Re: [asa] Amazing Proteins

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> Hi PvM,

> "Of course, the possibility of a design explanation always exists but the
> question is not one of marveling at what proteins can do but rather, can
> science explain the success of evolution?"

> I see no need for the binary choice. On the contrary, perhaps we all could
> do with a bit more wonder than simply treating proteins as a brute given.
> After all, the success of evolution would seem to be largely dependent on
> proteins. Take away proteins and where is the success of evolution?

That's present day situation. That's like saying take oxygen and water
away and what remains?
t

> "While early guesses suggested that time was insufficient to search
> sequence space,
> science has found that sequence space translates to a much smaller set of
> proteins."

> This would simply speak to the amazing versatility of proteins and enhance
> the sense of marvel. And my point.

Indeed, a fully natural explanation which displaces any 'design
inference' to an instance that precedes the creation of the universe
and placing it outside the view of scientific inquiry. We humans crave
for answers to these 'why' questions and perhaps there will never be
answers.

> "We can of course always marvel at the physics involved but how do we turn
> this into a scientifically relevant position?"

> It's not just physics. Take Physics + Natural Selecion - Proteins. Are
> you sure evolution would still be a success?

Sure? Well of course not, there is a level of contingency as well. SO
we have chance and regularity and known processes. Would I have met my
present day wife if I had not decided to take a particular decision.
Would I ever have known the difference?

I think what we need to appreciate is how evolution itself facilitates
its own success. It's called evolvability.

But you still have not answered by question. How do we turn this into
a scientifically relevant position? How would ID explain all this? If
I understand your position correctly you hold that at a particular
instance in time we face a set of initial conditions that led to
present day situation. Your argument is that perhaps the initial
conditions were set up for evolution to be successful? That is an
interesting idea but unnecessary at best and scientifically irrelevant
lest we can argue why there is a non natural requirement for the
initial conditions to have existed.

Looking back it is incredibly unlikely that the rock that rolled down
the slope ended up where it did and yet it had to end up somewhere. We
may see a purpose in how the rock ended up exactly where it did but
this seems not much dissimilar from the puddle of water that marveled
at how the impression in the ground exactly matched its shape. And
while it was evaporating it was still pondering the significance of
this coincidence. My apologies to Douglas Adams.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 3 00:47:54 2008