Just as a thought exercise or challenge--can you provide an algorithm or
rule that will be able to distinguish in all cases what is a "design" and
what is an "illusion of one's instinct for conveying selective advantage?"
What would such a criterion be? And how about this side-question: do lower
life forms design things, e.g., do spiders design their webs? Do bees design
their combs, or beavers their dams? What is the decisive line which divides
the designed things from the random-advantage-conferring? I think that you
will have a very difficult time defining that line. And if you can provide
such a rule, it will be fun to test it with some examples!
You might even be tempted to go as far as Shroedinger who in his essay "mind
and matter" seems to doubt even whether there are any real consciousnesses
outside of his own (there is, after all, no concrete evidence for such).
Therefore, perhaps all designs by humans would also be mere illusions...ah!
but they seem so much like the product of an intelligence!
JPK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Pozharski" <epozh...@umaryland.edu>
To: <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Reverse Translatase
David is absolutely right. There is no design, Jacob, we just
instinctively look for it everywhere because seeking purpose instead of
understanding mechanism conveys advantage to our species. Your
rationale is flawed - just because it is imaginable (with caveats) does
not mean that it must exist on this particular planet. Complementary,
not every feature observed has functional significance (in part because
biomacromolecules are structurally redundant).
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 09:04 -0400, David Schuller wrote:
> Ah, so many possibilities! And as I said before, considering that
> it would be so useful, and that the genius of macromolecular design
observed
> in nature is apparently so unlimited, shouldn't it be out there
somewhere?
"Design"? I think there are more appropriate descriptions for life as
it
has been observed. The complexity of life can be explained fairly
well
by Darwinian evolution, i.e. replication with variation coupled with
selection. This works through modification of existing entities. The
relatedness of many molecules and the theme of modification of
pre-existing parts ought to be apparent to someone who has learned
about
replication and sources of genetic novelty, and spent any time
studying
protein structure.
*******************************************
Jacob Pearson Keller
Northwestern University
Medical Scientist Training Program
Dallos Laboratory
F. Searle 1-240
2240 Campus Drive
Evanston IL 60208
lab: 847.491.2438
cel: 773.608.9185
email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu
*******************************************
