I'm no expert on Evolution myself, but I do know that the way you are referring to Evolution is wrong.
 
JFrankA said:
proves to me that you don't understand the Theory of Evolution at all. I'm no expert on Evolution myself, but I do know that the way you are referring to Evolution is wrong.
Click to expand...

Really? Why is that?

McHrozni
 
wollery said:
There's a vast, vast difference between what we, as humans, can "design" and what a purported intelligent designer could design.
Click to expand...

If you read carefuly you will notice I didn't go into intelligent design as commonly understood, but as a principle upon which that theory (or however you wish to call it) is based. I even said as much in later replies.

For a start, selective breeding is not at all intelligent design, but rather intelligent selection. We don't design the animals, we just interbreed the ones that have the best examples of the traits we want, in the hope that the offspring will also have that trait, but better developed. And it can take a long time.
Click to expand...

See above. However you call wish to it, otherwise unnatural traits evolved in this way, and this was done deliberately.


Secondly, we have a full working set of blueprints, so that even if we did "build life from scratch" it wouldn't be an original work, but an adaptation of the existing blueprints. Rather like taking the best aspects from various buildings and incorporating them into a new piece of architecture.,

So, ummm, no, it isn't anything like ID.
Click to expand...

Let me reduce this to absurdity. If we deliberately make an artificial living being that is able to use photosynthesis to survive, produces milk, which is perfect for human consumption in nutrition and taste, bears fruit which is likewise perfect in nutrition and taste for human consumption, and produces appendages that can be cut away with no harm to the being and are essentially steaks, also perfect in nutrition and taste for human consumption, plus it is immune to virtually all diseases, reproduces easily and is easy to kill if it becomes necessary, this isn't anything like ID, because we only took some aspects that already existed, improved them and incorporated them into a new life form?
That's where your argument leads in it's logical conclusion.

Therefore I think I'll just completely disagree with you, for obvious reasons :)

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Really? Why is that?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

The people here who understand Evolution better than me can correct me, but from what I understand, it's not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of what adapts the best to the circumstances".

Also, it's not all that random. Something works it gets improved, something doesn't it's discarded.
 
JFrankA said:
The people here who understand Evolution better than me can correct me, but from what I understand, it's not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of what adapts the best to the circumstances".

Also, it's not all that random. Something works it gets improved, something doesn't it's discarded.
Click to expand...

It is survival of the least unfit for the current enviroment. Fittest suggests some sort of ideal solution, and that is not at all accurate.
 
McHrozni said:
If you read carefuly you will notice I didn't go into intelligent design as commonly understood, but as a principle upon which that theory (or however you wish to call it) is based. I even said as much in later replies.

See above. However you call wish to it, otherwise unnatural traits evolved in this way, and this was done deliberately.
Click to expand...
Never said otherwise.

Let me reduce this to absurdity. If we deliberately make an artificial living being that is able to use photosynthesis to survive, produces milk, which is perfect for human consumption in nutrition and taste, bears fruit which is likewise perfect in nutrition and taste for human consumption, and produces appendages that can be cut away with no harm to the being and are essentially steaks, also perfect in nutrition and taste for human consumption, plus it is immune to virtually all diseases, reproduces easily and is easy to kill if it becomes necessary, this isn't anything like ID, because we only took some aspects that already existed, improved them and incorporated them into a new life form?
That's where your argument leads in it's logical conclusion.
Click to expand...
I agree one hundred percent with your assessment, and it's still nothing like ID.

Unless you're suggesting that God just took pre-existing DNA and fiddled about with it. And did a pretty pathetic job to be honest, if we take your argument ad absurdum at face value.

Therefore I think I'll just completely disagree with you, for obvious reasons :)
Click to expand...
Disagree all you want, it's what makes the world interesting. :)
 
JFrankA said:
The people here who understand Evolution better than me can correct me, but from what I understand, it's not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of what adapts the best to the circumstances".
Click to expand...

Considering that the fit means "adapted to circumstances" and fittest would meat "best adapted to circumstances", I technically agree with you, but what you say is not relevant in the slightest.

Also, it's not all that random. Something works it gets improved, something doesn't it's discarded.
Click to expand...

Yes, but "something that works" is brought in an existence in a random way, and from the perspective of an organism and it's DNA, the changes to the environment are random. The DNA certainly can't predict when an ice age will come, for instance. Any 'preparations' it takes to better adapt to the environment are random. It is then decided by the environmental effects if that change was beneficial, harmful or neutral, which is what drives the evolution forward. If it was beneficial, the new genome has a better chance of surviving and spreading, and vice versa if it wasn't.
I'm fairly certain I know the basic principles well enough :)

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
It is survival of the least unfit for the current enviroment. Fittest suggests some sort of ideal solution, and that is not at all accurate.
Click to expand...

The least unfit would also be the fittest, I would say. It's certainly a more space-efficient way to write it that way :)
I don't see how this brings anything meaningful to the debate.

McHrozni
 
wollery said:
I agree one hundred percent with your assessment, and it's still nothing like ID.
Click to expand...

Hm, at least you're consistent.

What if the above hypothetical life form did not base on the known biomolecules? Would then that be ID or still something else?

If the latter, please define what ID is :)

Unless you're suggesting that God just took pre-existing DNA and fiddled about with it. And did a pretty pathetic job to be honest, if we take your argument ad absurdum at face value.
Click to expand...

See above. Another question, how would you define the way hypothetical life form I described above was done? If it wasn't intelligent design, what was it, then?

If you're going to bring God into debate, you'll have to realize he (He) is, by definition, the one who created everything in the first place - therefore the answer can only be "yes, that's what happened".
But I find that approach too simplistic. The mechanism of how it was done did not require a literal being, physically moving the chemicals left and right. Or if it did, we still need to explain how that needs to be done.

Also, I would like to point out that the only way we can currently envision (that I know of) as to how life evolved involves pre-existing, abiotically produced strands of RNA with catalytic activity.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
If you read carefuly you will notice I didn't go into intelligent design as commonly understood, but as a principle upon which that theory (or however you wish to call it) is based. I even said as much in later replies.
Click to expand...


So, basically, you're not really talking about ID.
 
McHrozni said:
Let me reduce this to absurdity. If we deliberately make an artificial living being that is able to use photosynthesis to survive, produces milk, which is perfect for human consumption in nutrition and taste, bears fruit which is likewise perfect in nutrition and taste for human consumption, and produces appendages that can be cut away with no harm to the being and are essentially steaks, also perfect in nutrition and taste for human consumption, plus it is immune to virtually all diseases, reproduces easily and is easy to kill if it becomes necessary, this isn't anything like ID,
Click to expand...

That depends on how we would *make* this creature. Do we just keep on breeding and possibly changing the genetic makeup of existing creatures by combining their genes with other known genes (such as has been done with phosphorous animals) - or do we produce a genetic sequence from scratch and implant that into the egg of a common housefly or cow?

because we only took some aspects that already existed, improved them and incorporated them into a new life form?
That's where your argument leads in it's logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

see above, the answer depends on how we build that animal.

Therefore I think I'll just completely disagree with you, for obvious reasons :)

McHrozni
Click to expand...

I disagree with you: It *could* be design, but it doesn't have to be.
 
McHrozni said:
The least unfit would also be the fittest, I would say. It's certainly a more space-efficient way to write it that way :)
I don't see how this brings anything meaningful to the debate.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

It does because evolution is often thought to produce the best results possible, this is blatantly untrue. The whole survival of the fittest plays into that fallacious view of evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom