Jet Black

Aside from all the other arguments that people put against ID, I have been developing a bit of an argument in my mind aginst it, and would appreciate any thoughts, suggestions or refinements:

There are two sorts of design that we (or at least I) know of, Intelligent design, and Evolutionary or Darwinian design. The latter follows principals of common descent, in which the various features are modified versions of ancestral features, or occasionally novel features as a result of a mutation in the genetic code. Examples of both of these things can be found in nature, as we see in dolphins and whales, their pectoral fins contain bone structures that appear ancestral to terrestrial mammalian limbs, and enzymes such as in the nylon eating bacteria are examples of novel features as a result of mutations. These designs cannot cross species boundaries, where I am simply defining species as a group of organisms that can interbreed, so for example features seen in birds such as the feather and the flow through lung are not seen in the bat, since the bat cannot breed with birds in order to inherit this feature, however both flow through and mammalian lungs are modifications of their shared ancestral reptilian lungs. This is where the difference between intelligent and darwinian design can be found. Intelligent design takes place within what I will refer to as a space of abstract quantities - the mind. These abstract quantities are visualisations or representations of the real world, but only so far as the phenotype, or physical form or effect in concerned. Ancestry does not apply within the mind, one can take any images or quantities and merge them together in any way desired, though the results can often be strange - from the griffith to the various chimeras through to Super Mario Brothers. in our minds we can merge ideas and concepts as we see fit - the body of a lion and the head of an eagle, or an italian plumber and a walking talking mushroom. These ideas, when we have the technology at least, can then be transferred back to the real world. So for example we can take teflon from the space program, and use it in frying pans and dialysis machines. we can take genes from nettles and include them in elm trees. we can take luciferase and put it in mice, we can take human tissue factors and put them in pigs. we can take the concept of the wheel and put it in everything from cars to fairground rides. There is no need for these things to be reincented from scratch each time we want to include them in a new object. we just take and add, and discard the bits that we don't want. This is what Humans can do that nature alone cannot. This is what is never seen in living organisms, except where we have altered them. This is the hallmark of intelligent design, and in nature, it is notable only in it's absence.

Sven

I think IDists will (or do?) argue that we in fact see these hallmarks in nature - in the things biologists call "covergently evolved" (wings as the best example, I think). In other words, the IDists already thought about your point and provided an answer. To judge the merit of this answer is anyones own job.

Another Ben

Can I just qualify this by noting that certain characteristics can be transferred between species by viral gene transfer. But of course nothing as pronounced as the kind of combinations you describe.

Godless Wonder

I started a thread about the wheel in nature a long time ago and got a lot of interesting responses. I also remember reading an article by Dawkins that talked about this a bit...(google..google) Ahh, here it is: Why don’t animals have wheels?.

Rusting Car Bumper

This is very interesting and well written.

I wonder why its necessary?

The problem with ID is very simple and general.

Part 1: A ID theory if successful would give criteria or methods for determining whether observed structure is either designed or the result of rule based processes. (or perhaps somethign else but those two properly defined seem to cover all cases.) The second part is that an ID theory could also be successful if it could give criteria or methods for determining that rules existing in a rule based process are designed or are the result of something else.

Part 2: If Part 1 is acheived then one would need to show that there was indeed designed implied in either observed structure or in rules themselves.

No ID theory has done the first and failing that the second can't happen. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Actuall I'm going to post this as a new thread topic.

DC

Jet Black

I see that argument, but all these features are derived versions of the besic set i.e. a bat wings are derived forelimbs as are birds wings. insect wings are derived gills and so on. we don't see anything really jumping as we would in intelligent design, i.e. we don't see bats co-opting the flow through lung even though it would be immensely useful, or mammals co-opting the pecten, that kind of thing.

Sven

As I said: "To judge the merit of this answer is anyones own job."

Kurt Slade

Hi Jet Black

From your post:

"...we can take the concept of the wheel and put it in everything from cars to fairground rides.There is no need for these things to be reincented from scratch each time we want to include them in a new object. we just take and add, and discard the bits that we don't want. This is what Humans can do that nature alone cannot. This is what is never seen in living organisms, except where we have altered them. This is the hallmark of intelligent design, and in nature, it is notable only in it's absence."

If “Nature" was the result of an intelligent design that has life evolving by way of adding bits and pieces on purpose how would you know it by this criteria. Maybe it’s running exactly as the intelligence designed it.

Of course it would be nice to see a Ferris Wheel taken apart and changed into a car but just because we don’t see that does not mean the Ferris Wheel was not designed.

Also as humans are considered a part of "nature" how do you know that we are not the very answer you are looking for as to how nature can change its designs without adding bits and pieces?

Just a couple of thoughts that have probably been hashed over before I don’t know if they have any validity.

Regards
Kurt

Sven

That's not ID-"theory" as Demski et al. present it.
What you are talking about is better describes as "theistic evolution".

Interesting thought.
But also beside the point of ID-"theory".