"From an engineering perspective it would make the most sense for evolution to coopt components already available for molecular machines like the flagellum. However, that is not anywhere near enough. Structures like the flagellum bear such a striking similarity to human made machines that one would also expect them to also have a very tight specificity in both the components and the assembly instructions. The components that make up the motor, the bearings, the universal joint, the whip, etc are interdependent on one another not just from the conformal standpoint but also in their dynamic characteristics (i.e. tensile and torsional strength, toughness, torque, rpm, modulus of elasticity, temperature variances, fits and tolerances, and on and on. At least if one was to design such a device there would be hundreds of design decisions to make and exponentially many more ways to foul up than to make it work.
... Then even if all the components were just right, there still has to be tightly controlled assembly processes that are also interdependent. When I think of all the tightly specific mutation sets required for all this, I'm just bewildered how it could come about without an intentionality of some sort."
Steve Petermann commenting at Telic Thoughts
Bingo!
When I think of all the tightly specific mutation sets required for all this, I'm just bewildered how it could come about without an intentionality of some sort."
ReplyDeleteRight there, in that "tightly specific mutation sets" language, is where the commenter runs aground. Most of the assembly of a flagellum from its constituent proteins is self-assembly, chemistry in action, not a process of manufacture, part by part, from a genetic blueprint that specifies every single little part.
See here for a review and here for a more recent paper.
And bewilderment is not an argument. :)
"Most of the assembly of a flagellum from its constituent proteins is self-assembly, chemistry in action, not a process of manufacture, part by part, from a genetic blueprint that specifies every single little part."
ReplyDeleteUmn, this is even more amzing, not less.
WW wrote
ReplyDeleteUmn, this is even more amzing, not less.
Chemistry in action. :) With some added attractions -- chaperone proteins, and so on. But it's automatic -- inherent in the physico-chemical structure of the proteins.
And once again, bewilderment and amazement are not arguments.
rbh, you misunderstood the point of Steve's statement. The point is that based on engineering experience, the assembly process is a crucial and difficult part of designing an object. The "awe" comes from experience, not ignorance. My bewilderment comes from those who think the assembly process can be accounted for by "blind" natural processes.
ReplyDeleteI am reading the Pallen & Matzke article as I type this up. After page one, I am not impressed. The arguments are weak and addresses a "straw man" rather than the central point of IC.
Speaking of "straw men":
"Most of the assembly of a flagellum from its constituent proteins is self-assembly, chemistry in action, not a process of manufacture, part by part, from a genetic blueprint that specifies every single little part."
"Chemistry in action. :) With some added attractions -- chaperone proteins, and so on. But it's automatic -- inherent in the physico-chemical structure of the proteins."
The "straw man" in the above argument is the point of time the observations are made. The argument needs to address the "first" assembly, not how it is assembled now. I am sure that the assembly process can be done through "chemistry in action" (i.e. natural causes), but how did this process for the flagellum assembly arise in the first place? Your argument is analogous to arriving at an automated assembly plant for cars and stating that the robots "assembled" the cars and there was no need for human engineers when in fact it was human engineers who designed the robots to assemble the cars which were designed by human engineers.
Furthermore, I believe Dr. Stephen Meyer or Dr. Scott Minnich have written papers on the IC of the assembly of the flagellum that address the "layers of IC" that is evident in the assembly process. (I can look these up for you if you wish).
Bottom line, Dr. Miller's argument against IC still falls apart when assembly has to be considered.
(I apologise if my tone "sounds" harsh, but I am trying to put my, and other engineers like Steve, "bewilderment" into words.)
"The "awe" comes from experience, not ignorance."
ReplyDeleteHow much experience do you have in assembling life forms?
BTW, I don't think I've met anyone who isn't awed by the whole thing.
Evolutionary biologists are acting more like engineers than you and Petersen are here. They are the ones developing models of processes involved in the history of life, while you guys just philosophize.
ReplyDeleteSo what's your version of how these things were assembled? Apply your engineering expertise.
Freelurker said:
ReplyDelete"How much experience do you have in assembling life forms?"
What was implied is that discoveries in microbiology have revealed a vast and complex "machinery" that an engineer can empathise with. Thus, an engineer would have a special appreciation of the difficulties faced in "assembling life forms".
"Evolutionary biologists are acting more like engineers than you and Petersen are here. They are the ones developing models of processes involved in the history of life, while you guys just philosophize."
Freelurker, are you suggesting that engineers like myself and Steve would stop investigating the "design" once we recognise it? If the answer is yes, then let me reassure you that I and other engineers with similar interests look forward to what the latest research will reveal. IOW, NO ONE is advocating "stopping science" at the design recognition point.
"So what's your version of how these things were assembled? Apply your engineering expertise."
Sorry if this sounds like a copout, but I believe Steve did a pretty good job summarising what an engineer would have to consider in the design process.
"Evolutionary biologists are acting more like engineers than you and Petersen are here. They are the ones developing models of processes involved in the history of life, while you guys just philosophize."
ReplyDeleteIf this was meant to be a slap in the face, then you have my attention. I will try in my response to be as "nice" as possible.
1. The design process that engineers perform entails much more than building pretty little computer models. The model cannot tell the engineer how the structure can be built. Models must also be verified by hand calculations, and the results it spews out must make sense.
2. There is an old saying in structural engineering: "Steel/concrete member design takes 10% of the total time, the details take 90%." This means engineers must look at every aspect of the construction phase to ensure the structure can be feasibly built to resist the applied loads likely to be seen by it. This includes looking at material properties, lengths and availability, potential interferences (sp), limits of the contractor, limits of the building site, order of construction, accomodating potential errors, accomodating for "bubba factors", etc.
3. It is my experience that evolutionary biologists tend to gloss over the difficulties in assembling life forms. Thus far, the processes you allude to are an inadequate (some would say woefully) explanation. Maybe this is because of evolutionary biologists too strictly observing MN/PN and dismissing obvious signs of design. Maybe a new discipline/syntheis is required. Just throwing that one out there.
4. This "philosophising" is more than just empty talk. Engineers are trying to make sense of these discoveries using their acquired knowledge and experience. Some of the most personally rewarding and exciting sessions are when engineers discuss code and theory and how it relates to reality. Again, this is done during the design process as a way to "shine a light" on the engineering path to take.
5. I mean no disrespect to evolutionary biologists, but it appears to me that they do more "philosophising" than engineers. IMO, engineering philosophising accomplishes more than evolutionary biologist philosophising since the former tends to be more grounded in reality.
All of this discussion is based on an analogy - these structures from living systems LOOK A LOT LIKE MACHINES. Even if we ignore the facts and assume that this part of the analogy is true (it isn't), there is no logical reason to take the next step. But engineers and others ignorant about biology and chemistry make that illogical leap of faith, assuming that since a flagellum resembles a machine (in their view), it must be designed and assembled like one.
ReplyDeleteAs with all analogies, this one can (and has been) taken too far. Where is the evidence that this analogy is true to that extent? Please share with us the evidence that supports the notion that the kind of macro (steel and concrete) design and assembly that you understand is the only kind of design and assembly that operates in the entire universe, including at the molecular level.
thanks
JJS P.Eng.,
ReplyDeleteI see that I need to do a more thorough job of explaining where I'm generally coming from. I will, with your patience, post a couple of background comments here before I respond directly to your recent comments and questions.
First background comment:
You should know that I see most everything in terms of models and modeling. It comes from my engineering background. A model is a description or representation of some thing or some process expressed in terms of interacting components.
Engineering is all about making models. I'm not just talking about the models we use as tools; I'm talking about our products. At the end of an engineering design process, we have nothing other than a model of something to be built. The model tells somebody "this thing will interact with this other thing in this way" and tells the story "this event will cause this other event". When we have reverse-engineered something that some other engineer has designed then we have a model of that thing. When we produce a model of a natural thing or process then we have exactly that, a model.
I'm not a scientist, but I see science in the same way I see engineering. I plead guilty in advance to projecting engineering practices and paradigms onto science. (But I'm eager to take corrections by scientists when I get things wrong.) Scientists are building models. Here again, the models tell someone how things interact(ed) and which event(s) cause other event(s). They call their grandest models "theories." Just as engineers aren't designing Ultimate Stuff, scientists are not finding Ultimate Truth -- and they don't claim to be. A design (a model) produced by engineers is judged based on how well it satisfies the requirements for that product. The models produced by scientists are judged on how well the models match real-world observations. I see science as a practical activity just as engineering is. It's all about building good models.
Second background discussion:
ReplyDeleteYou've probably noticed that ID advocates and mainstream scientists are frequently talking past each other. People in each group wonder why the other guy always seems to be changing the subject. That's because ID and science are about different things.
Evolutionary biologists claim to be building a good model of the history of life and of the processes involved therein. IDists criticize that model, but that does not mean that ID is about developing a good model. It's not; ID is about demonstrating purposefullness. As the philosopher William Dembski famously said "ID is not a mechanistic theory." Various ID advocates support all manner of versions of the history of life, such as YEC, OEC, and theistic evolution. All of them are welcome in the big tent of ID. That is because the history of life is a secondary concern. The important questions in ID are not "What happened?" or "How did the process work?;" the important question is "Does an Intelligent Designer get credit for it?"
ID claims that purposefulness has been demonstrated to be evident in the structures and processes of life. Mainstream science does not agree that this has been demonstrated, but that does not mean that science is about giving or withholding credit to an Intelligent Designer. It's about building good models. ID's philosophical I-know-that-a-Designer-caused- something-but- I-can't-tell-you-what position is just not a player; it does not even attempt to tell you "What happened?" or "How did the process work."
Here's one way of describing this situation regarding IDists:
"They generally refuse to be drawn on the sequence of events, or the exact history of life on Earth or its duration, apart from saying, in effect, that it ‘doesn’t matter’. However, this is seen by the average evolutionist as either absurd or disingenuously evasive—the arena in which they are seeking to be regarded as full players is one which directly involves historical issues. In other words, if the origins debate is not about a ‘story of the past’, what is it about?"
That is from Answers in Genesis, a group that is not known to be constricted by a Darwinist worldview. [ http://tinyurl.com/3awmgm ]
I'll get back to your specific comments and questions in a day or two.
freelurker,
ReplyDeleteEver have a comment or two you wish you could take back or re-word the first time through? That's me on that "slap in the face" rant I went on. I should have walked away and thought about it more. I apologise for aggrevating a debate that had potential for great discussion of ideas. I can tend to be hot-headed, and I have to work on self-control wrt that.
I wanted to get that off my chest first. I have not had a chance to read through any comments after my late night comment. I respond to them when time permits (family, work, watering my brand new lawn).
However, you do get me thinking, freelurker; you're d@mn good at that! I am still going through the differences in design between engineers and biology, and have almost finished developing (in my mind) the concepts of active and passive design. I think this will make a good post or series of posts, and fits nicely in with the engineering theme of this website.
I hope everyone had a great Father's Day weekend :)
Alrighty then. Cool heads. Cool heads. ;)
ReplyDeletedave, welcome to EE. I have read both of your comments (one here and the other in My Library post). Let me comment on this portion:
"All of this discussion is based on an analogy - these structures from living systems LOOK A LOT LIKE MACHINES. Even if we ignore the facts and assume that this part of the analogy is true (it isn't), there is no logical reason to take the next step. But engineers and others ignorant about biology and chemistry make that illogical leap of faith, assuming that since a flagellum resembles a machine (in their view), it must be designed and assembled like one."
How is a design inference any less valid than philosophical naturalism (PN)? Both are, IMO, legitimate starting points. A design worldview worked for Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc. Why not now?
From these starting points, both sides can proceed with data collection and experimentation. Conclusions are made and sometimes do overlap, but is not unexpected that two different explanations can and do occur.
Even though I can be comfortable with assuming design, why does it threaten you, dave? PN does not threaten me. I have posted critiques of both sides of the debate, and IMO, both sides are missing something (side note: I will read Del Ratzsch's critique of Dembski's DEF since, IMO, it will be the most analytic and least emotional).
Freelurker,
Now you made me feel even worse that I "went off" on a fellow engineer. Again, I apologise.
I wish to give you the opportunity to make the comments you wish to make before commenting on anything else. That little "niggle" in the back of my head is twitching after reading your "Engineering is all about making models." comment, but I think it would be best to mull it over.
After freelurker and dave respond, can we get back to topic please?
ReplyDeleteThe topic is that assembly is the weak (possibly fatal) link to Dr. Miller's critique of IC.
Side note: I find it interesting that Michael Behe at least commented in more detail on the difficulties of "blindly" assembling the flagellum than Kenneth Miller did (3rd chapter of Darwin's Black Box).
Second side note: I will cover similarities and differences between engineering design and the design inference, or active and passive design, respectively, in a future post.
ReplyDeleteAny more distractions I need to deal with?
How is a design inference any less valid than philosophical naturalism (PN)? Both are, IMO, legitimate starting points. A design worldview worked for Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc. Why not now?
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, that does not address my point. I pointed out that analogies fail (PN is not ana analogy). I asked why you thought that your understanding of design and assembly could be logically extrapolated to a molecular realm. I still don't know the answer to that question. Do you?
It is also disingenuous. At the time of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton we did not know enough about biology or biogeography to have developed the understanding that we have now. I could turn that around and point out to you that the Romans probably thought that their construction techniques were pretty good too. Do you still think that we should have stopped with their understanding of construction techniques? If not, why do you invoke a past age as if it was the pinnacle of human understanding? We know more today; let's use that knowledge rather than bottling it up and sticking to a failed explanation.
From these starting points, both sides can proceed with data collection and experimentation. Conclusions are made and sometimes do overlap, but is not unexpected that two different explanations can and do occur.
Yes, all of that is true. But irrelevant. When two different explanations are apparent, the real scientist devises a prediction, then an experiment to test that prediction. Other scientists critique and repeat and analyze new observations as well. This has happened with creationism, and ID is simply re-packaged creationism. In this areana, creationism is no longer a player.
Even if you insist that ID is a novel paradigm, there are still NO predictions and experiments that have been published which are consistent with ID and inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
I'll stick with the explanation that has the preponderance of evidence (and coherent explanations of the evidence) on its side, thanks.
Even though I can be comfortable with assuming design, why does it threaten you, dave? PN does not threaten me. I have posted critiques of both sides of the debate, and IMO, both sides are missing something (side note: I will read Del Ratzsch's critique of Dembski's DEF since, IMO, it will be the most analytic and least emotional).
Interesting analysis. Why do you think it "threatens" me? I merely find it curious why anyone would accept either creationism (thoroughly discredited) or ID (too vague to be tested) and still assert that they were thinking scientifically. Such attitudes do threaten science education, but not me personally. Curious and bemused is not exactly the same thing as threatened.
After freelurker and dave respond, can we get back to topic please?
ReplyDeleteThe topic is that assembly is the weak (possibly fatal) link to Dr. Miller's critique of IC.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why it seems to be off-topic to point out that analogies re assembly, made from an engineering macro viewpoint, might not be valid when it comes to molecular assemblies. If it is off-topic to point out that one of your baseline assumptions re assembly is questionable, then I guess I won't be able to stay on topic. It might mean, however, that your critique of Miller is based on a questionable assumption. Is it off-topic to point out that possibility as well?
Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer here.
JJS P.Eng.,
ReplyDeleteI have gone on travel this week and next. Turns out I have limited access to to the internet. But I have been forming responses that I hope to place here, albeit slowly.
No worries about the "slap in the face" comment. It didn't bother me any.
I do make pointed comments, but I do try to treat people the way they have treated me and others.
I am flattered that I have caused you to think about some issues. It's payoff to me for the years I have spent reading and thinking about this. (It's a little scary to me that I just wrote "years") It's not rare to find ID critics who are engineers, but I don't know of another one who sets out to talk engineer-to-engineer with IDist engineers.
The slower pace of your blog is a good venue for me because I put a lot of time into each comment. You are an open-minded guy and a knowledgeable engineer. Your knowledge about ID issues is quite one-sided at this point but that can be helped.
I'm glad that you are reading Heddle's blog. You should dig up everything he has written about the intelligent design movement and its relationships with science.
Later.
freelurker wrote:
ReplyDelete"The slower pace of your blog is a good venue for me because I put a lot of time into each comment. You are an open-minded guy and a knowledgeable engineer. Your knowledge about ID issues is quite one-sided at this point but that can be helped.
I'm glad that you are reading Heddle's blog. You should dig up everything he has written about the intelligent design movement and its relationships with science."
Well, thank you for your kind comments. I try to remain open minded but grounded.
Dr. Heddle's blog has had a considerable influence on my views on ID, acting as a sort of counterbalance. As for other ID critiques, I would have to say that Del Ratzsch's book, Nature, Design and Science is the one that has caught my eye, due in part to Mark Perakh's favourable review at amazon.com!
I should equivocate here: I am not an ID advocate, and I try not to favour ID in my posts. I think ID has missed a considerable step in not fully incorporating Information Theory. However, I do find it difficult to separate a design inference (which I believe is valid at the assumption level) from ID, and I don't think I've communicated that well enough.
So when time permits, I need to sit down and collect all the aspects of engineering (active) design that I'm familiar with and organise them into "objective" and "subjective" categories. Then I need to take the objective aspects and form the "passive design" concept which I hope to use as a predictive tool.
That said, this is all speculation at this time. I don't know how this will turn out, but at least I hope to have fun trying. :)
My earlier question:
ReplyDelete"So what's your version of how these things were assembled? Apply your engineering expertise."
Your response:
Sorry if this sounds like a copout, but I believe Steve did a pretty good job summarising what an engineer would have to consider in the design process.
This exchange gets at the core issue that I'm raising.
I hope that from my background comments you can now see that I was asking the questions that evolutionary biologists ask, namely "What happened?" and "What were the processes involved?" They are asking about what physically happened to the life forms that we know were here on earth.
Your response was about what you and Steve Petermann think must have gone through the mind of an intelligent designer that you have positted. (My apologies to Steve for getting his name wrong earlier.)
You see, the scientists are asking about the physical assembly process. If you want to put an intelligent designer into the model then you need to say what the intelligent designer caused.
Engineers can certainly understand why the scientists are asking these questions, because engineers have a special appreciation of how difficult it is to assemble something with just the power of one's mind.
freelurker
ReplyDeleteYou say cellular machinery isn't really machinery but rather chemicals. Rather than argue that I'll make an analogy that gets more to the point. Are Shakespeare's plays explained by chemistry? After, they're just ink and paper.
What you're missing is information. Shakespeare used chemicals as a medium a medium to record information. Similarly something used chemicals to record information in living things. DNA can be described by chemistry but the information it contains can no more be described by chemistry than can one of Shakespeare's plays.
DaveScot wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou say cellular machinery isn't really machinery but rather chemicals.
I think you have me mixed up with someone else; I have never described the makeup of cells.
Welcome to EE, DaveScot.
ReplyDeleteFreelurker is correct. I believe your comment is better directed towards rbh and dave.