The Advantage of Mike Gene's Approach to ID
by BilboIn his book, The Design Matrix, Mike Gene makes a dichotomy between two approaches that proponents have to the question of Intelligent Design. He labels the first approach "The Traditional Template." Basically, it tries to prove that ID is true by establishing that a certain thing that looks designed (analogy) is too improbable (discontinuity) to have arisen through non-intelligent processes. As an example, Michael Behe tries to prove that it is too improbable for certain molecular machines to have come about without the aid of ID.
Contrasted with this is Mike Gene's own approach, which he labels Evidentiary Inductive Gradualism [I'll have to check my memory on this one] Here, one may begin by only suspecting that a certain thing is designed, and then look for further evidence that may strengthen the suspicion, eventually making that suspicion plausible, then probable, and perhaps finally near certain.
But this is only part of Mike's approach. The other part is by considering two other concepts that we often associate with design: Rationality and Foresight. Traditionally, proponents of ID have rejected considering these two concepts when evaluating whether something has been designed. The fact that the object in question may appear to be an irrational design, with little or no consideration for the future, is waved aside as irrelevant to the question of whether or not it was designed. But Mike sees such considerations to be relevant to the question of design. Afterall, if the first cells were designed, then it was probably by somebody rather knowledgeable and intelligent. If we find a consistent pattern of incompetence, then we should question the truth of ID.
By including the categories of Rationality and Foresight, Mike Gene has broadened the field for potential research. A recent post of his at his own blog illustrates how this can be. A few months ago, at another blog (evolutionengineered.blogspot.com), an ID critic (Art) had suggested that the genetic code wasn't all that rational, since it had three stop codons, which would increase the potential for nonsense DNA. A rational designer would have just used one stop codon, thereby decreasing the potential for nonsense DNA.
By allowing such an objection to weaken the design hypothesis, it also allows for contrary evidence to strengthen the design hypothesis. Which is exactly what Mike has attempted to do. As a layman, I'm in no position to say whether or not Mike has succeeded. One needs to read what he has said and form their own opinions. And since Mike has enabled the comment section at his blog, perhaps critics and proponents can challenge or respond to him directly. [He's not allowed to post here without a permission slip from his wife:)]
March 6th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Bilbo:
How is that different from normal scientific practice? Sounds almost Bayesian to me: update the prior with new evidence to adjust the plausibility of the hypothesis (or "suspicion"). Are there any examples of near certain non-human design yet (in the realm of molecular biology)?
Maybe the designer wanted to appear incompetent. Without knowing the designer's goals it's hard to tell.
Comment by Raevmo — March 6, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I don't think it is, which makes me think that — contrary to Mike's opinion — his form of ID is doing science.
I dunno'. Ask Mike.
But here is where Bayseian probability would help. Which is more likely: that all the hodge podge of apparently incompetently designed phenomena is the result of the Blind Watchmaker, which we already know works this way; or an unknown designer trying to mimic the Blind Watchmaker? And which explanation would be more parsimonious?
Comment by Bilbo — March 7, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
March 7th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
[...] 8, 2009 by Michael Over at Telic Thoughts, Bilbo offers a nice summary of my approach and puts his finger squarely on an important [...]
Pingback by Open-end vs. closed-ended approachs « The Design Matrix — March 7, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 12:16 am
[...] 9, 2009 by Michael I wanted to make one point of clarification in regard to Bilbo’s posting at Telic Thoughts. Bilbo [...]
Pingback by Ways to Approach a Design Inference « The Design Matrix — March 9, 2009 @ 12:16 am
March 9th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Bilbo
To be able to estimte probabilities, you would need some ballpark figure for the probability of the existence of a designer. How do you think you could determine a reasonable figure?
Comment by The Pixie Again — March 9, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Oh, me! Me! I know the answer: We know for certain designers exist because we are designers.
Then when you say, "But what's the probability a designer existed then?", I can say, "What's the probability of a natural processes doing the job?" Then I scoff when you try to explain that it's my job to answer both questions in order to estimate the probabilities Bradford's proposing to calculate.
Comment by don provan — March 9, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Good question. I'm not sure. That's why I threw in "more parsimonious" at the last second.
Comment by Bilbo — March 9, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
and later in the same blog entry:
Design concepts can be subtle and their advantages not readily apparent to casual perusal. Why the redundancy? What type of designer would allow for that? An incompetent one? Ready answers are not at the tip of the tongue however data and thoughtful analysis of it can yield to rational engineering perspectives. Good job on this one Mike.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
March 9th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Right. Another factor in the mix may include front loading with certain constrains such that perfection is sacrificed in some areas for the sake of a more efficient and robust mechanism to the overall biotic plan spanning billions of years. If perfection wasn't a requirement of the designer, one might expect to see such trade offs.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 9, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 12:32 am
I'll just toss in a comment on this point. This hypothesis is testable and should be tested. There is probably some way to do an analysis on it, but the real test would seem to be to build 4 strings of DNA (Control, All stops replaced with each one in turn) and see what differences you get in the resulting proteins.
Maybe there are even natural examples already that answer the question.
If the stop codons are redundant and entirely interchangeable the proteins you get out of a ribosome will be all the same.
Not sure if such a test could actually be done yet, but it seems it would answer the question.
I don't think it is worth conceding the point that 3 stop codons is automatically a worse design though. It can be put in the "we don't know yet" basket, until we are in a position to test it.
Comment by thesciphishow — March 10, 2009 @ 12:32 am
March 10th, 2009 at 5:35 am
kornbelt888:
I'll illustrate the dilemna of trade offs with a simple construct many of us are familiar with. A baseball bat. Suppose I wanted to design a perfect one. What would I do? To maximize the design from a safety perspective I would make it out of hard to shatter wood like teak for example (the requirement of a wooden bat is presumed). I'd also make it thick so that there would be more surface area which a hitter could utilize to make contact with the ball. A thick bat made from sturdy wood would optimize two values. Surface contact area and safety. It would also create problems like a heavy bat that would slow a hitter's bat speed and make it more difficult to hit a good fastball. Incompetent design. So we design bats that are thinner and made of light wood (balsam) and maximize a hitter's chances of succeeding (the current situation in MLB). However, the large number of shattered bats heading in the direction of players and fans is a tragedy waiting to happen. Pitchers are players too and they are not fond of enhanced bat speed. Incompetent design. Can't get away from it. Pick your poison. Maximizing all parameters exists only in utopia.
Comment by Bradford — March 10, 2009 @ 5:35 am
March 10th, 2009 at 5:43 am
Quote:
thesciphishow:
The operative concept is testable. Once critics get into the optimal design mode of critiquing they are conceding (albeit unintentionally) that ID is testable. That equates to the dreaded concession that ID can be scientific (a sacred term from the perspective of scientism). One hand takes away. The other just keeps on giving.
Comment by Bradford — March 10, 2009 @ 5:43 am
March 10th, 2009 at 8:20 am
We already know that evolutionary processes can optimize and balance countervailing factors under global pressures, so the test is not distinguishing. A valid test of Intelligent Design, meaning 'an intelligent being did it', might include empirical evidence of the artist and a causal connection to the purported artifact.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2009 @ 8:20 am
March 10th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Zachriel:
Two points. First, if a test is not distinguishing then neither is criticism based on flawed design concepts. You can't have it both ways.
Second, the processes you cite already have available very sophisticated designs which enable adaptive responses begging the question of what engineered these structures.
In another thread you wrote:
The relative importance of determinism and contingency is a key concept applicable to the origin of the universe itself. If physical dynamics, present during the first moments, determined the values of the constants we describe when alluding to physical laws then those events account for the phenomenon of physical determinism and all related analysis. Contingencies in the birthing process would supply us with an idea as to just how probable was the specific outcome observed. That in turn would be a basis for distinguishing a biased outcome from serendipity.
Comment by Bradford — March 10, 2009 @ 8:40 am
March 10th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I don't make claims about the Designer, but others do. In order to test ID, we have to make specific claims about the designer in order to test their implications. If you don't make any claims about the designer, then there is nothing to test.
We can observe evolution, test historical mechanisms, and model evolutionary processes. All of these lines of evidence support the reasonable sufficiency of evolution to account for complex biological organization. And there is no evidence of teleology—unless you consider Gaps in scientific knowledge to be evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2009 @ 9:59 am
March 10th, 2009 at 10:35 am
We can conceive that the Cosmos was Created with the goal of creating conditions necessary and sufficient for the origin of life. But from what we can scientifically determine, there is a vast gulf in the links of causation connecting the *specifics* of evolutionary history from that Creation. In other words, the Theory of Evolution would still be a viable scientific theory, just like the Theory of Relativity would still be a valid scientific theory, just like the Theory of How Water Boils works whether the heat is applied in nature or by a cook.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2009 @ 10:35 am
March 10th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Hi sciphi. If you go to the link I provided for Mike Gene's thread, you'll see that he has already offered what appear to be two very good reasons why a designer would use 3 stop codons, instead of 1.
Yes, it's possible that the existence of 3 stop codons could be explained by evolutionary processes. However, do we have evidence of genetic codes that existed with more or less stop codons, prior to the universal code? If not, where is your evidence that 3 stop codons was the result of evolutionary processes?
Yes, that would be a valid test. Lacking empirical evidence of the artist, we look for other evidence, such as Analogy, Discontinuity, Rationality, and Foresight. We wouldn't reject such evidence for a face on Mars, or for a radio signal from deep space. Why reject it for biological features? The fact that you do tells me that you're just closed-minded, and incapable of admitting to any evidence of ID. However, despite the fact that you are a closed-minded ID critic, I think you serve a useful purpose to ID. By offering examples of Irrationality in biological features, you present potential areas of further research for ID. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Bilbo — March 10, 2009 @ 11:48 am
March 10th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Yes, that was the point. We have observed mechanisms of the type that can explain the origin of complex biological structures.
It's not material to the point. We may not have direct evidence of every evolutionary event, especially very ancient transitions that left scant evidence. Nevertheless, there is a growing body of work concerning the origin of the genetic code. The code is not arbitrary and shows evidence of having evolved from a doublet code.
That's nice.
Detailed, bilaterally symmetric, with apparent alimentary respiratory olfactory auditory openings, optical lenses, bony sensorial extension of a hominoid… Perhaps it was fashioned by a hominoid. But it might just be your reflection in the water.
The claim of evidence, but the lack thereof.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Whoa! It's very material to the point. Mike has presented evidence that the 3 stop codons show Rationality and Foresight. If no independent evidence of a designer means no evidence, then no evidence of more or less stop codons means no evidence.
Comment by Bilbo — March 10, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
No he hasn't.
It means you are ignoring the huge body of evidence supporting evolution, including significant evidence concerning the origin of the genetic code. We may not know all of a person's ancestors, but we have a great deal of knowledge of heredity and how it applies to people—and life in general.
If someone doesn't know who their father is, then it is just as reasonable to believe that they never had a father as it is to just think the father's identity is simply unknown. You can't ignore the bulk of the evidence and point to some purported Gap to draw scientific inferences.
There is evidence that the genetic code evolved from a simpler doublet code. UAA and UAG are simply a UA doublet with a purine base, substitutions of the third base often being synonymous.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Bilbo: Mike has presented evidence that the 3 stop codons show Rationality and Foresight.
Looks like it to me.
Bilbo: If no independent evidence of a designer means no evidence, then no evidence of more or less stop codons means no evidence.
We infer evolution by noting homologies. Where are the homologies for 3 stop codons?
Bilbo: If no independent evidence of a designer means no evidence, then no evidence of more or less stop codons means no evidence.
You lost me on that father analogy. But now you are saying that in the precursor code there were two stop codons?
Comment by Bilbo — March 10, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Mike responds to one critic's allegation of poor design by showing how 3 stop codons made sense from a designer perspective. Another critic says no he hasn't. You are then pointed to an evolutionary process which, with respect to the code, is mostly speculative. Never do we see a disavowel of the original poor design tactic. It is as if critics lay back and wait to see if it goes over. If it does not, a retreat to an undemonstrable evolutionary process is made.
Comment by Bradford — March 10, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Switching threads to avoid veering the other thread off topic.
Mike has offered two made up just-so stories with no supporting evidence that, if true, might show rationality and foresight. He cherry picked these two examples from among a nearly infinite number of possible explanations. The rest of this thread seems to adequately cover the problems so I won't repeat any more, but I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring your question.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 10, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 7:52 am
There are always Gaps in human knowledge. You can always find particulars that are difficult to explain, especially historical details, especially details that left scant evidence. Pointing out that Peter doesn't know who is father isn't evidence that his father didn't exist, or that his father was Apollo. Ignoring the bulk of the evidence and concentrating only on the singular Gap leads to an erroneous and unsupported claim.
The evidence indicates that the triplet genetic code evolved from a doublet code. That would unify two of the three examples.
Danckwerts and Neubert, Symmetries of genetic code-doublets, Journal of Molecular Evolution 1975.
Patel, The triplet genetic code had a doublet predecessor, Journal of Theoretical Biology 2005.
Wu, Bagby and van den Elsen, Evolution of the genetic triplet code via two types of doublet codons, Journal of Molecular Evolution 2005.
None of this is considered certain due to the dearth of evidence. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates an evolutionary process preceded the origin of the canonical genetic code. (Not to mention the huge amount of data supporting the Theory of Evolution that surrounds and pervades this particular. Everything evolved but this apparently.)
There are also plausible theories concerning the order of origin of UA and UG. But that isn't necessary to show that at least two of the three stop codons have a common origin.
Comment by Zachriel — March 11, 2009 @ 7:52 am
March 11th, 2009 at 10:34 am
He gives evidence of later organisms converting two of the stop codons into codons for additional amino acids. He gives evidence that there is a mechanism that detects nonsense codons by means of detecting out of place stop codons. He gives evidence that having 3 stop codons is better at coping frameshift mutations than 1 stop codon. But I don't expect you to be any more open-minded than Zachriel.
Zach, I'll read your articles, but I bet all they show is that is that there is an attraction between two of the amino acids of codons and the enzymes that binds them to their respective tRNAs. Which would mean that the codon was designed so that the third amino acid can play an additional role — perhaps as part of a parity code?
There are no existing alternative genetic codes with only two amino acids per codon. There are no known ways to get naturally occurring nucleotides or proteins. The only genetic code we know of shows ample rationality and foresight. But keep looking.
Comment by Bilbo — March 11, 2009 @ 10:34 am
March 11th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Zach, I just noticed the latest journals you refer me to are dated 2005. Anything more recent? Or was everybody so overwhelmed by the evidence that there was no need to do anymore research since?
Comment by Bilbo — March 11, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
April 5th, 2009 at 10:28 am
[...] April 5, 2009 by Michael A few weeks back, Bilbo wrote the following at Telic Thoughts: [...]
Pingback by Bayesian = Science? « The Design Matrix — April 5, 2009 @ 10:28 am