A funny way to look at ID

[Mojo]

I am claiming that Intelligent Design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause", The oncomouse is a living thing and it is part of the universe. One of its features is that it is very susceptible to cancer. That feature was designed by scientists. They did so in an intelligent way.

So your claim is that man-made things are best explained as having been made by man.

 

[sphenisc]

And you are damn neat unique in doing so. The closest you can get by the supporters of ID, is that life itself requires design by an intelligent designer. You are redefining the terms. So it is clear you do support biblical literal creationism as you subscribe to their tactics.

ID is a tactic nothing more.

Five claims and not a single piece of supporting evidence, and the only piece of reasoning involves a logical fallacy.

I've already explained to Wolfman my attitude to such replies.

I'm beginning to think that if you have to resort to tactics like this then you don't have any real arguments.

 

[sphenisc]

So your claim is that man-made things are best explained as having been made by man.

I'd expressed my argument in five, relatively simple sentences. If that's still too complicated for you to address directly, I can only apologise - that's as low as I go.

You and ponderingturtle might like to agree on the strawman you want to attack. If he's claiming I'm a creationist and you're claiming I'm stating a trivial tautology it's going to be pretty obvious that at least one of you is talking complete ********.

 

[wollery]

I am claiming that Intelligent Design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause", The oncomouse is a living thing and it is part of the universe. One of its features is that it is very susceptible to cancer. That feature was designed by scientists. They did so in an intelligent way.

Ergo the Intelligent Design assertion is true.

Not quite.

That feature was added by scientists who adapted it from other genetic sequences which had been previously studied.

They found a useful feature of the blueprint which pre-existed and adapted it to another use.

Yes, intelligence was involved, and the mouse probably wouldn't have evolved that way without human interference, but I have to ask, what is the point of this semantic game?

Your argument boils down to, "There are intelligent beings in the Universe and they can fiddle about with stuff intelligently".

ID as you are defining it doesn't actually tell us anything useful. If you can't see the intelligence at work designing the thing how do you tell if intelligence was involved? You aren't positing anything testable, like irreducible complexity, and you aren't making any prediction about what your version of ID means in regards to the big picture.

So what are you doing?

 

[sphenisc]

Not quite.

That feature was added by scientists who adapted it from other genetic sequences which had been previously studied.

They found a useful feature of the blueprint which pre-existed and adapted it to another use.

That satisfies my concept of design - I don't expect clothes designers to rear their own sheep. But I'll stick with "interference" as you seem to prefer it later on.

(I'll read your "blueprint" in quotation marks - I'm assuming you don't think the wild mouse genome was intelligently designed. )

Yes, intelligence was involved, and the mouse probably wouldn't have evolved that way without human interference,

Great,

but I have to ask, what is the point of this semantic game?

The point is, that, given you accept the oncomouse is to some extent the result of intelligent interference, there is at least some set of evidence which is sufficient to lead you to that conclusion. If I presented you with another organism, say a whifflebat, could you describe the minimum set of evidence you would require to lead you to conclude that it was also the result of intelligent interference.

Your argument boils down to, "There are intelligent beings in the Universe and they can fiddle about with stuff intelligently".

Hmmm. So pretty non-controversial, you'd think.

ID as you are defining it doesn't actually tell us anything useful.

I don't know, I've found it useful in identifying that people will use all sorts of fallacies to avoid agreeing with the bleeding obvious.

Also it tells me that, if ID is accepted as true by a number of people, then they have some set of criteria that they apply in order to identify intelligent inteference. I would like to know what those criteria are, how they vary between people and whether there is a consensus what intelligent interfeence looks like.

If you can't see the intelligence at work designing the thing how do you tell if intelligence was involved?

I don't know, yet I assume you weren't at the lab where the oncomouse first developed, and still you seem to be able to tell intelligence was involved.

You aren't positing anything testable, like irreducible complexity, and you aren't making any prediction about what your version of ID means in regards to the big picture.

So what are you doing?

I'm working on the idea that, in any other context other than discussions of "ID", there is general agreement on whether some organism is intelligently designed/"interfered with" or not: Suffolk Punch, yes; Burchell's Zebra, no;
chihuahua, yes; wolf, no, etc.

It's clearly regarded as laughable that aphids are the result of intelligent interference, despite the fact that ants are described as "farming" them. The resemblance to real farming is insufficently close to conclude that ants are intelligent.

I'd like to discuss what puts us on one side of the boundary and ants on the other.

 

[wollery]

That satisfies my concept of design - I don't expect clothes designers to rear their own sheep. But I'll stick with "interference" as you seem to prefer it later on.

Fine, and I'll explain why I prefer it later on.

(I'll read your "blueprint" in quotation marks - I'm assuming you don't think the wild mouse genome was intelligently designed. )

Not in the least, it's just a handy shorthand way of saying it.

Great,

The point is, that, given you accept the oncomouse is to some extent the result of intelligent interference, there is at least some set of evidence which is sufficient to lead you to that conclusion.

I can look at the patent certificate.

A more interesting question is, if the oncomouse were to escape to the wild, mankind disappeared along with all of the records of the development of the oncomouse, and some aliens landed on Earth, would they be able to identify that oncomouse wasn't an unfortunate random mutation?

After all, it doesn't come with a bar code stamped on its DNA. It doesn't have a single gene that doesn't occur naturally in some other species.

If I presented you with another organism, say a whifflebat, could you describe the minimum set of evidence you would require to lead you to conclude that it was also the result of intelligent interference.

A whifflebat isn't an organism.

Hmmm. So pretty non-controversial, you'd think.

Yes.

I don't know, I've found it useful in identifying that people will use all sorts of fallacies to avoid agreeing with the bleeding obvious.

No, they're desperately struggling to work out why you're applying a label that's used almost exclusively by religious zealots who want to force the school system to teach creationism.

Also it tells me that, if ID is accepted as true by a number of people, then they have some set of criteria that they apply in order to identify intelligent inteference. I would like to know what those criteria are, how they vary between people and whether there is a consensus what intelligent interfeence looks like.

Not at all. See my oncomouse question above.

I don't know, yet I assume you weren't at the lab where the oncomouse first developed, and still you seem to be able to tell intelligence was involved.

Because there's a patent on it. Other than that, what would lead you to the conclusion, in the absence of humans or our records, that it was anything other than natural.

I'm working on the idea that, in any other context other than discussions of "ID", there is general agreement on whether some organism is intelligently designed/"interfered with" or not: Suffolk Punch, yes; Burchell's Zebra, no;
chihuahua, yes; wolf, no, etc.

So how do you tell, objectively that a Suffolk Punch or a chihuahua are intelligently interfered whereas a Burchell's Zebra isn't?

No, that's a serious question. I mean, I look at a Suffolk Punch and I see a big, sturdy horse. What about that says that any intelligence was involved.

As for the chihuahua, I look at one of those and as far as I'm concerned if there was any interference it certainly wasn't intelligent. I mean, why? For the love of all that's good why??

If you wanted to interfere with a dog to make it a food animal you'd breed one with more meat, and if you wanted a pet you'd breed something better looking, with a better temperament. There are far stranger looking and apparently less likely animals in nature, and chihuahuas could survive in the wild, so what about them specifically says, "intelligent interference".

It's clearly regarded as laughable that aphids are the result of intelligent interference, despite the fact that ants are described as "farming" them. The resemblance to real farming is insufficently close to conclude that ants are intelligent.

Actually the resemblance to "real" farming is frighteningly close. From the Wiki page;

Some farming ant species gather and store the aphid eggs in their nests over the winter. In the spring, the ants carry the newly-hatched aphids back to the plants. Some species of dairying ants (such as the European yellow meadow ant, Lasius flavus)^[14] manage large "herds" of aphids that feed on roots of plants in the ant colony. Queens that are leaving to start a new colony take an aphid egg to found a new herd of underground aphids in the new colony. These farming ants protect the aphids by fighting off aphid predators.^[13]

I'd like to discuss what puts us on one side of the boundary and ants on the other.

The question isn't whether there's a boundary between us and ants, but what aspects of an animal show that it has been interfered with. As far as I can tell, unless you have an animal like the totally ridiculous one that McHrozni suggested earlier;

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

then there's no obvious way to tell if it's been interfered with, unless you can also observe the "interferer", and even then it isn't always obvious.

You gave the Suffolk Punch as an example of something that had obviously been interfered with, but why? Apart from the fact that you know that it was selectively bred, what features of a Suffolk Punch suggest any interference?


Okay, so now to why I object to the use of the phrase Intelligent Design in this discussion.

It's simple really. Intelligent Design is almost a trademark of the Creationist movement. If we start to use that phrase to describe intelligent interference, which patently does happen, and you'll have every creationist leaping up and down in orgasmic glee, wild eyed and foaming at the mouth, screaming, "Call the US Supreme Court, there's a bunch of atheists that agree with ID!"

I can see the conversation now.

IDer: Hey, you agree with Intelligent Design.
IIer: Well, we define it in a completely different way.
IDer: But you agree with ID, you say so right here! <supplies quote mined post>
IIer: Yes, but if you read the rest of that post.....
IDer: So you do agree with it. Hey guys, there's an atheist here who agrees with ID.
IIer: Look, if you'd just wait a minute and listen....
IDer: Atheists agree with ID, atheists agree with ID....
IIer: Hang on, that's not exactly what I said....
IDer: This atheist's a creationist.
IIer: What??? Where did I say that??
IDer: You agree with ID, so you must admit that there was a designer, so you must admit that Goddidit. Woohoo, call the US Supreme Court......


We can discuss intelligent interference all you want, and I agree that it might be interesting, but please don't call it intelligent design. Please. We have enough problems with the creationists without giving them any ammo.

 

[McHrozni]

then there's no obvious way to tell if it's been interfered with, unless you can also observe the "interferer", and even then it isn't always obvious.

This is precisely the reason why such debates are important. If something is obvious there is no need to have much debate around it - just enough to ensure the obvious wasn't actually very wrong is enough.

The fact humans are able to design living beings intelligently is sufficient grounds to conclude there is a possibility (not necessity) that some other being or beings, be it another intelligent species or something else entirely, are able to or were able to do the same at a certain point in space and time. Therefore it would make sense to come up with a set of standards that would allow us to determine, as much as possible, if something was designed intelligently or not.

Saying "this is a problem", like you do, unfortunately brings absolutely nothing at all to the debate. I presented one potential way of identifying intelligently designed organisms, can you present anything to improve it?

McHrozni

 

[sphenisc]

...
I can look at the patent certificate.

Okay, so that's basically an appeal to authority. Someone else says it's the result of intelligent intereference and that's good enough.
Presumably there are other documents, e.g. "The Variation of Animals and Plants under domestication.", that you would also accept as an authority.

Yet there are some people who are capable of determining the involvement of intelligent interference without examining post hoc documentation, since the first post hoc document must be written by someone. How do they do it?

A more interesting question is, if the oncomouse were to escape to the wild, mankind disappeared along with all of the records of the development of the oncomouse, and some aliens landed on Earth, would they be able to identify that oncomouse wasn't an unfortunate random mutation?

After all, it doesn't come with a bar code stamped on its DNA. It doesn't have a single gene that doesn't occur naturally in some other species.

A whifflebat isn't an organism.

Apologies, I hadn't realised, or at least wasn't consciously aware, that a whifflebat was an item of sports equipment. I substitute the Arcturan snofflehog, I reckon I'm on safe ground with that.

We are pretty much asking the same question. The point being that the organism is entirely novel to the observer. The general question being "Are there intrinsic properties of an organism which are indicative of intelligent interference? If so, what criteria need to be make that determination?"

Simply reversing whether the "alien" aspect of the question is the organism or the observer doesn't progress the discussion any, as far as I can see.

No, they're desperately struggling to work out why you're applying a label that's used almost exclusively by religious zealots who want to force the school system to teach creationism.

Because I think that's the best thing to do with labels. Where "planets" once had an entirely astrological significance, it has now been usurped for far more useful scientific purposes. And guess what, they've even chosen to redefine it a little to suit their purposes. :0

Also it tells me that, if ID is accepted as true by a number of people, then they have some set of criteria that they apply in order to identify intelligent inteference. I would like to know what those criteria are, how they vary between people and whether there is a consensus what intelligent interference looks like.
[/QUOTE
Not at all. See my oncomouse question above.

Your oncomouse question includes a hypothetical situation in which all mankind and documentation has disappeared. That's not the case in actuality, which is what I was discussing. Also your oncomouse question is a question, as such it can't really be used to support the answer "Not at all."

[ My reference to ID in the statement should have been II (old habits and all that...) ]

Because there's a patent on it. Other than that, what would lead you to the conclusion, in the absence of humans or our records, that it was anything other than natural.

I don't know. If you're trying to imply that it's not possible then that would narrow down the criteria being based on some aspect of humans or our records.

So how do you tell, objectively that a Suffolk Punch or a chihuahua are intelligently interfered whereas a Burchell's Zebra isn't?

Hey, that was my question! I pointed out there was general agreement on the answer, which suggests it can be done. You're patent method doesn't apply in these cases - so how is it done?

No, that's a serious question.

Of course it's a serious question - that's why I (implicitly) asked it.

I mean, I look at a Suffolk Punch and I see a big, sturdy horse. What about that says that any intelligence was involved.

As for the chihuahua, I look at one of those and as far as I'm concerned if there was any interference it certainly wasn't intelligent. I mean, why? For the love of all that's good why??

If you wanted to interfere with a dog to make it a food animal you'd breed one with more meat, and if you wanted a pet you'd breed something better looking, with a better temperament. There are far stranger looking and apparently less likely animals in nature, and chihuahuas could survive in the wild, so what about them specifically says, "intelligent interference".

So rather than throwing my own questions back at me can you provide an answer? Do you accept that chihuahuas are result of II and if so why? [ I don't think they're patented. ]
On second thoughts it may be quicker if you could consider a number of organisms you accept as the result of II, henceforth IIrganisms, and tell me if there are any general patterns which lead you to conclude they're IIrganisms.

Actually the resemblance to "real" farming is frighteningly close. From the Wiki page;

Yes, it is frighteningly close. That's why it makes a good test case for distinguishing the criteria by which we recognise IIrganisms from non-IIrganisms.

The question isn't whether there's a boundary between us and ants,...

Obviously, since it's apparent that we prodeuce IIrganisms and ants don't.

...but what aspects of an animal show that it has been interfered with.

That's a new question. I've made no claim that the properties are intrinsic to the animal (if that's what you mean be "aspects").

As far as I can tell, unless you have an animal like the totally ridiculous one that McHrozni suggested earlier;
then there's no obvious way to tell if it's been interfered with, unless you can also observe the "interferer", and even then it isn't always obvious.

Then the obvious thing to do is observe the interferer. What is it I can observe that will help me identify if the interference is intelligent or not? What is it that humans do to sheep that ants don't do to aphids? < Stop smirking at the back. >

You gave the Suffolk Punch as an example of something that had obviously been interfered with, but why?

It seemed a non-controversial choice, widely familiar, so few people would need to google it to know what I'm taking about, and easier to spell correctly than Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Apart from the fact that you know that it was selectively bred, what features of a Suffolk Punch suggest any interference?

Given that I know it's selectively bred why would I need any such features? you seem intent on excluding certain kinds of evidence from consideration and I'm not sure why?
What I'm interested in is how anyone knows it's selectively bred.

Okay, so now to why I object to the use of the phrase Intelligent Design in this discussion.

It's simple really. Intelligent Design is almost a trademark of the Creationist movement. If we start to use that phrase to describe intelligent interference, which patently does happen, and you'll have every creationist leaping up and down in orgasmic glee, wild eyed and foaming at the mouth, screaming, "Call the US Supreme Court, there's a bunch of atheists that agree with ID!"

I can see the conversation now.

IDer: Hey, you agree with Intelligent Design.
IIer: Well, we define it in a completely different way.
IDer: But you agree with ID, you say so right here! <supplies quote mined post>
IIer: Yes, but if you read the rest of that post.....
IDer: So you do agree with it. Hey guys, there's an atheist here who agrees with ID.
IIer: Look, if you'd just wait a minute and listen....
IDer: Atheists agree with ID, atheists agree with ID....
IIer: Hang on, that's not exactly what I said....
IDer: This atheist's a creationist.
IIer: What??? Where did I say that??
IDer: You agree with ID, so you must admit that there was a designer, so you must admit that Goddidit. Woohoo, call the US Supreme Court......


We can discuss intelligent interference all you want, and I agree that it might be interesting, but please don't call it intelligent design. Please. We have enough problems with the creationists without giving them any ammo.

I'm quite happy to call it II for the purposes of this discussion. I think that the consequences you describe at unlikely in the extreme so, sorry, I won't be making that a general rule. And anyway, I quite like making creationists leap up and down in orgasmic glee... though usually by other methods.

 

[wollery]

I'm going to skip most of what you wrote, because we appear to be largely in agreement. So I'll just get to what I feel to be the heart of the matter.

It seemed a non-controversial choice, widely familiar, so few people would need to google it to know what I'm taking about, and easier to spell correctly than Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Given that I know it's selectively bred why would I need any such features? you seem intent on excluding certain kinds of evidence from consideration and I'm not sure why?
What I'm interested in is how anyone knows it's selectively bred.

But that's my entire point.

You have an animal that has been selectively bred, and animal that by your definition was subjected to intelligent interference, and yet you can't point to any physical (or even genetic) characteristic that would reveal this. Without the a priori knowledge of interference you can't tell.

The same applies to the Oncomouse. I can verify that it was genetically engineered because I can read the research papers, study it's genome, and compare it to other mice, and even, if I had the equipment, replicate the genetic manipulation.

But without that a priori knowledge could I look at the Oncomouse genome and know that it was interfered with?

If you have to observe the interferer, or the records of interference, then it tells you nothing useful or applicable.

 

[arthwollipot]

The fact humans are able to design living beings intelligently is sufficient grounds to conclude there is a possibility (not necessity) that some other being or beings, be it another intelligent species or something else entirely, are able to or were able to do the same at a certain point in space and time.

Humans cannot design living beings. They can only modify ones that already exist.

 

[sphenisc]

Humans cannot design living beings. They can only modify ones that already exist.

Humans can design living beings. They implement those designs by modifying ones that already exist.

There, two arguments by assertion, now what do we do?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Five claims and not a single piece of supporting evidence, and the only piece of reasoning involves a logical fallacy.

I've already explained to Wolfman my attitude to such replies.

I'm beginning to think that if you have to resort to tactics like this then you don't have any real arguments.

ID is a tactic, look up the Wedge Strategy. All you are doing is supporting creationism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That satisfies my concept of design - I don't expect clothes designers to rear their own sheep. But I'll stick with "interference" as you seem to prefer it later on.

So this is totaly unlike any real design.

"I don't expect engineers to design the metal, wait there are engineers for that"
"I don't expect engineers to design the process of manufacture, wait there are engineers for that"

The thing that you are missing is that there are people who rear sheep.'


And this whole thing is still playing right into the creationists.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Humans can design living beings. They implement those designs by modifying ones that already exist.

There, two arguments by assertion, now what do we do?

Why not just keep with the central precept of ID, god(but not nessacarily a christian one) did it all.

 

[sphenisc]

ID is a tactic, look up the Wedge Strategy. All you are doing is supporting creationism.

Hmmmm.... five... plus two...... seven!

 

[sphenisc]

So this is totaly unlike any real design.

"I don't expect engineers to design the metal, wait there are engineers for that"
"I don't expect engineers to design the process of manufacture, wait there are engineers for that"

You do realise that substituting other words into a statement I make, and then attacking that, is a fallacious argument?

The thing that you are missing is that there are people who rear sheep.'

Really??? Next you'll me telling me there are people who rear mice!

And this whole thing is still playing right into the creationists.

Appeal to consequences^WP

But hey, it is a step up from no arguments to using bad ones.

 

[sphenisc]

Why not just keep with the central precept of ID, god(but not nessacarily a christian one) did it all.

Until you provide evidence of your hamster I've no reason to believe it exists. A photo would do.

 

[arthwollipot]

Humans can design living beings. They implement those designs by modifying ones that already exist.

There, two arguments by assertion, now what do we do?

Well, for a start, you could move into the realm of evidence by providing an example of a living being that has been designed by a human. And I don't mean redesigned, I mean designed. Like, from scratch. That's what I understand "design" to mean.

If I take a building designed by someone else, and modify it, that's not my design. It's plagiarism. If I start with a blank piece of paper, I can draw lines on it and design a building myself. It may be influenced by the work of other people, to be sure. But it's my design, not someone else's.

 

[sphenisc]

Well, for a start, you could move into the realm of evidence by providing an example of a living being that has been designed by a human. And I don't mean redesigned, I mean designed. Like, from scratch. That's what I understand "design" to mean.

If I take a building designed by someone else, and modify it, that's not my design. It's plagiarism. If I start with a blank piece of paper, I can draw lines on it and design a building myself. It may be influenced by the work of other people, to be sure. But it's my design, not someone else's.

No, no, no, no, no. This is a semantic argument, you can't use empirical evidence to address semantic arguments. You use dictionaries to address semantic arguments. Providing an example of what you think is not sufficient to persuade me to think the same way. If we can agree that common usage is a good way of approaching the meaning of words then we might get somewhere.

 

[McHrozni]

And this whole thing is still playing right into the creationists.

Just because a certain segment of population supports a loony interpretation of an idea doesn't mean the idea itself is flawed. It could be, but it also could not. We can't discount this entire thing on the basis of "it plays right into the hands of creationists". This is what most creationists do when it comes to evolution - which plays right into their hands far far more.

Humans cannot design living beings. They can only modify ones that already exist.

Neither can evolution. Does this mean you embrace ID as preached by creationists? The difference is that humans could, in principle, design life from scratch. Depending on definition of life, this was either already done years ago, is fairly close to be done, or looks likely in the (near or distant) future.

McHrozni