"Hallmarks of Creation" vs. Actual Signs of Artificial Products

[Myriad]

Modularity is also worth considering. At the level of the individual, modularity is adjacent to repairability and to functional specificity of subunits. But when you're looking at a natural history, modularity also becomes apparent at the population level.

If you have a collection of sewing machines (or remains thereof), sorted by age, you'll see what might look like a lineage by ancestry with variation, that might look consistent with an evolutionary model based on reproduction with variation plus selection. But then you notice specific features such as electric motors, plastic parts, and microcontroller chips, that don't have ancestral antecedents in the sewing machine lineage, but that had appeared previously in other non-sewing-machine items. Or actually, let's be more specific: within the sewing machine lineage they had functional antecedents that were not structural antecedents. Certain metal parts disappear to be replaced with plastic parts of identical function and near-identical shape. Elaborate cam-based automata disappear, to be entirely replaced with microcontrollers that are morphologically completely different but perform the same function (variant stitch patterns).

Such observations don't prove intelligent design, but they do prove that some process outside of reproduction-with-random-genetic-variation and selection has been going on. More importantly, when they're not observed, it's strong evidence against a generally intelligent designer. It's valid to doubt that an intelligent designer would have any reason to refrain from transferring "modules" (such as visual organs, tooth forms, venom defenses, or manipulator appendages) arbitrarily across lineages.

 

[theprestige]

Kind of like how there's both insects and mammals with venom, and there's mammals, reptiles and mollusks with similar eyes?

Would we even be able to tell what a module looks like, when considering the possibility of an intelligent designer who kicked off an array of evolutionary paths millions of years ago?

 

[Wowbagger]

I don't think that really changes my point. Intelligent designers we're familiar with don't know how to create complex ecosystems on a planetary scale, that are self-sustaining and evolutionarily stable over geological time.

I think there are valid arguments against intelligent design, but that anthropocentrism is not one of them.

Well, the argument is that Creationists are looking for evidence of Intelligent Design the wrong way, picking out very naive methods of thinking about this. Creationists are not brought up to understand the fallacy of Personal Incredulity and the concept of evolutionary co-option, so they would naively assume Irreducible Complexity is a perfectly reasonable line of evidence, for example.

Meanwhile, the actual signs of intelligent design we are able to see around us are very different. And even though they only come from humans (presumably), that can still be very informative. They present features that more effectively indicate they are intelligently designed, deeper than naive conjecture.

There is no goal to argue against the power of divine beings, here. They can do whatever they want.

One possible goal of all this is to demonstrate why it is necessary for them to rethink the lines of evidence they are purporting to be that of intelligent designers.

Though, most of my audience won't be Creationists. The real MAIN purpose of my presentation is to showcase what an Intelligently Designed lifeform would look like, in general. Just for fun and educational purposes.

And where exactly would you expect to find tooling marks, in biologically evolved organisms, even if they do trace their lineage back to an artificial ancestor?

It might depend on how the life form reproduces. If there is a germline, such as Darwinian-style evolution, any initial tooling marks probably won't exist in the next generation.

But, if the reproduction was more Lamarckian in style, any such flaws could inadvertently make it into future generations.

 

[Wowbagger]

Modularity is also worth considering....

That is largely a good point, too.

 

[theprestige]

Well, the argument is that Creationists are looking for evidence of Intelligent Design the wrong way, picking out very naive methods of thinking about this.

A naive argument is not an excuse for a naive rebuttal.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

From the standpoint of someone who worked in genetics... If life was designed at a genetic level it was designed to look exactly like something undesigned.

 

[theprestige]

From the standpoint of someone who worked in genetics... If life was designed at a genetic level it was designed to look exactly like something undesigned.

What would genetic design look like to a genetic designer a million years ago, in the opinion of someone who has no clue where to even start designing the genetics of a complex organism? For all you know, the homochirality of sugar is in fact the hallmark of a designer.

 

[Wowbagger]

A naive argument is not an excuse for a naive rebuttal.

I am curious what your rebuttal would be, then, to the Creationists' "Hallmarks of Intelligent Design" ideas.

 

[theprestige]

I am curious what your rebuttal would be, then, to the Creationists' "Hallmarks of Intelligent Design" ideas.

You know what? I don't think I have a rebuttal. I said earlier that I think there are good arguments against intelligent design, but now that I think about it I'm not sure what they might be.

It's essentially a god of the gaps argument, which is very difficult to rebut. But also is it really necessary to rebut? Is it even worth trying to rebut? You can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.

And I have never yet met a creationist that was sincerely interested in hearing counter-arguments to their beliefs and changing their mind if they thought the counter-arguments had merit.

More importantly, I don't have to have a solution to the problem you're trying to solve, to point out what I believe to be flaws in the solution you're proposing.

Your experience of what design looks like is far too limited to justify the authority required by your rebuttal.

 

[angrysoba]

Just out of interest, are many intelligent designers expected at Skepticamp? I am … skeptical.

In which case, is the talk about how to argue and debate with intelligent design proponents? If so, I recommend heading over to “Darwinists are so dumb.com” and asking them what their arguments are so that you can formulate rebuttals.

 

[novaphile]

Regarding the eyes...

Worth mentioning the epic design fail that puts the optic nerve in the centre of the retina causing a blind spot right in the centre of our vision. A designer wouldn't have got that wrong.

 

[theprestige]

Regarding the eyes...

Worth mentioning the epic design fail that puts the optic nerve in the centre of the retina causing a blind spot right in the centre of our vision. A designer wouldn't have got that wrong.

Zookeeper fallacy. Good design of complex systems very often involves informed decisions about priorities and tradeoffs. The blind spot at the optic nerve is suitably compensated for and eliminated elsewhere in the system.

You have nowhere near enough information about how to genetically engineer complex biological organisms, to make an authoritative assessment of whether this was truly a bad design choice. Same for all the other "bad" design choices that atheists like to pretend they're informed enough to pass judgement on. You're not. Let it go.

 

[catsmate]

Stereoisomerism.

 

[Wowbagger]

But also is it really necessary to rebut? Is it even worth trying to rebut?

Well, I have my own motivations for doing this exercise, and we'll just leave it at that.

 

[Wowbagger]

Just out of interest, are many intelligent designers expected at Skepticamp? I am … skeptical.

In which case, is the talk about how to argue and debate with intelligent design proponents? If so, I recommend heading over to “Darwinists are so dumb.com” and asking them what their arguments are so that you can formulate rebuttals.

The talk is about what an intelligently designed entity would probably really look like, if we were to come across one. Just as a fun thought experiment to go through.

My intention is not really to use this as a way to argue with ID proponents. Though, there is no doubt that: A. Some of the Evos in the audience will take it that way, anyway. And, B. If ID proponents get ahold of the presentation, they will likely turn it into a debate point, as well.

So, I am prepared for a bit of that.



But, really, all I want to do at the end of the day is play with these ideas... and LEGO pieces.... Yes, LEGO does become relevant to my talk, as well, towards the end.

 

[theprestige]

The talk is about what an intelligently designed entity would probably really look like, if we were to come across one. Just as a fun thought experiment to go through.

Gotcha. So no need for a rebuttal to the Intelligent Design claim.

My position remains that you do not know enough about what it takes to design a complex organism that's stable over evolutionary time, to meaningfully speculate on the topic. At best you'll be wasting your audience's time. At worst, some of the more naive ones are going to come away with bad arguments that they will try to use the next time they encounter a creationist.

 

[arthwollipot]

Chain mail reproduces itself.

Assuming you're referring to chain letters and emails, rather than armour, they do not reproduce themselves. They are viruses - they hijack someone else's reproductive system in order to replicate.

 

[angrysoba]

One feature of the intelligent designers that we are familiar with is that they are all human.

Not sure if that is quite true. Some animals such as monkeys, chimps and crows appear to have actually made tools have they not? I recall seeing that some of the evidence that pointed to early arrival in the Americas turned out to be flint tools likely created by capuchin monkeys. Also, crows apparently not only use sticks to get insects but actually fashion hooks on the sticks to get the insects.

 

[angrysoba]

The talk is about what an intelligently designed entity would probably really look like, if we were to come across one. Just as a fun thought experiment to go through.

My intention is not really to use this as a way to argue with ID proponents. Though, there is no doubt that: A. Some of the Evos in the audience will take it that way, anyway. And, B. If ID proponents get ahold of the presentation, they will likely turn it into a debate point, as well.

So, I am prepared for a bit of that.



But, really, all I want to do at the end of the day is play with these ideas... and LEGO pieces.... Yes, LEGO does become relevant to my talk, as well, towards the end.

Oh… okay… but I don’t know if some of the examples you use work, in that case. One point that you make is about sub-optimality. But that is true of both evolved and artificially designed entities, no?

 

[theprestige]

Not sure if that is quite true. Some animals such as monkeys, chimps and crows appear to have actually made tools have they not? I recall seeing that some of the evidence that pointed to early arrival in the Americas turned out to be flint tools likely created by capuchin monkeys. Also, crows apparently not only use sticks to get insects but actually fashion hooks on the sticks to get the insects.

When the space aliens arrive to make first contact, they'll be so confused. On the one hand, this species has skyscrapers, jet airplanes, nuclear reactors, and an Internet. On the other hand, that species has... sticks... for... pulling bugs of burrows... Maybe the aliens should hedge their bets, and contact both just in case.