BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Kurieuo wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I am not sure that it would be easy to detect these changes in the organism alone. However if one were given the liberty to examine natural organisms as a whole and were able to do comparative analysis.
Lets say there is a drastic change in the new organisms genome which includes genetic material originating from organisms which could not have combined their genomes naturally(sexually,virally etc...).
This organism would stick out like a sore thumb.
However if the scientists were not allowed this comparative analysis there would be nothing to suggest design, or evolution.
I can understand that without comparative analysis one couldn't know with as much certainty, but then the scientists may be deceived about the true origin of the organism before them. Are they in any better situation to assume such came about naturally, or should they take a more unbiassed approach to the issue leaving the possibility open either way?
Given an organism without knowing if it was modified there would be the bias that it is natural.
Not sure I'd agree, but I will say such a bias would certainly change if one believes there are significant reasons against believing the organism arose naturally. Furthermore, saying the bias should be that it arose naturally begs the question of whether infact such an organism did or even could arise naturally. Of course, if one is biassed to believing an organism can arise naturally, then like you, they will likely think it quite acceptible to believe by default that it arose naturally.
I provided my analogy of a modified organism to see whether certain methodologies could be employed to detect such modification. Without something to compare, you believe such an intelligent modification can't be detected. Thus, if the scientists handed the modified form did not have the original organism template to compare with, then you believe they should to be biassed towards it arising naturally. I don't see where this bias comes from, unless one assumes the answer from the beginning that the organism in question arose naturally.
Kurieuo wrote:Do you think it matters either way when conducting science to see how an organism works?
The variability within populations is as important as the study of individual organisms.
I updated my question to be more clear. I was meaning, do you think it matters either way what one believes on origins (whether it was designed, or natural) when conducting science to discover how an organism works?
BGood wrote: Kurieuo wrote:
sandy_mcd wrote:Scientists are human. If they see something which looks like a natural organism, they will assume that is what it is.
That's the catch isn't it? Not all believe that things within biology look natural. Perhaps it is my programming background, but I see information rich code within biological systems. Functions all working together within one large program (an organism), and many templates being re-used from one species to the nest like a programmer would bits of their own code from one program to the next.
I also do a good amount of programming and the analogy doesn't work. Organisms do not use inheritance in the way you see it.
I'm not talking about inheritance, but true duplication. The kind of duplication which leads many evolutionary proponents to say things like, "Hey... this piece of junk DNA in 'species A' also corresponds in location and code in 'species B'". Junk DNA isn't the only corresponding thing, but it is one I use as I know it would perhaps bring the least resistence from you since you would likely see it as an argument against intelligent design (only I will add it is based on the premise that junk DNA has no purpose, actually being useless information developed by natural processes). Yet, also at the biochemical level we have the good 'ol blood clotting mechanisms, and very different animals share many obvious features with each other even if the "code" has been adapted slightly to be uniquely their own.
BGood wrote:The genetic code is slightly different to very different for genes which function in producing the same functional protein. It is as if each organism has the same operating system, however the objects are rewritten each time, with changes corresponding to the similarities of each program. So you have one programming language but a whole different set of COM objects for each implementation. For instance the ADO object works the same way for each but it is written from scratch each time with different logic and comments as well as different spacing and formatting leading to different file sizes. Also the functions serve multiple purposes in this language sometimes interfering with other processes or even leading to system crashes and opening vulnerabilities. Let me know what you do most of your development in so I can write a better analogy.
I understand your analogy and would tend to agree with most of it. Still I think there are many cases of duplication across species, and I've certainly seen such cases used in arguments supportive of common descent.
I've written in C, Java, ASP, but mainly keep to PHP now since I am more into web development side of things.
Kurieuo wrote:Such suggests more to me an intelligent programmer, rather than a random generator.
Its not a random generator. Any subsequently modified program must run until it can spawn a child process, if not then no new threads form. However the beauty of it is that each child process is different from the parent process, thus testing all possible combinations within the parameters, and removing the worst solutions.
You lost me a bit. However, getting to the heart to the issue—how did the original parent program get there to begin with? Either intelligence, or random processes governed by natural laws. Even disregarding what gets produced by the common language we both appear to agree exists, how did the language itself come about? You create applications in C#, but who created the language you create applications in? Who wrote the system within which the language you use compiles and runs? I think having an understanding of such things really hits home for me personally in accepting design as a common sense explanation.
Kurieuo wrote:Whatever one believes, they can be deceived either way. Yet, I don't follow strict evidentialism—the thought that a person does not have an epistemic right to believe unless they can provide good evidence for their belief (although I believe evidence still plays an important role and one must still be convinced of their beliefs). I think this may be in a nutshell the difference between BGood and myself—different conceptions of what it takes to be epistemically justified. Yet, in my perspective assuming natural processes without comparative analysis is in no better position than assuming design without comparative analysis.
Without comparative analysis evolution cannot exist.
I agree with you in that you don't need evidence to back what one believes. I have beliefs myself with no basis in physical proof. However in science evidentiary support is paramount.
It cuts both ways though, as you yourself admitted "without knowing if it was modified there would be the bias that it is natural
." Such isn't a very scientific form of judgement.