15 Responses to “Smile for the Camera”

1. Bilbo Says:
   April 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

   So, Mike, about scoring proteins on your DM scale…?

Comment by Bilbo — April 27, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

2. MikeGene Says:
   April 27th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

   Hi Bilbo,

   Now that sounds like a potential chapter for volume 2. The significance of scoring is not simply coming up with numbers, but in laying out one's reasoning "“ thus, the need for a chapter. Yet simply think of proteins from the four perspectives of analogy, discontinuity, rationality, and foresight.

Comment by MikeGene — April 27, 2008 @ 8:51 pm

3. Bilbo Says:
   April 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

   Mike:
   

   Now that sounds like a potential chapter for volume 2.

   Just as I suspected.

   Yet simply think of proteins from the four perspectives of analogy, discontinuity, rationality, and foresight.

   But that requires work. I was hoping you would do it for me. OK, here goes:

   Analogy: Is there anything we humans make that has near universal application? Something like duct tape, only better? Protein seems to be the sort of substance we wish we could make. So it is difficult to score this one for analogy. Do we give it a +1 because we don't come close to making anything like it? Or do we give it a +5 because that is what we aim to make? Let's compromise and call it +3.

   Discontinuity: Other than the cells reproducing it, as far as I know, no easy, non-intelligent way of making proteins has been discovered. Which is why origin of life researchers have pretty much given up on the "protein first" hypothesis. I would give it a +5.

   Rationality: Since protein seems to be the sort of thing engineers dream of making, a substance that is universally useful, I would give it a +5.

   Foresight: Since we don't have evidence of the existence of precursors to proteins, and since it seems to have served organisms very well for the past 3.5 billion years, I think we have another example of an original, optimal design. However, since we don't know for sure that there couldn't be a better substance than proteins, perhaps we should live room for doubt on the optimality. So I'll only score it a +4.

   That gives us an average score of 4.25. A rather high score, strongly suggesting design, I think. I forget how you scored the Genetic Code. I think it was lower. Perhaps my confirmation bias is showing.

Comment by Bilbo — April 28, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

4. Raevmo Says:
   April 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

   What is the point of this kind of subjective scoring?

Comment by Raevmo — April 28, 2008 @ 5:32 pm

5. chunkdz Says:
   April 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

   What is the point of this kind of subjective scoring?

   Just to piss you off.

Comment by chunkdz — April 28, 2008 @ 5:40 pm

6. Bilbo Says:
   April 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

   Raevmo:
   

   What is the point of this kind of subjective scoring?

   chunkdz:
   

   Just to piss you off.

   Well, yes, pissing off Raevmo might be a benefit to some, but hopefully there are some additional benefits. If we come up with an idea of what was designed and what wasn't, we may be able to piece together the story of the rabbit, which might lead to ideas for further research.

Comment by Bilbo — April 28, 2008 @ 6:10 pm

7. Bilbo Says:
   April 28th, 2008 at 6:12 pm

   Back to Analogy: The other problem with scoring this, is that designing proteins is no longer just an analogy to designing other things. From what I've heard, we actually do make and design proteins. So it is not clear how to score this in the Analogy category.

Comment by Bilbo — April 28, 2008 @ 6:12 pm

8. Raevmo Says:
   April 28th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

   Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't piss me off. It just puzzles me a little. What does the score really add to saying that your gut feeling tells you it's designed?

Comment by Raevmo — April 28, 2008 @ 6:31 pm

9. kornbelt888 Says:
   April 28th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

   That rabbit sure is damn cute

Comment by kornbelt888 — April 28, 2008 @ 8:20 pm

10. MikeGene Says:
    April 28th, 2008 at 11:51 pm

    Hey, that's a great kickoff, Bilbo. Does this mean I now have to cite you? As for the uncertainty about the Analogy score, there is a category for that "“ 0.

    And kornbelt888, yes, that's gotta be the cutest bunny to show up on TT yet. Shall we give the bunny a Cuteness score?

Comment by MikeGene — April 28, 2008 @ 11:51 pm

11. chunkdz Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    That rabbit sure is damn cute

    I can't help but smile back every time:smile:

Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2008 @ 12:14 pm

12. Bilbo Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Whoops! I shoulda' said "Original mature design," not "Original optimal design." See p.258-260 of The Design Matrix for an explanation.

    Mike:
    

    Does this mean I now have to cite you?

    Hmmm…pseudonymuos author citing pseudonymous blogger. Now there's credibility for you.

    Raevmo:
    

    Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't piss me off.

    You're just saying that to piss us off, aren't you?

    It just puzzles me a little. What does the score really add to saying that your gut feeling tells you it's designed?

    Start by asking yourself how you would know — or at least suspect — if something was intelligently designed, if you had no independent evidence of a designer. Mike attempts to answer that in The Design Matrix. He comes up with four qualities that we closely associate with designed phenomena: Analogy (it resembles our designs); Discontinuity (with natural or non-intelligent ways of producing it); Rationality (it makes sense to design it that way); and Foresight (it demonstrates that the designer would have had the future in mind).

    And we associate the opposite qualities with non-designed phenomena: Disanalogy; Continuity with nature; Irrationality; and Lack of foresight.

    Most of us think these qualities, though difficult to quantify, have real objective meaning. So why not try to quantify them on a scale, ranging from -5 (closest to evidence of non-design) to +5 (closest to evidence of design)? If both critics and proponents of ID find that they are getting roughly the same sort of scores for things, then perhaps at bottom we agree more than we might think. Of course, if ID critics demand that we must have independent evidence of a designer before we can have evidence of design, then there will probably be no way to satisfy them. However, for those of us who think that this isn't necessarily an obstacle to evaluating phenomena for design or non-design, we'll go on asking if it's a duck or a rabbit. And I think Mike may have a rabbit up his sleeve or under his hat, but we'll have to wait for book II or III to find out.

    Meanwhile, how would you score proteins? I'm curious if your score would be dramatically different from mine.

Comment by Bilbo — April 29, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

13. Bilbo Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Mike:
    

    As for the uncertainty about the Analogy score, there is a category for that "“ 0.

    So you would give proteins a 0 in the Analogy category? Hmmm…how about this: the substance protein resembles the human designed substance plastic, for a score of +1? Further, we design proteins, now, so the Analogical has become Identical (how would you distinguish between human designed proteins from non-human designed proteins?), for a score of +5. This gives us an average of +3. Buying it?

Comment by Bilbo — April 29, 2008 @ 4:24 pm

14. MikeGene Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Hi Bilbo,

    So you would give proteins a 0 in the Analogy category? Hmmm"¦how about this: the substance protein resembles the human designed substance plastic, for a score of +1? Further, we design proteins, now, so the Analogical has become Identical (how would you distinguish between human designed proteins from non-human designed proteins?), for a score of +5. This gives us an average of +3. Buying it?

    I'd go for the +1, but my gut reaction is to be skeptical of using human-designed proteins as an analog since humans design proteins only by first studying, characterizing, and mimicking natural proteins.

Comment by MikeGene — April 29, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

15. Bilbo Says:
    April 29th, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Mike:
    

    I'd go for the +1, but my gut reaction is to be skeptical of using human-designed proteins as an analog since humans design proteins only by first studying, characterizing, and mimicking natural proteins.

    I understand your reaction, but I'm not sure it holds up. Suppose we discover some alien technology — say Cap't. Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise has left his phaser (faser? come to think of it, I've never known the correct spelling) behind on one of their time travelling visits. We don't know where this object came from, but we study it and eventually learn how to make them. Is it improper to reason by analogy that the first one we studied was also designed?

Comment by Bilbo — April 29, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.