Mike:
> For example, is the existence of proof-reading, at every step
> along the path of information flow, implied by a messy process
> behind origins? I don't see why. For I really don't see why
> the "messy process" would evolve proofreading at every
> step since the messy process *already* involves a proofreader
> called natural selection.
Chris:
>This messy process is needed because the initial replication process
>is *so* error-prone, *so* messy, that proofreading is a necessity.
No, as I explained above, replication is not error-prone and
messy. Proofreading is a necessity simply because the amount
of information needed to make life exceeds the capability of
any single system of replication/expression. You could argue
that the genetic information should have been different, or
the laws of nature should have been different, but you'd
simply be engaging in vacuous speculation. As it stands,
proofreading is a simple and elegant solution to the problem
posed by making life in our universe, and in fact, the actual
mechanisms of proofreading hardly reflect kludginess, but
instead are intimately tied to actual processes of polymerization
themselves in a manner that speaks of sophistication (check
out the way ribosomes proofread codon-anticodon interactions).
>As you know, too little variation and the organism cannot keep up
>with environmental pressures, but too *much* variation and it
>disintegrates genetically and dies out. That is, the organism would die out
>if it did not have some protection for the accuracy of its genes.
There are two things worth adding here:
1. You forget that proofreading also occurs at the level of transcription
and translation and these mistakes will not propagate to future
generations. You'll need a more detailed just so story to
explain these (of course, I can imagine some, but I won't
do your homework for you).
2. I'm glad you recognize the necessity of proofreading, but
keep in mind your position entails the existence of cells,
for millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of years without
such ability, as proofreading is something that is clearly
"highly evolved."
>As I said above, the need for the error correction just shows how
>*messy* the *basic* replication process is.
No, I'm afraid it just shows that you don't understand the basic
replication process.
>That is, under evolutionary theory, those
>organisms that did not have such a process did not retain enough genetic
>integrity (the replication process was too messy and sloppy for that) to
>enable them to survive in competition with organisms that *did* have such
>genetic correction mechanisms to fix some of the errors introduced by the
>kludgy and corruption-prone replication process.
Yes, "evolutionary theory" is very good with hand-waving and coming
up with just-so stories, where nothing more than a little imagination
goes a very long way. But keep in mind that also entailed in "evolutionary
theory" is the implication that life existed for a very long time without
the ability to proofread. And what's more, such edit-less cells would
have existed under much harsher conditions than those faced by today's
cells (i.e., no ozone layer to screen out UV radiation, etc.). What
makes you think such imaginary cells would simply not disintegrate
from the load of their own uncorrected errors long before any lineage
stumbled upon proofreading?
>My question here is: *Why* did you interpret this *additional* layer of
>molecular activity and complexity as a sign of *neatness* and method?
Because it clearly points to the existence of the extreme specificity
inherent in life required to sustain and propagate the amount of
information apparently required to have life. Quality control is
a trademark of design. The need for proofreading is not a function
of stupid sloppiness, but a function of the fact that life is so fine-tuned
that it is built around specificity at a level where the ability to
specify almost ceases to exist.
>Let's see: We take something that doesn't work too well by itself, and we
add a
>bunch of stuff to it to *make up* for its failures, and this is *neatness*?
DNA pol works about as well as we can expect. What makes you
think it has failures?
>What you seem to be implying is that the *more* complex and kludgy something
is,
>the *more* you will claim that it's neat and methodical?
Yes, complexity can indeed be neat. But the complexity involved
in information flow is specified, not kludgy. Like I said, life
distinguishes things that are barely distinguishable. That's
anything but kludgy.
>Weird, man, we-IRD. I don't get it. I *am* glad you are not an engineer or
>computer programmer, though, if this is the approach you would use in
>designing things.
Quality control and system checks are common in intelligent design,
but not with a designer (natural selection) merely interested in
"good enough."
>Indeed, the need for a "proofreading" process is *precisely* the sort of
>thing one would predict on the basis of the premise that evolution is a
>messy and opportunistic process, and the additional premise that *plain*
>DNA replication is too error-prone, but *not* on the basis of the premise
>that there is a designer, because we *might* suppose that he'd design things
>so that they got replication right from the beginning.
Getting things "right from the beginning" is a vacuous metaphysical
argument. Tell you what. You go design a life form comparable
to what exists that doesn't need proofreading. Then, you'd at least
have some substance behind these claims. Right now, you are
just Monday-morning quarterbacking without any evidence that
you have ever played or understood the strategy involved in football.
And yes, it's always possible to put an evolutionary spin on something
after the fact. But perhaps you can cite papers where Darwinists
predicted proofreading mechanisms existed before they were known
to exist. In reality, proofreading was simply discovered as scientists
tried to figure out how things work (without reference to evolution).
It was something that was stumbled upon.
Finally, don't forget that evolution also predicts the existence of life
forms without proofreading (at a time when error-introduction be
higher). Thus, it doesn't imply it is necessary.
>However, since this is such a useless and unscientific premise, we can't
>really draw *any* empirical predictions from it (this makes your requests
>(and those of Stephen) for testable implications a little ironic, to say the
least).
I just did indeed use ID to deduce the existence of proofreading
during transcription. This deduction could have been used to generate
a testable hypothesis, and is it turned out, the hypothesis would have
been verified by experiment. You can assert all you want about ID being a
"useless and unscientific premise," bit a little experience just showed me
(at least) that you don't know what you are talking about (probably due to
that anti-ID axe you are grinding).
As for irony, I've spelled some of the implications of ID. So why
not spell out the implications of messy evolution (where messy or non-messy,
simple or complex, it all points to evolution).
>There *are* of course, *some* instances of "neatness" in biology, but they
>are obviously not the norm.
I would say the jury is still out.
>Evolution is the ultimate pragmatist, so *some*
>things will turn out to be neat and some things will turn out to be kludgy.
Thus, evolution makes no testable implications.
>I can already predict some areas in which we will find more kludginess than
>in others: Those where evolutionary pressures have been most varied and most
>rapidly changing, so that there was not an opportunity for straightforward
>development from much simpler states, where life had to take a "right-angle"
>turn, so to speak, where existing organs, structures, and genes were pressed
>into service for functions that they did not originally evolve to handle.
Like I said, evolution makes no implications. We simply assume
evolution and then find implications merely from a proposal of
different paths of evolution. Of course, this doesn't mean I can't see
your point.
>If development is guided along a smooth path toward some condition along a
>single dimension, and is not "jerked about," you will tend to find cleaner
>structures. For example, if you take a single-cell organism and selectively
>"guide" it *directly* toward adaptedness for some environmental condition,
>the result will tend to be simpler and cleaner than if you guide it toward
>some significantly different condition *first* and then redirect it toward
>the same condition. This will not turn out to be the case for *every*
>organism or such set of conditions, but, *statistically,* it will be the
>case. If you breed a "camel" directly from a single-celled organism, you
>will get a cleaner result than if you breed a camel by first breeding a
>pseudo-whale, then a pseudo-polar bear (from the pseudo-whale) and then a
>flying organism and *then* finally breed the flying organism into a "camel"
>(or pseudo-camel).
>Why? Because there will be much more genetic baggage along, and much more
>adaptation of genes, organs, structures from one function to another,
>greatly different function. Breeding the single-celled organism *directly*
>to a pseudo-camel will *still* produce a lot of complexity, of course, and
>probably still a lot more than the pseudo-camel really needs (because, even
>without the evolutionary "jerking around," the genes will have accumulated
>much that could be gotten rid of by a full-fledged redesign). But, still,
>the kludginess of the "directly-evolved" vs. the "jerked-around"
>pseudo-camel should be much lower, on average.
Chris actually makes some good points that could be helpful to the ID
people. More on this later (if someone wants).
>A designer, of course, would not have to include *any* such genetic baggage
>from past times or species. Each newly-introduced species could be designed
>from scratch to have *just* the genes and *just* the structures *it* needs,
>and the structures could be made *truly* minimal for their level of
>effectiveness and function.
We're back to metaphysical "should have been" speculations.
>Since macroevolution by naturalistic means is
>excluded by ID theory (except for nearly trivial versions of ID theory, such
>as the "Deistic Designer"), we would *expect* that each new organism would
>have its own nice clean set of genes, clearly designed for it and it
>*alone*.
As far as I know, ID "theory" does not exclude macroevolution
by naturalistic means.
>Instead, we find *frequent* apparent genetic, molecular, and
>morphological "leftovers" from earlier organisms that lived in radically
>different environments.
And when we don't? Of course. It still means messy evolution.
>Again, a designer *could* design things the way they
>are, but that they *are* the way they are, instead of *much* cleaner and
>neater, is *very* suspicious.
Sure, but then you seem to lack the ability to be suspicious about
patterns that don't reflect sloppiness.
>Why would a "perfect being" be so sloppy? Was
>he a dropout at the Godding school of bioengineering? *Very*
>suspicious.
ID is not premised on the notion that the designer is
perfect. And Christian theology is not premised on
the notion that God would create a perfect world.
Thus, it's a misguided move to turn ID into a quest for
the perfect world/perfect designer.
Mike