The Problem with the ID Argument

The proposed mechanism is a mind. Minds are capable of creating long sequences. The protein machine this protein is part of is perhaps the most complex machine in our cells.

So you have no mechanism. No surprise there.

As @T_aquaticus has demonstrated, so are random number generators!

Hmm, a mind doesn’t strike me as being a mechanism, maybe more like an agent or cause (in the metaphysical sense). Mechanisms, especially in chemical/biological contexts, imply a specific set of steps that move from an initial state to a final state. How would the “mind” create prp8?

I would agree that a mind can “think” of a sequence, but how would it actualize the sequence in this case?

2 Likes

By having expert understanding of how amino acids work together and create functioning proteins. By knowing how proteins can work together to make RNA splicing machinery. Then generating the DNA code to produce these proteins and the required transcription factors in an orchestrated way so this machine can be produced as it is a mandatory part of eukaryotic pre translation. The eukaryotic cell is a marvel of engineering.

How would you consider this machine arriving from cell division of prokaryotic cells short of some deterministic mechanism we have yet to identify.

If you go on wikipedia after googling genetic code you can see how DNA 3 chemical code maps to Specific amino acids.

Great relative biomasses color illustrations! We need to have these kinds of information summaries in a convenient place on the PS website.

1 Like

Still no mechanism.

If you asked somehow to bake a cake, and they answered “By knowing how to bake a cake”, would you be satisfied with that?

1 Like

It’s a mind blower, isn’t it? There are basically, to a first approximation, no mammals left on earth except for humans and the mammals we have bred for food.

I was remiss in not citing the source:

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

3 Likes

Minds don’t seem to be able to exist without a physical brain…

2 Likes

Here’s where @colewd demonstrates the typical creationist hypocrisy, and suddenly has no problem with accepting things that have never been directly observed or demonstrated as mechanisms for his theory. Right, Bill?

Most ID arguments violate the rule of total evidence. They leave out inconvenient facts that brings their desired conclusion into doubt

1 Like

So I would agree with @Faizal_Ali that I’m still not seeing a mechanism here. I think you would probably need to fill this out with more mechanistic information, maybe something like:

  • how would the particular sequence for Prp8 come together?
    • Would the amino acids/bases be generated as well or would those come from existing sources?
    • Would the entire sequence be generated or would it just be the sections of the sequence that are unique to Prp8?
    • Would the Prp8 gene be inserted randomly in the genome or would there be a particular position for it to be inserted? If the later, why is it in the specific position?
  • How widely distributed would these generated Prp8 sequence be?
    • Would it just be in one genome in one organism?
    • Would it be inserted in all organisms alive at that time?
    • Would it require whole new organisms?

Unlike @Faizal_Ali, I would presume, I have no problem with the idea of a “mind” (I would prefer to call it the God of the Bible, but “mind” or “intelligence” seem to be the preferred terms for ID folks so I’ll roll with it) being involved in the generation of the universe, but I don’t think “mind” has nearly the explanatory strength of a step-by-step mechanism. It may be an ultimate cause or the reason, but I don’t see a mechanism yet.

Yes, as a physical chemist I am awestruck with the complexity and amazing beauty of biochemical systems. Of course, as with all analogies, there are limitations to how far as we can take it. I worked on artificial molecular motors in graduate school, the biological analogs were way more complex, and yet I also know that a simple algorithm applied many times can often produce more complexity than a complex algorithm applied only a few times. Both are beautiful in their own way.

I have no idea, that’s why I’m here. I want to learn what the current understanding is from the experts and to see what the limitations of our understanding are. I’m also interested how other people think about these things.

2 Likes

Hi Jordan
I find your questions interesting but let me have some time to ponder them. Overall what we are dealing with is system design as prp8 is one of many proteins that make up the spliceosome. Here an article by gpuccio that describes the machine to get us on the same page.

From Wiki

In the science of biology, a mechanism is a system of causally interacting parts and processes that produce one or more effects. Scientists explain phenomena by describing mechanisms that could produce the phenomena.

Are you ok working with this definition?

1 Like

It’s a little on the vague side, but I don’t have a fundamental problem with it. In our case the “effect” we’re looking for is the generation of the Prp8 gene/protein, correct? So the mechanism is the set of processes and parts (I would use steps and states, but I think they’d mean the same thing here) that accomplish our task (generation of Prp8), right?

1 Like

prp8 is a large protein that is part of the U5 protein machine which is part of the spliceosome. The mechanisms that generate Prp8 are different then the mechanism responsible for the origin of prp8 U5 and ultimately the spliceosome.

First I will answer your questions the best I can regarding the cellular mechanisms tomorrow.

ID is not a theory about mechanism, so it doesn’t make sense to ask it to provide one.
I guess you would agree that the human mind is able to actualize things in the world. But do we have a mechanism for this?

Yes. For instance, I had a thought in my mind regarding what I wanted to say here. And in explaining how you are now able to read the words I have typed on your computer monitor, we can describe every step of the process in purely mechanical terms, from the electrical impulses in my brain, to how these are communicated to my fingers, to how the keystrokes are translated thru the computer into an image on my screen, and how that information is transmitted thru the internet to your screen.

To just say “Faizal’s mind made it happen” is not even the barest beginning of an explanatory mechanism.

I note that you have offered possible mechanisms from electrical impulses in your brain through my screen. Ok. But what about the initial mechanism from your thoughts to the electrical impulses in your brain ? How mind interact with matter is the thing to be explained and materialists are silent about the underlying mechanism of this interaction.

Yet another reason ID is 100% worthless as a scientific explanation.

2 Likes