From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Sun Oct 17 2004 - 15:01:30 BST
Hi Scott, Mark at al.
Scott Roberts wrote:
<snip>
>[Scott:] True, as far as we can tell, there is only chance and design. But
>there are many ways they can be combined. Is there one Designer or a lot of
>designers (and is there any distinction between design and designer at this
>non-human level). Is the design on the making-an-event side, or on the
>selection side (e.g., culling bad stuff). Is design perfect or imperfect,
>that is, does the designer/designers get it right the first time, or is
>trial and error involved. So there is plenty of room for "biological false
>starts, goofy non-viable mutations, and dead ends" without assuming only
>chance is involved.
>
>
jl:
I'd say that the 'design factor' in this is whatever it is that cells do
to utilise the bits of the genome that they do. A lot of this is
preprogrammed: there has to be a set of 'written' instructions so that
billions of cells get to form the various organs that compose an
animal. This is obviously not chance. The accidental part is where the
instructions get a bit scrambled and the cells have to go along with the
new program. The evolution bit is if the new instructions allow the
cells an advantage. But a lot of evolution is acting on already evolved
characteristics and amplifying them. This is especially so in terms of
sexual selection - but the precise patterns picked up on in this may
have a genetically coded presidposition, or they may exist as a set of
criteria which exist only because the genetic code provides a tabula
rasa for such things as culture, fashion to act on... In this sense
there is again design through choice.
>[msh:]
>But also, chance and design are the only ways we know of. Who is to say
>there isn't something that is not properly either. For example, evolution
>by Quality (for those who deny that Quality and Intellect are two names for
>the same thing).
>
>
>
>[scott:]
>
>On GR, it is being tested, so it is testable, no?
>
>
jl:
The point was that GR was largely accepted because it was elegant,
rather than because all (or even many) of its predictions or basic
tenets were tested. Similarly 'random mutations actued on by natural
selection' is a reasonable hypothesis given what we know about the
interplay of genetic programs with ontogenesis. I wouldn't say that the
theory of random mutation is inherently untestable, just that it is very
hard to test. We know that random mutations exist, although most of
them are detrimental. The existence of a 'cellular conscious' changing
of a genetic programming would have to be demonstrated. I'd agree that
there is a lot of dogmatic rejection of this possibility, but I'd also
say that there isn't really any need for it to explain the evolution and
adoption of new characteristics.
<snip>
>Yes, science can deal with randomness as long as there are patterns of it.
>But then you seem to be saying that science must assume evolution cannot
>happen through design because if it is, then science can't deal with it.
>That's to-a-hammer-everything-looks-like-a-nail thinking.
>
>
jl:
I've said elsewhere that there are different types of 'randomness' that
we are dealing with. Genetic mutations are random in the sense that
asteroids hitting the earth are random. There can easily be
deterministic factors causing them, just they occur with no regard to
the benefit of the genetic program or ecosystem hence can reasonably be
termed arbitrary and haphazard. The level of choice happens inspite of
these random events (or not if you are a dinosaur) - occasionally they
are serendipitous and can be incorporated into an improved pattern.
Quantum mechanical randomness is a scientific a priori because we have
no way of predicting what path an electron will follow etc. Whether or
not it is actually random is a moot point. Given that my ability to
choose what to type and the chain of physical manipulation from my brain
to typing the keys, I'd say that there is inherently some form of
'choice' acting at the QM random level (pace, believers of many-worlds
hypothesis), but not at the level of genetic mutation. The choice at
the biological level acts on what bits of the genetic code to express,
or in selection of what looks like a good strategy as evinced by its
superficial characteristics but that there is no design other than the
sense of quality according to pre-existing patterns.
The way genetic patterns improve is largely serendipitous. When a new
characteristic appears it is adapted by the needs of the individuals of
the species in question in the circumstances in question. Thus a swim
bladder becomes a lung. If you like analogies, the history of the
Ameican constitution is one. The sense of freedom that the founders
latched onto was the freedom of white North American property owners
from British interference. That it should become regarded as
underpinning democracy and liberty and justice for all was something
many of the founders would have rejected.
Regards,
Jim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 17 2004 - 15:48:52 BST