Joined: Dec. 2002
Any reader can judge for themselves the amount of parrotting that is done by you. The problem, imo, is not so much defending concepts put forth by other authors. Rather, you have gone so far as to use the same arguments, the same primary sources, and the same phraseology as Mike Gene, that I wonder why I should not be debating him instead. In my view, your effort demonstrates how stale ID is in producing research, and how unoriginal and uncreative its proponents are, that arguments have to be thus recycled. But, no, I honestly do not see a problem with this conclusion.
|Actually I usually defend most ID theorists and their thesis in many forums. I don't see a problem with this, do you? |
Secondly, I do not use Mike Gene's statements as "authority", I discuss the data and go through great pains to put it in my own words so that I can defend them. In fact, I do this with Dembski's, Behe's, and sometimes even Wells' arguments as well.
No, Nelson. This is an unsubstantiated claim. You have failed to make your case that a tinkerer is an inherently nonteleological conception. In fact, engineers do plenty of tinkering too. The only distinction that Poole draws is between a "tinkerer" and "an engineer." The fact that C->U events are stochastic suggests that evolution is making of use "tinkering" strategies.
|"Any engineer would have replaced cytosine, but evolution is a tinkerer not an engineer." |
This is indeed a non-teleological statement countered by Mike Gene's hypothesis, which is clearly the exact opposite, that an engineer would in fact use cytosine because of it's predisposition for deanimation.
LOL. Nelson, re-read the quote above: "Many contemporary biologist and philsophers ... believe that teleological notions are ... ineliminable feature of biological explanations. Thank you for reiterating my point, that Darwinian evolution is perfectly compatible with teleological notions.
|"Opinions divide over whether Darwin's theory of evolution provides a means of eliminating teleology from biology, or whether it provides a naturalistic account of the role of teleological notions in the science. Many contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology believe that teleological notions are a distinctive and ineliminable feature of biological explanations but that it is possible to provide a naturalistic account of their role that avoids the concerns above. Terminological issues sometimes serve to obscure some widely-accepted distinctions."|
I contend that Darwinian evolution fails to eliminate teleological notions because I think there is design in biology, not apparent.
DNA transactions?? causing single stranded DNA??
|Deamination of cytosines in DNA is caused by DNA transactions that also cause single stranded DNA.|
Moving the goal post from "the dominant force" to "a key element." Actually, it is interesting that you quote-mined from this site: http://www.aps.org/BAPSMAR98/vpr/layg10-1.html ... because it goes on to say:
|And this would follow, since evolution has no foresight, it is no surprise that such inefficient design should be found in the genetic code. However, Mike shows C-T transition leads to increased hydrophobicity. This has utility, since the hydrophobicity is the dominant force in stabilizing a folded structure. [...]|
I find this quite telling. Actually, hydrophobicity is the key element in protein design. This has been shown experimentally and was expressed 40 years ago by chemist Walter Kauzmann.
W. Kauzmann, Adv. Protein Chem. 14, 1 (1959).
Secondly, that other factors are also signifcant determinants of protein folding is irrelevant. The fact remains that a key element for protein folding and structure is hydrophobocity.
|Forty years ago, Princeton chemist Walter Kauzmann identified hydrophobic interactions as a primary source of protein stability . [...] In subsequent years, with more and more x-ray-determined structures solved, it sometimes appears that other factors are at work besides the hydrophobic interaction as imagined by Kauzman. There seems to be little doubt that hydrophobic effects play an important role in protein structure, and in related phenomena. Basic theory for understanding such effects, and the extent to which they affect protein structure, however, has proved elusive. |
In his paper delivered at the March Meeting of the American Physical Society, David Chandler argues that at least part of the problem is an issue of length scales. In work carried out with Ka Lum, his student at the University of California, Berkeley, Chandler shows that under the right conditions, hydrophobicity of the traditional Kauzmann sort can appear, but only for extended oily surfaces in water. When surfaces are too small (or the concentration of oil too low), the energetic cost is insufficient to cause segregation. Instead, a different hydrophobic interaction occurs, one that acts only weakly and on only small length scales.
Weak short-ranged hydrophobic effects have been understood for about twenty years, on the basis of a theory developed by Lawrence Pratt and David Chandler . That theory, and its contemporary variant  are based on the idea that because mutual attractions between water are so favorable, water-water attractions will persist even in the presence of oily species. The bonding will simply go around the oily groups. For this picture to be geometrically plausible, the concentration or size of oily species must be small. Hydrogen bonds cannot go around a sufficiently extended oily surface.
The nature of hydrophobicity changes when the spatial extent of oily surfaces leads to a depletion of hydrogen bonds. It is this energetic effect, the loss of hydrogen bonding, that leads to the segregation of oil from water. This consequence of depletion was anticipated long ago by Lucent Technologies theorist Frank Stillinger . The quantitative analysis put forward by Chandler and Lum exploits a statistical mechanical theory of non-uniform fluids recently developed by John Weeks and his students at the University of Maryland. Weeks' theory compactly describes drying transitions in terms of an unbalancing force . Chandler and Lum view the depletion of hydrogen bonding near extended oily surfaces in terms of this force.
The principal conclusions of their analysis: A cluster of oily groups 0.8 nm in radius is sufficiently large to induce depletion and drying, or the expulsion of water molecules. The depletion will induce effective attractions between oily surfaces that are relatively far apart, distances as large as nanometers or more. Many of the effects that are explained by this analysis have been observed experimentally with studies of forces between macroscopic surfaces in water . Quantitative implications for the folding of proteins remain to be explored. Chandler notes, however, that current theoretical models for protein folding  have not yet accounted for the multifaceted nature of hydrophobicity. [References included in website]
So then you admit that the distinction is not non-teleology v. teleology, but "external" teleology and "intrinsic" teleology? This imo seems to be the key difference. Your version of ID explicity requires a particular type of agency: one that is unexplainable by naturalistic mechanisms. First, this qualification by itself seems to suggest supernaturalist agency. After all, you are describing an "intelligence ... not reducible to mechanism." Second, it seems to me that it is this extra-biotic agency that is doing all of the "designing." But, then, given these two observations, it follows that the utility of ID, at least your version of it, is heavily dependent on demonstrating the actual existence of such an agency. To date, I have seen none.
|Non-teleological inferences are mechanistic. Whereas teleological inferences express that intelligence is not reducible to mechanism. External teleology is very different from Darwinian thinking. telology. For example, teleology would hold that a car was consciously intended by some agent. |
That you do not explain something as designed means nothing logically. Consistent with intelligent design, you are making an argument by inducing from a negative experiment.
|Intelligent design cannot "explain anything", at least not empirically. I do not say that hemoglobin was designed, just as I would not say that an amorphous cloud in the sky was designed by an air plane, as opposed to the one that says "Happy Birthday".|
Tell me, Nelson. What other types of "engineers" do you think the good Dr. Poole is aware of, besides human ones?
|There is no mention of "human" engineers. Poole was obviously referring to a rational agent.|
These statement of yours prove my point, that the designer can do just about anything. Your faith in its abilities is rather profound.
|The hypothesis states that C-T transitions increase hydrophobicity, removes proline, and replaces it with helix and beta-strand formers. I would say that the utility for protein evolution was quite known by the designer. [...] As the author of the genetic code, and error corrections within it, it is logical to infer that the designer knew what he was doing. |
That "cytosine turns out to be efficient and effective for protein evolution" is your unproven hypothesis. But your hypothesis depends on your premise that "a good engineer" exists and did use it. But that depends on cytosine being "efficient and effective for protein evolution." But that depends on ... etc. ad nauseam.
|I don't see how this is established, if including cytosine turns out to be efficient and effective for protein evolution then a good hypothesis is that an engineer would include it. |