DNAunion: Had a problem posting this short e-mail too, so I will try again.
Hope it doesn't post twice.
>IY>If you or others want to propose the hypothesis that complex things such
as the genetic code are always assembled by intelligent beings, that is fine
with me.
>>SeJones: This is in fact our universal experience that codes "are always
asssembled by intelligent beings." SETI is based on this.
>>FMAJ: SETI is based on recognizing human like codes. The issue with
evolution is quite different since RM&NS have been proposed as a way to
explain information and genetic code. So in fact it is not our universal
experience that "codes are always assembled by intelligent beings".
DNAunion: But FMAJ's counter argument does not support this claim of his.
He states that RM&NS has been *PROPOSED* as a possible mechanism of
generating things like the genetic code - there is no evidence yet that it
could or did. Our *ACTUAL* experiences (at least those that I, and
apparently SeJones and others, are aware of) still point to intelligent
agents as the only source of coding systems like the genetic code.
>>>FMAJ: Or at least it is not immediately obvious. It is therefore a
logical fallacy to extend what we know about codes to evolution and genetic
codes without showing that RM&NS are insufficient.
DNAunion: I would say it is the other way around. RM&NS needs to
demonstrate an ability to create a coding system like the genetic code de
novo. Until that time, the inductive argument still stands unrefuted.
>>>FMAJ: Lacking any independent evidence of design in biology and genetic
code, one should not jump to any conclusions based on a shakey analogy.
DNAunion: Jumping to the conclusion based on inductive reasoning is not the
problem. Stating that it is a *fact* that the genetic code was intelligently
designed would be.
>>>FMAJ: Especially when a natural pathways have been proposed.
DNAunion: Again, natural pathways have been *proposed*, not validated.
Intelligent agents *can* create coding systems like the genetic code: that is
verifiable fact. And unless you or someone else has evidence to the
contrary, at this point in time, intelligent agents are the only *confirmed*
sources of coding systems like the genetic code.
>>>FMAJ: So in short, the logical fallacy is the assumption that "all
complex things such as genetic codes are always assembled by intelligent
beings".
DNAunion: I would say it is not a "logical fallacy", but a conclusion based
on inductive reasoning from our current knowledge. If our knowledge changes
in the future in some way that effects the conclusion, then the conclusion
should be modified. Is it really wrong to propose things based on our
current knowledge because there is the possibility that some future discovery
could change it? I don't think so, as long as the conclusion is presented
with qualifications and not as undeniable fact.
>>>FMAJ: That is something ID has to show to presume. In case of evolution
they cannot presume that which they have to support.
DNAunion: Lost me there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 23:11:36 EDT