Hi Gisteron
In this case it means to come up with a clear reason for how the electron came into existence. In the case of the transcription translation mechanism it means the same.
In the context of Intelligent Design and biology, ID proponents arenât proposing how a transcription translation mechanism came into existence. With an emphasis on the how.
3 Likes
I donât see how itâs evidence for that at all.
The semiotics line of argument doesnât strike me as trying to show biology emulates human systems. It seems more like trying to take an artificial concept and applying in multiple scenarios to make an argument based on equivalence.
The problem is that the equivalence may not be valid. Itâs a little bit like observing a bird flying in the sky and then concluding it must have been manufactured by Boeing.
3 Likes
There are reasons why actor choose courses of action. I do not know of âreasonsâ how anything comes into existence. I also donât quite understand what you mean by âthe electron came into existenceâ. At what point in time was there no electron field?
1 Like
Hi E
The transcription translation mechanism is a chemical arrangement of nucleic acids that translates to a chemical arrangement of amino acids that fold into a functional protein.
This is similar to an arrangement of voltages (high and low) that can print a 3 dimensional object.
This does add a layer of inquiry of how the system came into existence. Do you think an inference to intelligence is totally off base here?
In the context of drawing superficial analogues between human manufactured objects and biology, yes, it is off base.
5 Likes
How else do we try to make sense of the world but by using some analogies? In business analogies are powerful ways to understand different businesses. This is a key component in successful investors tool box. We know it works by the evidence of successful investments that require predictions of undervalued companies future valuations.
You have labeled this analogy superficial. I respectfully disagree.
Weâre not talking about businesses. Weâre talking about molecular biology.
The problem with arguments-from-analogy is they try to draw out inference based on assumed equivalence that may not be valid.
Case in point, my bird/airplane example:
- Boeing 747s fly in the sky.
- Boeing 747s are manufactured by Boeing.
- Birds fly in the sky.
Therefore, birds are manufactured by Boeing.
Do you see the flaw in this line of reasoning?
6 Likes
I do in this case but if you subtly change your argument it works.
1.Boeing 747s fly in the sky.
2. Boeing 747s were designed to fly
3. Birds fly in the sky
Therefore, birds are designed to fly.
We know by the early challenges man had designing flight that making an object sustain flight is not a trivial engineering problem.
The same flaw is present in your revised version of the argument. The flaw doesnât vanish just because you agree with the conclusion.
4 Likes
The flaw in your analogy is it is too specific. If I had been so specific in my analogies of investments I would have lost many opportunities.
The flaw has nothing to do with specificity of what I wrote. It has to do with the underlying logic used to reach the conclusion.
The flaw is assuming that since two things share one or more properties, therefore they necessarily share other properties as well. This also tends to lead one to disregard differences between the compared things.
6 Likes
Hi E
I agree with you comparing differences is important to an overall analysis. The question is do the differences amount to enough to invalidate the analogy. In this case the commonality is flight between birds and a 747. I agree the differences do disqualify the inference of both being manufactured by Boeing.
Do the differences disqualify the inference of design in both cases? My argument is they are simply different designs produced for the purpose of flight. The fact that they both can fly is quite remarkable.
With evidence.
In science, analogies also are powerful explanatory mechanisms, but only when they are accurate. Analogies are not arguments.
Yours are not accurate because you ignore the evidence.
1 Like
Yes.
Boeing machines not only have a very robust design record, with written blueprints crafted by living people, whence parts are manufactured and assembled by yet more people involved in the construction of Boeing planes. They are engineered with both the expressed purpose of transporting people and cargo through the air, and their components and materials are evidently chosen and shaped to fulfill that goal efficiently and are scarcely good at anything else.
Nothing remotely like this can be said about flying birds. There is no history of them being produced by man, no hand or machine written instructions for manufacturers to follow, no quarries that mine for the metals they are built from, no factories that make bird-parts or wharves that assemble them into flying animals. There is no indication that what ever produces them has any intent for them to fly, and it doesnât seem to be the main or only thing birds are good at. They are made of flesh and bone, both of which are susceptible to all manner of disease, predation, and aging. As fit as birds are for flight, they are clearly animals first, autonomously seeking their own fuel, and using most of it to spawn more of their kind instead of the flight that almost all of a Boeingâs fuel is burned for.
We know that airplanes are designed for flight, because our engineers actually did design them for exactly that purpose. Nothing about birds suggests that they even could be designed â for flight or for anything else â and everything about them indicates that they raced into that niche after but incidentally stumbling closer to it than perhaps some of their competitors or natural enemies at the time. They are clearly theropod dinosaurs, fixed and patched to fly despite of everything else their ancestors already were, and not at all designed from the ground up to be flying things the way airplanes are.
The only thing birds and planes have in common is that they can both sustain flight. Thatâs not how we conclude that planes are designed. The design documents, living designers, engineering efficiency, and actual manufacturing plants for planes is how we conclude that. We do not have such a body of evidence in support of the designed-ness of birds. But itâs not about the evidence for you, is it. You couldnât âconcludeâ what you do, if it were.
5 Likes
Letâs take another example:
- Pigeons fly in the sky.
- Pigeons are birds.
- Ducks fly in the sky.
Therefore, ducks are birds.
Do you think this reasoning is sound? Think carefully, nowâŚ
3 Likes
I agree we have more evidence that 747s are designed than birds but we have lots of evidence about design of birds if you go deep into things like how their cells work, how they produce flight feathers, their hollowed light weight bones, and how they navigate.
We have evidence that birds are designed. That does not stop someone from trying to argue against the evidence. What is interesting is trying to get some common ground. I do appreciate you articulating your argument.
- Ships float on water.
- Ships were designed to float on water
- Logs float on water
Therefore, logs are designed to float.
Works the other wayâŚ
- Anchors sink in water.
- Anchors were designed to sink
- Rocks sink in water
Therefore, rocks are designed to sink.
Logs and rocks are ID. QED
2 Likes
By describing the actual subject.
Analogies are useful for pedagogical purposes, for guiding intuition. But no, you cannot infer from a bowling ball on a sheet that gravity is made of rubber.
1 Like
Ooh, can I play? What comes after this:
- Cluster munitions kill lots of people.
- Cluster munitions were designed to kill lots of people.
- Tuberculosis kills lots of people.
3 Likes