[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

(1) I don't think the original researchers were trying to prove anything at all about evolution; they were investigating how certain biological structures worked. (Their comments elsewhere indicate that they do in fact attribute the existence of those structures to evolution, but it doesn't appear to me that proving this was the aim of this article.)

Indeed, it was not the objective of the researchers to prove a causation. That was a presumption on their part. The point of this article, is that the correct deduction is intelligent design.

(2) Even if that was their aim, they wouldn't have to demonstrate how anything arose from 'non-life' in order to show that something arose from 'evolution'. Evolutionary theory proper simply presumes the existence of life.

I agree that evolution theory does not address abiogenesis. But the subject of the researchers was the evidence of design (engineering) in biological systems.

Thus, to demonstrate how this arose by evolution, they would have to propose how complexity emerged - and a type of complexification (Kolmogorov, self-organizing, physical, functional, etc.) That in turn requires establishing how semiosis emerged (language, encoding, decoding) which in turn requires establishing how autonomy arose and information itself.

At that point one is at the door of abiogenesis. After all, the point of their research is design evidence (complexification) not speciation. When one wanders beyond the boundaries of Darwin's theory, one must deal with the consequences.

The point of the commentator, on the other hand, is that somehow, because the researchers used the language of control theory to describe the biological structure they were investigating, their work demonstrates that ID is correct and Darwinism isn't. That's not true; the use of those particular mathematical concepts shows nothing one way or the other about the origins of the phenomena under investigation, whether in predator-prey models or in the subject of these authors' research.

I disagree. When presented with the evidence of design (engineering) in biological systems - in nature - the simplest conclusion is intelligent design, not evolution.

Because of Occam's Razor, the commentator's deduction ("this" article) is more rational than the researchers'.

[OhioAttorney]

Indeed, it was not the objective of the researchers to prove a causation. That was a presumption on their part. The point of this article, is that the correct deduction is intelligent design.

Okay. We're agreed on that, then.

I agree that evolution theory does not address abiogenesis. But the subject of the researchers was the evidence of design (engineering) in biological systems.

Thus, to demonstrate how this arose by evolution, they would have to propose how complexity emerged - and a type of complexification (Kolmogorov, self-organizing, physical, functional, etc.) That in turn requires establishing how semiosis emerged (language, encoding, decoding) which in turn requires establishing how autonomy arose and information itself.

I think their point was merely that it's possible to apply a 'reverse engineering' approach to develop models of biological systems. Perhaps I've inadvertently overlooked part of their claim, but I see nothing in the claim as I've stated it that requires them to prove anything one way or the other about the origins of the systems being modeled.

[T]he use of those particular mathematical concepts shows nothing one way or the other about the origins of the phenomena under investigation, whether in predator-prey models or in the subject of these authors' research.

I disagree. When presented with the evidence of design (engineering) in biological systems - in nature - the simplest conclusion is intelligent design, not evolution.

Well, I'm sure that argument has been beaten to death (from both sides) on many of these threads. My point here is simply that this conclusion, whatever its other merits may or may not be, can't be reached simply by noting that biologists can get useful results by employing concepts from control engineering.

[StJacques]

". . . the commentator's deduction ("this" article) is more rational than the researchers'. . . ."

No way! The test of rationality is derived from adherence to scientific method, a standard to which the researchers adhere and the author of the article does not.

Unless and until Intelligent Design theorists can reformulate the I.D. hypothesis in such a way as to present it as "disprovable," which is the test of a scientific argument, the theory remains unscientific and does not pass the "rationality test" nearly so well as the Theory of Evolution. The researchers are attempting to prove the origins of complexity and design. The I.D. theorists insist that we accept an Intelligent Designer on faith since those origins have yet to be effectively demonstrated.