Mechanism behind intelligent design uncovered?

[Robin]

I didn't really interpret him saying either of these, but maybe I should re-look at it. The statement in and of itself seems to be referring to the systems of evolution and market economy, not what any individual "I" chooses or to do or does subconciously.

I simply cannot see how "...that we are inherently selfish and unlikely to give if we don't expect to receive." can possibly be referring to systems of evolution where we don't receive any benefit and the idea of 'expectation' is meaningless. And certainly none of the rest of the article uses 'selfishness' in this sense so why would the introduction assay a theme that is never treated in the body of the article?

If Richard is behaving entirely selfishly (programmed by his selfish genes), he should accept whatever Steven is prepared to give.

certainly refers to individual selfishness and is certainly a foolish statement. According to Dawkins someone may behave entirely altruistically programmed by selfish genes. How could any of the experiments demonstrated possibly uncover any adaptive advantage

Even so, as Dawkins (sort of) admits, we still have to define alturism in the past tense-- meaning actions that have already occurred, and that does have some limitation on the theory in general, as oak trees don't tend to develop altruistically. I'm sure there is a good reason as to why?

I don't know about oak trees but in plants generally there is altruisic behaviour. Ironically MC Morris gives examples of plant altruism as an argument against neo Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Michael C Morris in God's Design Plan in Nature: A Fresh Look at Altruism
Altruism has even been seen in supposedly non-sentient plants. Recent research suggests that plants secrete substances when under attack by insects. These warn other plants nearby so they can prepare their defenses. Similarly, some plants produce estrogen mimics. These inhibit reproduction in herbivores, and therefore benefit all plants in an area, even though the donor still gets eaten.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Morris.html

So there is the problem. If there is plant altruism it is an argument against the theory of evolution by natural selection. If there is not plant altruism then it is an argument against the theory of evolution by natural selection. Heads you win, tails I lose.

 

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A,

You know what a fuss-bucket I am --- you surely don't really imagine that I just go around "assuming" things about science without proof?

Not usually, however:

If it is correct, then "quantum events" per se, can't intelligently conspire to do something smart like deliberately direct the mutation of DNA or bring about abiogenesis

is an assumption based on the possibilities QM allows. I suppose if you go with a multiverse interpretation, then your interpretation of the event's effect on mutation could easily be inevitable and no deliberate direction of mutation would be needed... still an assumption, but perhaps a reasonalbe one. But if you go with a time-less interpretation of the quantum event (or the occupation of multiple "times"), then it is an assumption that the event captured in time could not be directing its own mutation from its timeless (and I might add completed) state.

At any rate it is all speculation and assumptions until we have more information and hardly worth debating over.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Robin,

Altruism has even been seen in supposedly non-sentient plants. Recent research suggests that plants secrete substances when under attack by insects. These warn other plants nearby so they can prepare their defenses. Similarly, some plants produce estrogen mimics. These inhibit reproduction in herbivores, and therefore benefit all plants in an area, even though the donor still gets eaten.

I'd like to read that guys sources... it looks like he named a bunch. Even so, your point about the quote on Richard and refusing the gift was:

certainly refers to individual selfishness and is certainly a foolish statement.

And I will have to retract my argument altogether. You are right. That's pretty foolish-- and illogical to boot.

Flick

 

[Dr Adequate]

I suppose if you go with a multiverse interpretation, then your interpretation of the event's effect on mutation could easily be inevitable and no deliberate direction of mutation would be needed... still an assumption, but perhaps a reasonalbe one. But if you go with a time-less interpretation of the quantum event (or the occupation of multiple "times"), then it is an assumption that the event captured in time could not be directing its own mutation from its timeless (and I might add completed) state.

Remember that every interpretation is just an interpretation. Argueing about which one is "true" would be meaningless. They all make the same predictions.

The truth is in the equations.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Not usually, however

If it is correct, then "quantum events" per se, can't intelligently conspire to do something smart like deliberately direct the mutation of DNA or bring about abiogenesis

is an assumption based on the possibilities QM allows.

Quite so, just as "pigs can't fly" is an assumption based on the possibilities that aerodynamics allows. That's a good assumption.

I said that I don't "just go around "assuming" things about science without proof". I'm right, aren't I?

In particular, I'm right in thinking that QM means what QM says.

 

[Robin]

The theory of evolution can be almost completely detatched from its physical substratum: we require that something, it doesn't matter what, should reproduce, it doesn't matter how, with random variations, it doesn't matter why, and is selected by some process, it doesn't matter what. This is why it's been so useful in solving mathematical and engineering problems (see our previous discussions).

The subject of genetic algorithms suggests that ID'ers are looking in the wrong place for a mechanism. If you want a GA to converge on a specific target you manipulate the fitness function, not the mutations - which would be self-defeating. If you had enough information to insert the correct mutations you would have enough information to code the solution directly and the apparatus of the GA would be cumbersome and superfluous.

Given that everybody agrees that evolution by natural selection is in fact occurring, perhaps the question is not 'how does the Designer influence mutations?' but 'how does the Designer manipulate the environment?'

 

[stamenflicker]

Robin,

If you had enough information to insert the correct mutations you would have enough information to code the solution directly and the apparatus of the GA would be cumbersome and superfluous.

That's pretty reasonable. I'm sitting here debating myself about it... at first I thought, well maybe you needed the GA and that interaction(s) spread over time baked your "cake" so to speak. So not having the GA would be sort of like having dough, sugar, and milk without heat. But that really doesn't cook without the latter part of your post, and I actually have the scenario reversed:

Given that everybody agrees that evolution by natural selection is in fact occurring, perhaps the question is not 'how does the Designer influence mutations?' but 'how does the Designer manipulate the environment?'

So I'm back to debating myself again... too bad I don't know more. My interest however is peaked.



Dr. A,

In particular, I'm right in thinking that QM means what QM says.

And at the moment the QM math says multiverse and/or timeless particle interactions are not out of bounds, nor are they unreasonable. I really don't see these possibilities being negatively debated mathematically speaking.

The math does however say that pigs don't fly. So at least we agree on that.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Robin,

Off the wall I realize, but if you found yourself at destination Z and were trying to map your way back to A through numerous turns and twists, wouldn't you then need the algorithims spread over time? Sort of like working a maze from the end to the beginning? Especially if there was more than one way to get there... you'd want to find the shortest, fastest route so why not build in a mechanism, imperfect though it may be, to get you there with a reasonable chance of success?

Flick

 

[Robin]

Robin,

Off the wall I realize, but if you found yourself at destination Z and were trying to map your way back to A through numerous turns and twists, wouldn't you then need the algorithims spread over time? Sort of like working a maze from the end to the beginning? Especially if there was more than one way to get there... you'd want to find the shortest, fastest route so why not build in a mechanism, imperfect though it may be, to get you there with a reasonable chance of success?

Flick

It also has to be an off the wall answer, and I am far from an expert on GA's but there are methods available to make a GA converge more quickly on a solution and some of these are analogous to what McFadden is suggesting.

To me it is the intriguing part of McFadden's idea although I remain skeptical that such a thing is possible (if I even understand McFadden's proposal correctly).

 

[AWPrime]

So there is the problem. If there is plant altruism it is an argument against the theory of evolution by natural selection. If there is not plant altruism then it is an argument against the theory of evolution by natural selection. Heads you win, tails I lose.

Actually it is an argument for evolution because plant altruisme benefits the species.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And at the moment the QM math says multiverse and/or timeless particle interactions are not out of bounds, nor are they unreasonable. I really don't see these possibilities being negatively debated mathematically speaking.

This is because both ways of looking at this are interpretations --- pictures to help us understand the world.

The math does however say that pigs don't fly. So at least we agree on that.

The math also says specific things about QM. For example, we can derive from QM the facts that light travels in a straight line, and that when it is reflected, the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, and so forth.

The weird philosophical questions concerning quantum mechanics don't enter into this. Copenhagen, multiverse, Bohm, it doesn't matter --- the equations give the same results. The mystery of QM, such as it is, doesn't stop us from using it as a theory which says how the universe behaves. We cannot say that just because this is all very mysterious, then maybe light doesn't go in straight lines but chases its own tail in ever-decreasing circles. However much "mystery" we have, that isn't possible according to QM. 'Cos that is not what the equations say.

The philosophical debate may be open, but the debate about physics is nearly closed.

 

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A,

The philosophical debate may be open, but the debate about physics is nearly closed.

That's fair enough, I like the philosophical debate better anyway. I would liken that to either defining my wine by its ingredients or choosing to see whether or not I can use it as a sticky skin glaze on a hot summer night with the wife. The former definition, though quite factual about what my wine may actually be, leaves me longing for, well something more fun to do with it.

Flick

 

[kuroyume0161]

Dr. A,

That's fair enough, I like the philosophical debate better anyway. I would liken that to either defining my wine by its ingredients or choosing to see whether or not I can use it as a sticky skin glaze on a hot summer night with the wife. The former definition, though quite factual about what my wine may actually be, leaves me longing for, well something more fun to do with it.

But that's a bad analogy of science, especially physics. Might be more appropo to chemistry or cooking (listing ingredients that is).

Let's say that you needed a good lubricant for, well, you know what. What would be the criteria for lubricant? You know from experience that super glue, sand paper, and alcohol (medicinal kind, that is) do not make very good lubricants. Why is that? Experience, observation, trial and error maybe? We know that good lubricants have certain properties. This is what science is - not a list of ingredients, but a set of properties that uncover the phenomenal model of the observed. Not only that, a set of predictable outcomes of said properties. The super glue may start out lubricating, but shortly creates a nasty bond. But we know that oils have properties that are known to reduce friction between surfaces over satisfying periods without horribly adverse outcomes through observation and reproducible (or reproductive - eh hem) experimentation.

Do you see where your analogy fails? Science isn't about purely categorizing everything, it's about how what we observe works.

 

[stamenflicker]

Do you see where your analogy fails? Science isn't about purely categorizing everything, it's about how what we observe works.

It doesn't fail at all, if the philosophical implications of the math are still open. So we observe that the math works, that's fine. But if there are odd implications to it, then well, we can think well, oddly. Sort of like tanning hide began as a way to keep humans warm, but then one day a fellow thought, hey we can draw kinky pictures of fertility godesses on this stuff too!

Flick

 

[Dr Adequate]

That's fair enough, I like the philosophical debate better anyway.

So long as you know which is which. The problem with the stuff in the OP, and the stuff you've linked to, is that they are trying to get from some philosophical idea to a physical idea which is outlawed by the equations they're trying to philosophise about. The question of the origin of life in particular may be a chemical question, or it may be a theological question. It cannot be a case of some wonderful "philosophy" of quantum mechanics explaining how life popped out of nothing in a puff of logic, because that is not what the equations say.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It doesn't fail at all, if the philosophical implications of the math are still open. So we observe that the math works, that's fine. But if there are odd implications to it...

But there aren't.

This is what distinguishes philosophy from science.

The various philosophical views of quantum mechanics do not have different implications. They have the same implications. Which are: if you look at the world, you will see what the equations say you will see. The philosophical ideas about QM all have exactly the same implications. Therefore, they are of no scientific interest.

 

[Iacchus]

What are "ideas," but the very things which have to occur first, before we can begin to decribe all this scientific "stuff." I'm afraid science cannot get away from the notion of any "philosophical" idea.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What are "ideas," but the very things which have to occur first, before we can begin to decribe all this scientific "stuff." I'm afraid science cannot get away from the notion of any "philosophical" idea.

Please say which particular philosophical idea science cannot get away from.

Oh, but I forgot: you only ask questions, and never say what you mean. It's like you're the Good Twin and hammy's the Evil Twin.

Please come back when you actually have a point of view.

 

[Darat]

Please say which particular philosophical idea science cannot get away from.

Oh, but I forgot: you only ask questions, and never say what you mean. It's like you're the Good Twin and hammy's the Evil Twin.

Please come back when you actually have a point of view.

But what is a point of view but an idea of a question of a thought?

 

[Dr Adequate]

A statement.

(Yes, I do realise that you're joking, but Iacchus may not.)