Yes, Design is a Mechanism- Refuting Evotard "logic"
de•sign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-zn)
v. de•signed, de•sign•ing, de•signs
v. tr.
1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
3. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
4. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
5. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
6. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
Ever hear of the "House that Jack built"? The story I remember is that Jack didn't have a plan and the resulting house exemplified that fact. His mechanism for building a house was "willy-nilly".
Edison had a mechanism for his designs- "99% persperation, 1% inspiration".
Which was different than Tesla, who had a better mechanism for his- actual research and development.
Therefore it would appear even the mechanism of design has different mechanisms.
And again- without direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make a reasonable inference about the mechanism used is by studying the design. Therefore knowing the mechanism is not a pre-requisite for inferring design. It is, however, a driving force to understand the design- find a specific design mechanism. Then test it. It may turn out to be the mechanism. You never know until you try.
Even though design is a mechanism, there are specific design mechanisms that apply to ID.
I have already mentioned Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues", artificial selection and directed chemistry.
Directed chemistry refers to the software that runs the show in living organisms. DNA is not the software. It carries it.
To add to the list we also have a targeted search- which as I have also mentioned before- which is exemplified in the paper "Evolving Inventions" SciAm Feb 2003.
IOW only an imbecile who cannot read a dictionary would say that design is not a mechanism.
v. de•signed, de•sign•ing, de•signs
v. tr.
1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
3. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
4. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
5. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
6. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
Ever hear of the "House that Jack built"? The story I remember is that Jack didn't have a plan and the resulting house exemplified that fact. His mechanism for building a house was "willy-nilly".
Edison had a mechanism for his designs- "99% persperation, 1% inspiration".
Which was different than Tesla, who had a better mechanism for his- actual research and development.
Therefore it would appear even the mechanism of design has different mechanisms.
And again- without direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make a reasonable inference about the mechanism used is by studying the design. Therefore knowing the mechanism is not a pre-requisite for inferring design. It is, however, a driving force to understand the design- find a specific design mechanism. Then test it. It may turn out to be the mechanism. You never know until you try.
Even though design is a mechanism, there are specific design mechanisms that apply to ID.
I have already mentioned Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues", artificial selection and directed chemistry.
Directed chemistry refers to the software that runs the show in living organisms. DNA is not the software. It carries it.
To add to the list we also have a targeted search- which as I have also mentioned before- which is exemplified in the paper "Evolving Inventions" SciAm Feb 2003.
IOW only an imbecile who cannot read a dictionary would say that design is not a mechanism.
posted by Joe G @ 6:41 PM
26 Comments:
At 7:04 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Therefore knowing the mechanism is not a pre-requisite for inferring design. It is, however, a driving force to understand the design- find a specific design mechanism. Then test it. It may turn out to be the mechanism. You never know until you try."
This is very interesting. Could you tell me what, if any, specific design mechanisms you or anybody else have identified? And of those identified specific design mechanisms which been tested? And what conclusions have been drawn about the design?
If in fact none of those things have yet happened, what are you doing to ensure that they do happen? Specifically?
If there are no examples of such mechanisms, tests and conclusions, then what form do you envisage such mechanisms and tests could take? Is it possible for you to give an example of what such a test would entail? An example of a possible mechanism and how it's testable?
"IOW only an imbecile who cannot read a dictionary would say that design is not a mechanism."
As you say, it's a mechanism but perhaps not a specific one. "Design" tells us nothing about the designer. Obviously what I'm asking for is what you yourself claim needs to happen. What "tests" have those mechanisms you mention been put to?
Has Dr Spetner's work been put to the test and if so did the results support ID?
What tests has "Directed chemistry" undergone? The results support ID how?
And what do "targeted searches" tell us about the designer of those searches?
At 8:53 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Could you tell me what, if any, specific design mechanisms you or anybody else have identified?
Can you tell me what identifying the specific mechanism has to do with ID?
Just look at archaeology- after centuries of investigation we still don't know how Stonehenge was designed and constructed.
But anyway has any proposed evolutionary mechanisms been put to the test?
Do you have any evidence that your blind, undirected processes can construct a functional multi-part system?
Do you have any positive evidence for your position?
Or is the best you have to offer is to act like an obtuse moron?
Ya see OM as I have been telling you assholes for decades you need not worry about the opposition- all you need to do is actually find some positive evidence for your position and ID will fade away.
Obviously you punks can't handle that so you are forced to be belligerent.
At 6:24 AM,
CBD said…
Joe said
"Can you tell me what identifying the specific mechanism has to do with ID?"
In the OP Joe said
"And again- without direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make a reasonable inference about the mechanism used is by studying the design. Therefore knowing the mechanism is not a pre-requisite for inferring design. It is, however, a driving force to understand the design- find a specific design mechanism. Then test it. It may turn out to be the mechanism. You never know until you try."
So it seems that knowing about the specific mechanism tell you information about the designer who used that mechanism. And that's what identifying the specific mechanism has to do with ID.
For example: We find that the specific mechanism used to create changes in DNA targeted towards specific purposes are cosmic rays tuned to a particular energy.
Conclusion: The designer is technologically advanced but probably corporeal.
For example: We find that the specific mechanism used to create changes in DNA targeted towards specific purposes is one where the changes simply happen with no apparent cause.
Conclusion: The designer is technologically advanced and probably not corporeal as if it can manipulate matter directly then it can also manipulate it's own matter and therefore has no requirement to maintain a physical presence.
"But anyway has any proposed evolutionary mechanisms been put to the test?"
That's not the question I'm asking nor is it a question I'm interested in hearing an answer to. You may of course talk about that all you like, that's up to you, but I'm not here to convince you that evolutionary mechanisms work or are sound.
"all you need to do is actually find some positive evidence for your position and ID will fade away."
An alternative possibility is that ID finds some positive evidence. And that's the aspect I'd like us to concentrate on if possible.
" It is, however, a driving force to understand the design- find a specific design mechanism. Then test it. It may turn out to be the mechanism. You never know until you try."
So, Joe, you indicate that you've found a couple of specific design mechanisms. Have you or anybody else tested them? If you don't, you'll never know if they were the mechanism used!
So if we grant you that design is a mechanism, which I've already indicated I will, then what does knowing that tell us about the designer?
At 7:21 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So it seems that knowing about the specific mechanism tell you information about the designer who used that mechanism. And that's what identifying the specific mechanism has to do with ID.
ID is not about the designer(s).
OM:
You may of course talk about that all you like, that's up to you, but I'm not here to convince you that evolutionary mechanisms work or are sound.
You can't convince anyone they work or are sound.
That's the whole point.
OM:
An alternative possibility is that ID finds some positive evidence.
ID is based on positive evidence and I have preented plenty of that positive evidence on this blog.
I would love to discuss it with you but you do not seem to be educated enough to do so.
OTOH your position seems to amount to nothing more than attacking all alternatives with your drooling ignorance.
For example:
So if we grant you that design is a mechanism, which I've already indicated I will, then what does knowing that tell us about the designer?
ID is about the DESIGN not the designer(s).
OM:
So, Joe, you indicate that you've found a couple of specific design mechanisms.
Yes- both Richard Dawkins and "Evolving Inventions" have demonstrated the constructive power of targeted searches.
OM:
Have you or anybody else tested them?
Yes both Richard Dawkins and "Evolving Inventions" have tested targeted searches and have found they are very powerful constructive mechanisms.
At 7:26 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So if we grant you that design is a mechanism, which I've already indicated I will,...
Umm that isn't up to you.
Design is a mechanism because that is how it is defined:
design:
: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
2a : to conceive and plan out in the mind b : to have as a purpose : intend (she designed to excel in her studies) c : to devise for a specific function or end (a book designed primarily as a college textbook)
3archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans for (design a building)
and
mechanism:
b : a process, technique, or system for achieving a result
At 10:08 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
"ID is not about the designer(s).",
Then if ID is about studying the designs, what conclusions have you come to?
You can't convince anyone they work or are sound.
That's the whole point.
I'm not attempting to. Why do you keep bringing this up?
ID is based on positive evidence and I have preented plenty of that positive evidence on this blog.
When do you think you'll take the time out and publish some of that evidence in the peer reviewed literature? It's not going to convince many people without some rigorous fact checking being done first.
I would love to discuss it with you but you do not seem to be educated enough to do so.
That's your choice.
OTOH your position seems to amount to nothing more than attacking all alternatives with your drooling ignorance.
I have not attacked anything so far. I'm simply asking you what tests have your mechanisms been put to. We can get to the attacking stuff later.
ID is about the DESIGN not the designer(s).
And what specific design mechanisms have you tested and proven so far?
Yes- both Richard Dawkins and "Evolving Inventions" have demonstrated the constructive power of targeted searches.
I'm sure you disagree with them on some level
Yes both Richard Dawkins and "Evolving Inventions" have tested targeted searches and have found they are very powerful constructive mechanisms.
I suppose the question is then "Who is setting the target?". Further questions would be "what mechanism (design?) is used to set the target?" and "what is the target?".
Does ID provide any insight onto those three questions? Evolution already provides answers to those questions, but I don't believe I've seen any similar answers from ID.
Can you perhaps provide answers to those questions?
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Then if ID is about studying the designs, what conclusions have you come to?
One is that the universe was designed for (scientific) discovery.
Another is that there is a purpose.
OM on defending its position:
I'm not attempting to. Why do you keep bringing this up?
I on't attempt to because you are an intellectual coward and I keep bringing it up because it exposes your agenda.
ID is based on positive evidence and I have preented plenty of that positive evidence on this blog.
OM:
When do you think you'll take the time out and publish some of that evidence in the peer reviewed literature? It's not going to convince many people without some rigorous fact checking being done first.
It is in peer-review and the majority of people accept ID.
ID is about the DESIGN not the designer(s).
OM:
And what specific design mechanisms have you tested and proven so far?
I told you- targeted searches.
Yes- both Richard Dawkins and "Evolving Inventions" have demonstrated the constructive power of targeted searches.
OM:
I'm sure you disagree with them on some level
Not when it comes to targeted searches. And that is what we are talking about.
OM:
I suppose the question is then "Who is setting the target?". Further questions would be "what mechanism (design?) is used to set the target?" and "what is the target?".
Thank you for proving that Intelligent Design is not a dead-end as there are more questions left to answer.
As with the ToE there are many unanswered questions, and also open questions about the origin of life. Afater all you can't have evolution of living organisms without the origin of living organisms.
This is what science and investigation is for OM.
OM:
Does ID provide any insight onto those three questions? Evolution already provides answers to those questions, but I don't believe I've seen any similar answers from ID.
Evolution doesn't provide any answers to anything.
"How did the vision system evolve?"
We don't know
"How did the mammalian inner ear evolve?"
We don't know.
That's the whole problem- IF evolution had the answers we wouldn't be having this discussion.
At 2:40 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
One is that the universe was designed for (scientific) discovery.
Out of interest, what would a non designed universe look like?
Another is that there is a purpose.
Which is?
I keep bringing it up because it exposes your agenda.
That's your choice.
It is in peer-review and the majority of people accept ID.
Citation please. For both claims.
And what specific design mechanisms have you tested and proven so far?
I told you- targeted searches.
Please describe your testing process.
Thank you for proving that Intelligent Design is not a dead-end as there are more questions left to answer.
Glad to help. It's not hard.
As with the ToE there are many unanswered questions, and also open questions about the origin of life.
This is true. The difference appears to be is that the ToE and associated concepts are providing answers to the questions. One by one.
Is ID? Citation please.
Afater all you can't have evolution of living organisms without the origin of living organisms.
So things that evolve know somewhere inside themselves what the origin of living organisms was? Or what do you mean?
This is what science and investigation is for OM.
Indeed.
Evolution doesn't provide any answers to anything.
"How did the vision system evolve?"
We don't know
Ah, this then would be a perfect opportunity for you to step in with the ID explanation for how the vision system evolved!
"How did the mammalian inner ear evolve?"
We don't know.
There seems to be many papers attempting to describe just that. I won't provide links as you've no doubt read extensively on the matter but could I ask you what the ID based explanation is then please? Or perhaps you could link or provide some citations to ID papers that provide those explanations?
If you cannot do so, is it not preferable to prefer an explanation that is at least supported by some evidence, however weak you may find it?
Weak evidence is surely more persuasive then no evidence at all?
And so far I've seen no evidence at all that ID can explain the evolution of the inner ear.
At 7:25 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Out of interest, what would a non designed universe look like?
Search on my blog as I have blogged about that very thing- so search on "non-designed universe" and start reading.
It is in peer-review and the majority of people accept ID.
OM:
Citation please. For both claims.
Look in the peer-reviewed lit for error-correction, transcription, translation, proof-reading, overlapping genes and alternaive gene splicing.
And then search the Gallup poll for evolution.
I told you- targeted searches.
OM:
Please describe your testing process.
Again Dawkins' "weasel" program and "Evolving Inventions".
What is wrong with you?
OM:
The difference appears to be is that the ToE and associated concepts are providing answers to the questions. One by one.
No answers from the ToE.
"How did the mammalian inner ear evolve?"
We don't know.
OM:
There seems to be many papers attempting to describe just that.
Yet not one has teh answer.
Go figure.
OM:
If you cannot do so, is it not preferable to prefer an explanation that is at least supported by some evidence, however weak you may find it?
You don't even have weak evidece that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents can produce a mammalian middle ear from the jaw of a reptile.
At 9:35 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
You don't even have weak evidece that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents can produce a mammalian middle ear from the jaw of a reptile.
And the evidence that ID can is what exactly?
At 10:00 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
And the evidence that ID can is what exactly?
LoL! You can't even frame a question properly.
Designers- successful designers anyway- usually know how to design the things they are designing.
Look at Stonehenge- we have no idea if humans could have designed and built it but we have eliminated nature, operating freely and we have found a specification.
And we procede from that.
At 11:05 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
but we have eliminated nature, operating freely and we have found a specification.,
Could you provide some further details on exactly how you eliminated nature operating freely and what the "specification" of Stonehenge is then?
At 1:10 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Could you provide some further details on exactly how you eliminated nature operating freely and what the "specification" of Stonehenge is then?
You would have to talk with the researchers or at least read their work.
At 1:26 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
You would have to talk with the researchers or at least read their work.
You said "we". Not "they".
Look at Stonehenge- we have no idea if humans could have designed and built it but we have eliminated nature, operating freely and we have found a specification.
If "you" have found a specification you can provide it. If you cannot provide it then "you" have found no such thing and are simply making empty claims about other peoples work, which is the usual standard for ID.
So, Joe, what is the "specification" for Stonehenge?
At 1:33 PM,
Joe G said…
We as in we humans.
I am part of that group, perhaps you are not.
OM:
If you cannot provide it then "you" have found no such thing and are simply making empty claims about other peoples work,
And all you have are bullshit accusations, nice.
At 4:48 PM,
blipey said…
So you don't have any idea what the criteria are? Not at all? Yet you want it to be taught in schools?
This is like Behe not reading the books and papers but knowing that he didn't like them.
You have no idea what the specifics are, but you know that they are right....
At 5:04 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
And all you have are bullshit accusations, nice.
So prove me wrong!
At 9:36 PM,
blipey said…
The evidence that ID provides for the evolution of the mammalian inner ear is "designers know how to design the things they're designing"?
This seems subjective at best.
At 7:49 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
So you don't have any idea what the criteria are?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
blipey:
Yet you want it to be taught in schools?
I never said that.
However it is obvious that your position doesn't belong on shools as it lacks support and methodology.
blipey:
The evidence that ID provides for the evolution of the mammalian inner ear is "designers know how to design the things they're designing"?
Nope-
1- there isn't any evidence the mammalian middle ear evolved from something else
2- we infer it was designed because of the utter failure of your position to explain it plus the fact that specification is present.
At 7:50 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So prove me wrong!
You are an asshole- you have not been right yet.
At 11:19 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
you have not been right yet.
That's somewhat different from you proving me wrong.
At 11:24 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
That's somewhat different from you proving me wrong.
The issue is you're not even wrong.
At 12:29 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
I originally said
If "you" have found a specification you can provide it. If you cannot provide it then "you" have found no such thing and are simply making empty claims about other peoples work, which is the usual standard for ID.
So, Joe, what is the "specification" for Stonehenge?
You either can provide the specification for Stonehenge or you cannot. As you have failed to do so after claiming you had such it's not really a case of me being right or wrong. It's a case of you failing to support your claims.
I can't be "not even wrong" about something I'm asking you for, which you claim you have.
That's your role in this debacle.
At 12:48 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
You either can provide the specification for Stonehenge or you cannot.
I have- do you think you are the first evotard I have had this discussion with?
I am sick of repeating myself every time a new obtuse moron shows up.
OM:
That's your role in this debacle.
The debacle is all yours- you made it beacuse that is all you can do.
At 1:08 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
I have- do you think you are the first evotard I have had this discussion with?
So it will be easy for you to provide a link to the specification of Stonehenge.
If I make a claim and somebody asks me to support it I don't say "Oh, I've already supported it but I won't give you those details" I just give them the relevant link. That's the normal, logical way of dealing with such issues.
I am sick of repeating myself every time a new obtuse moron shows up.
But you've been repeating yourself anyway, even without obtuse morons prodding you. Just do a google search on your own "chemicals" catchphrase.
At 3:12 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So it will be easy for you to provide a link to the specification of Stonehenge.
You can look it up for yourself.
That is how I did it- read the papers.
OM:
Just do a google search on your own "chemicals" catchphrase.
Except it ain't even mine!
You lose.
Post a Comment
<< Home