Genetic engineering and ID

[Isana Kadeb]

Just read this in another forum (from an engineer), any thoughts :

As I stated at the beginning of this thread- “In order to establish logical similarities on a scientific basis, you will need to demonstrate that examples of design processes from both the human engineering class and the biological evolution class can explained by predictive theories or models with the same key logical components.”

Both selective breeding and genetic engineering demonstrate that human engineering methodologies can be applied directly to biological systems and the results obtained are not unlike the results produced by natural evolutionary processes. The fact that we can take components of the human engineering design process and intersperse them with naturally occurring biological evolutionary processes and produce biological designs is strong evidence that evolutionary processes are design processes.

But if you wish to study the design versus non-design on a more formal basis, you need to identify precisely which features or properties distinguish design from non-design and design processes from non-design processes. Design has traditionally been defined in terms of probabilities and goals. Some thing is said to be designed, is defined as designed, if it is a member of an improbable solution set in a large search space. In a related manner, a process is defined as a design process or a goal directed design process or an intelligent design process if it can quickly and efficiently find an improbable solution in an large search space.

It is important to recognize the relationship that exists between search efficiency and design complexity or improbability. Increasing complexity or increasing levels of design imply that solutions spaces are smaller and smaller portions or percentages of the search space. But increasing search efficiency means that solutions are found faster and with fewer trials. Even if a objective is highly complex or highly designed or highly improbable, a highly efficient search process may be able to find a solution very quickly.

If you recognize this interrelationship between design and design process, and if require that design complexity and design efficiency be evaluated separately, then the presence of both design and design processes in biological evolution are readily demonstrated.

Sounds like bullshit word salad to me.

[Patrick Degan]

He's commenting outside the scope of his expertise, and making some fundamentally flawed assumptions to boot. The rather huge Begging the Question fallacy is glaringly obvious. Very unscientific for an engineer. That is, if he is one...

[Winston Blake]

Both selective breeding and genetic engineering demonstrate that human engineering methodologies can be applied directly to biological systems and the results obtained are not unlike the results produced by natural evolutionary processes.

I'll just mention how annoying i find this 'not un-' business. It's as if sounding like you're denying something implies that you know what you're talking about.

The fact that we can take components of the human engineering design process and intersperse them with naturally occurring biological evolutionary processes and produce biological designs is strong evidence that evolutionary processes are design processes.

Isn't that just saying 'Engineering concepts can be applied to organisms'? Well duh. I wonder how he defines 'biological designs'. Has it occurred to him to wonder how the hell we could engineer an organism and not produce a 'biological design'?

[mr friendly guy]

As I stated at the beginning of this thread- “In order to establish logical similarities on a scientific basis, you will need to demonstrate that examples of design processes from both the human engineering class and the biological evolution class can explained by predictive theories or models with the same key logical components.”

Except evolution doesn't design things the same way human designers do. But I guess that slipped past his head.

Both selective breeding and genetic engineering demonstrate that human engineering methodologies can be applied directly to biological systems and the results obtained are not unlike the results produced by natural evolutionary processes. The fact that we can take components of the human engineering design process and intersperse them with naturally occurring biological evolutionary processes and produce biological designs is strong evidence that evolutionary processes are design processes.

Non sequitar. Because we can alter the evolutionary process with design does not follow that evolutionary process itself is designed. Thats like saying because I can build a snowman out of a snow, therefore snow itself must be designed.

But if you wish to study the design versus non-design on a more formal basis, you need to identify precisely which features or properties distinguish design from non-design and design processes from non-design processes. Design has traditionally been defined in terms of probabilities and goals.

I see he is following William "I have discovered a 4th law of thermodynamics" Dembski's bullshit about probabilities. We know something is designed because we fucking designed it. If I see the word "Casio" on my wrist watch, I know its been designed because casio is written with English letters, which is a human construct.

Some thing is said to be designed, is defined as designed, if it is a member of an improbable solution set in a large search space.

Bullshit. We say its designed if there is a plan in its formulation or contrived for a particular purpose or effect.

In a related manner, a process is defined as a design process or a goal directed design process or an intelligent design process if it can quickly and efficiently find an improbable solution in an large search space.

Wrong. I am no expert, but don't "evolutionary" fitness functions find the solution through trial and error methodology without any design. And they can do this better than the design solutions.

It is important to recognize the relationship that exists between search efficiency and design complexity or improbability. Increasing complexity or increasing levels of design imply that solutions spaces are smaller and smaller portions or percentages of the search space. But increasing search efficiency means that solutions are found faster and with fewer trials. Even if a objective is highly complex or highly designed or highly improbable, a highly efficient search process may be able to find a solution very quickly.

I love how he doesn't actually define what he means by search efficiency, design complexity and to measure them. This makes it difficult to evaluate what he is actually saying.

Thats like me saying evolution is associated with "wzzt" (a nonsensical made up term I pulled out of my arse to demonstrarte a point). Since there is a lot of "wzzt" in nature, therefore evolution is real.

If you recognize this interrelationship between design and design process, and if require that design complexity and design efficiency be evaluated separately, then the presence of both design and design processes in biological evolution are readily demonstrated.

Translation - if you buy my bullshit you would think as I do.
Not at all.

[Darth Wong]

As I stated at the beginning of this thread- “In order to establish logical similarities on a scientific basis, you will need to demonstrate that examples of design processes from both the human engineering class and the biological evolution class can explained by predictive theories or models with the same key logical components.”

Both selective breeding and genetic engineering demonstrate that human engineering methodologies can be applied directly to biological systems and the results obtained are not unlike the results produced by natural evolutionary processes. The fact that we can take components of the human engineering design process and intersperse them with naturally occurring biological evolutionary processes and produce biological designs is strong evidence that evolutionary processes are design processes.

Sheer nonsense. Take the human engineering methodology of suddenly removing an entire subsystem and replacing it with a completely different one, redesigned from the ground up. Since when can we find an example of that in the evolutionary tree? The reason "genetic engineering" is similar to natural evolution is that we can't really design DNA from the ground up. We're not that advanced yet. We can only modify existing DNA slowly, which is very similar to the way evolution works. When you look at other branches of engineering such as electrical or mechanical, there is no similarity at all to evolutionary processes.

But if you wish to study the design versus non-design on a more formal basis, you need to identify precisely which features or properties distinguish design from non-design and design processes from non-design processes. Design has traditionally been defined in terms of probabilities and goals. Some thing is said to be designed, is defined as designed, if it is a member of an improbable solution set in a large search space. In a related manner, a process is defined as a design process or a goal directed design process or an intelligent design process if it can quickly and efficiently find an improbable solution in an large search space.

Speaking as an engineer, I can tell you that he's making that up out of thin air.

It is important to recognize the relationship that exists between search efficiency and design complexity or improbability. Increasing complexity or increasing levels of design imply that solutions spaces are smaller and smaller portions or percentages of the search space. But increasing search efficiency means that solutions are found faster and with fewer trials. Even if a objective is highly complex or highly designed or highly improbable, a highly efficient search process may be able to find a solution very quickly.

Engineering design is not a matter of randomly searching for solutions; any engineer who would propose totally random searching as a design methodology should be fired. And the idea of design by "trials" is the most inefficient kind of engineering; you do prototype and test a design, but you don't design by trial. You design by scientific principles and calculations.

If you recognize this interrelationship between design and design process, and if require that design complexity and design efficiency be evaluated separately, then the presence of both design and design processes in biological evolution are readily demonstrated.

What a load of nonsense; real engineers design using applied scientific principles and calculations, not by randomly searching some sort of mythical "solution space". The very idea of such "searching" implies that all the solutions are already out there and you're just picking one out of a catalogue; that is a pitiful shadow of what engineers do. What professional engineering association does this person belong to? I would very much like to know what kind of engineer makes such absurd claims about the engineering design process.

Consider this: by his nonsensical argument, if there is only one possible solution to a problem, then it could not have been design. Seriously, go back and look at his argument, and that's the conclusion because it relies on the improbability of a particular solution in a large "solution space"; in a "solution space" of just 1, the probability is 100%. That is conclusive proof that he's simply making up his argument whole cloth and attempting to use his (claimed) credentials to put a veneer of credibility on it.

[Isana Kadeb]

Thanks for the replies, I suspected it was mostly hot air, too much arcane mumbo jumbo, and I'm familiar with evolution. The guy doesn't mention (this is on the Access Research Network forum - some ID sight I came across) what type of engineer he is, but he seems to be continually repeating the line that from an engineering perspective, life must be a result of an intelligent design process or something along those lines. Other than that its mostly obtuse, meaningless pseudo-technowaffle. Interesting to note that there seems to be loyal fanbase behind ID even after the Dover case.

[Metatwaddle]

Interesting to note that there seems to be loyal fanbase behind ID even after the Dover case.

Oh yes, they're still there. I ran into the ID fan club at a lecture given by Eric Rothschild (that awesome lawyer who verbally kicked Behe's ass in cross). A few idiots, bitter that their side had lost the case, came to the lecture and tried to argue some really nonsensical stuff about how ID vs. evolution was equivalent to rationality vs. randomness. Yes, they said natural selection was random. (My dad looked like he wanted to throttle them.)

Fortunately, I'm told that it's unlikely that any form of the ID case is going to get appealed to a federal circuit court or SCOTUS. I couldn't get through the 130-something page decision myself (I'm going to give it another shot this summer), but my friend in law school who read the decision has told me that the judge was very thorough. He apparently went through about six arguments against ID, any of which would result in ID not being taught if it was found to be a legitimate argument. And all of them were found to be legit arguments against ID. I think one was the argument about ID not being widely accepted scientifically, another was the argument that ID was creationism and thus could not be put in school curricula because of Edwards v. Aguillard, and a third was the argument about ID violating separation of church and state.

So if they want to keep pushing to get religion into science class, the ID movement has to find some even more insidious, underhanded thing to call the theory. I have no idea what it'll be called next. Stay tuned.