Your IP address is 126.96.36.199
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'AdR%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_result: Resource id #4
|Date: 2007/05/05 05:38:26, Link|
I recently published 4 peer-reviewed articles that each propose design-based alternative theories to areas of evolutionary research and consider my research the link between ID and hard science. I believe that the detection of design is essential for an understanding of evolution, simply because design aspects are essential for any complex system. In this way, my approach is to reverse engineer Life. Future research should be able to tell whether natural causes or driving forces will be enough to create an intricate molecular machine such as Life. It will be a question for engineers, who in general are much more skeptical about the feasibility of reaching such a complex system in a relatively short time.
I consider my use of design patterns as the link between evolutionary science and intelligent design. It is based on the premise that Life is an evolving molecular machine, and when you try to understand how a machine works, you study its design. In case of evolution, which is the continuous expansion of the system, it only seems natural to study engineering and more specifically to study complex systems. If you want to understand complex systems, you need to study designs and design patterns. Although engineering concepts such as modularity have been recognized in evolutionary science , the application of these design patterns to the actual evolution of developmental pathways has been practically inexistent. This has led to the strange phenomenon that evolutionary scientists do accept the concept of an evolving molecular machine, but fail to think in mechanistic terms.
I have written several short pieces about the philosophical implications of my theories (below), which should be also interesting for students and engineers. I hope I can further interest you or your co-workers with my studies (see also below). My website also contains information about other articles I wrote.
For those interested, here are some links to my articles and opinions:
My publications in peer-reviewed journals: Albert de Roos' publication
Background on my articles: Evolution and design
|Date: 2007/06/08 08:50:11, Link|
quack, thanks for your reply and the suggestion about my website. I changed the colors.
This comments amazes me. What else could it be than a molecular machine in a mechanistic world view. My problem with mainstream evolutionary science is that they a) seems to agree that life is just mechanistics, i.e. an evolving, molecular machine, but b) do not seem willing to think in mechanistic terms, i.e. design terms.
Of course you are bothered by the design when you analyze a function. Take for instance a car, you won't understand it unless you know what it is for (purpose) and how it works (design). The difference between aq diesel engine and a gasolne engine is in its design.
If I analyze windows XP, I study its modular design. If one does not understand object-orientation, it is impossible to understand it.
I agree with you that evolution happened in about 3 billion years. I just do not believe that the current evolutionary scenarios are possible in that time-span, and advocate other scenarios. I think it would take 100s of billions of years to get a eukaryote out of a prokaryote, or to develop insect larval stages de novo, or to change a bacterium into a mitochondrion.
Instead, a careful analysis of the workings of the molecular machine (and take engineering aspects into consideration) point in my opinion to a complete different scenario, all within a mechanistic view on evolution.
What I am trying to convey, is that design aspects are relevant for every complex system. We can easily incorporate feedback mechanisms (=a design pattern) into development, but we have problems by introducing similar deisgn patterns for evolution.
Another way to loom at it, is trying to do some reverse engineering: what would be the requirements for an evolving machine, and how could this have been implemented (using RM+NS as driving forces) in evolution. Design does not equal Designer.
sceptic, I am looking forward to youyr comments.
|Date: 2007/06/08 16:26:17, Link|
"do not seem willing to think in mechanistic terms, i.e. design terms"
Further explained here: Design is an integral part of research on evolution
|Date: 2007/06/09 13:18:18, Link|
Skeptic, I never used the word design to imply that there is a designer. Design is an abstract concept and can be used without reference to a designer. In my scientific articles, I use often 'engineering', but honestly, I don't think you can study or understand complex systems without referring to design concepts.
Even without a designer, we still have to ask ourselves what the function or purpose of the system is, even of this is not a higher purpose. Survival of the fittest, or the selfish gene concept both imply a goal, albeit a different one. We can only understand the system if we can relate the functions with the goal. I think that the fitness goal (e.g. an insect evolved the larval stages to obtain a higher fitness by food partitioning) is wrong, because the end result can never be the drive for its evolution. I also think that we can deduce why we see certain wing patterns, if we knew the course of evolution.
|Date: 2007/06/09 13:22:27, Link|
|Lenny, were your comments in response to something I wrote? I don't recall implying that there was a designer.|
|Date: 2007/06/09 16:15:26, Link|
Lenny, you don't understand what a design is. Which proves my point about evolutionists that do not understand how complex systems work.
But you guys on this forum seem to believe that " the premise that Life is an evolving molecular machine is wrong" (see 'quack's comment). My world view is about mechanics, what is yours?