I cannot believe this is happening. This has got to be one of the funniest events in the history of the Crevo threads at FreeRepublic because the Intelligent Design supporters have posted an analysis of a scholarly article, which they apparently hold in high repute, by a group of authors who will argue if asked, that the
inherent design of a biological system is a product of evolution, a position which, if correct, will completely negate the hypothesis of Intelligent Design!
Somebody pinch me! I must be dreaming!
Please examine, if you will, the
Position Description for a Post-Doctoral Fellowship at Kyushu University in the Department of Biochemical Sciences and Engineering, the search for which is managed by Hiroyuki Kurata, one of the authors of the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article which is referenced by the original article posted at the beginning of this thread (underline emphasis is mine):
"
. . . 1-2. Comparative genome analysis for elucidating the evolution of a biological system.
In order to elucidate the design principle of a biological system, research is undertaken not only to determine molecular networks of existing living systems, but also to learn how they evolve, since evolution is a key trigger for the emergence of living systems. In this project, we are very interested in how the initiation factors in the translation system evolved from an ancestral stage. We develop the information technologies necessary for comparative genome analysis of initiation factors in bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes, and elucidate how they evolved using the developed information technology. . . ."
As you can see, this position's interests are very closely related to the subject matter of the article mentioned at the beginning of this thread. There is no way Kurata would be chairing a search committee to fill the position that is described as quoted above if he did not support the parameters outlined therein. And those parameters are that
evolution is the key trigger for the emergence of biological systems and one must understand how those systems evolve in order to elucidate their design principles, not vice-versa or otherwise.
There is an additional reference you view for the work of another one of the authors, J.C. Doyle, who, along with Marie E. Csete, published
Reverse Engineering of Biological Complexity, a work referenced in the article at the beginning of this thread, which was reviewed in
Science Magazine in the fall of 2002. That
review was introduced with an abstract of the book's contents that follows (underline emphasis mine):
"
Advanced technologies and biology have extremely different physical implementations, but they are far more alike in systems-level organization than is widely appreciated. Convergent evolution in both domains produces modular architectures that are composed of elaborate hierarchies of protocols and layers of feedback regulation, are driven by demand for robustness to uncertain environments, and use often imprecise components. This complexity may be largely hidden in idealized laboratory settings and in normal operation, becoming conspicuous only when con-tributing to rare cascading failures. These puzzling and paradoxical features are neither accidental nor artificial, but derive from a deep and necessary interplay between complexity and robustness, modularity, feed-back, and fragility. This review describes insights from engineering theoryand practice that can shed some light on biological complexity."
The point made clear in the abstract is essentially the same one made clear in the description of the Post-Doctoral Fellowship position described earlier. According to Doyle and Csete "convergent evolution" in the domains of "advanced technologies and biology" produces "complexity" or "modular architectures." So in Biology, evolution leads to design.
Therefore, it is the clear opinion of the authors of the PNAS article that evolution produces both "design" and "complexity," two terms that are almost interchangeable.
Now; at the beginning of this thread we read the following quote put up by Michael_Michaelangelo:
"
. . . But they [the leaders in the I.D. movement] also teach that good science requires following the evidence wherever it leads."
Well, in the opinion of the experts you have brought to our attention Michael, the evidence leads to the conclusion that design and complexity were the result of evolution. That is indeed good science and I thank you for your post.
"The point made clear in the abstract is essentially the same one made clear in the description of the Post-Doctoral Fellowship position described earlier. According to Doyle and Csete "convergent evolution" in the domains of "advanced technologies and biology" produces "complexity" or "modular architectures." So in Biology, evolution leads to design."
I can sum up most of what you have to say in this statement above.
Now, for the operation of removing your foot from your mouth...
If, biology (and evolution) lead to design, as you put it... Where did the necessity of this evolution come from?
From your analogy, technology is changed to fit the new requirements of newer products, and this is technological "evolution" and where we design new things.
However, the NEED for these things was created in the first place. Humans specifically made both the machine and the need to change (and thereby design) the machine. The initial design was not an evolution, but a simple creation that got changed by will of the initial creators (humans)
The subsequent "evolutions" that "prove creation" are really orderly updates from the need that arose from their creation in the first place.
In the simplest terms I can offer: If creation is the result of evolution, why do we have evolution? A need is obvious if creation is present, regardless of the side in which creation arises.
Or more simply (now that I think about it): Quit trying to use double-speak, you'll put your eye out.
I cannot believe this is happening. This has got to be one of the funniest events in the history of the Crevo threads at FreeRepublic because the Intelligent Design supporters have posted an analysis of a scholarly article, which they apparently hold in high repute, by a group of authors who will argue if asked, that the inherent design of a biological system is a product of evolution, a position which, if correct, will completely negate the hypothesis of Intelligent Design!This is not the first time. A former FReeper, now banned, once linked me to a web site where he was the major "scientific" contributer. He had dozens of liks to articles that supposedly supported creationism or ID. I read the first linked article and it was clearly Darwinian. I had a lot of fun pointing this out.
There are lots of educated IDers who accept an old earth and the fact that evolution happened. They disagree about the mechanism. Some of them accept natural selection; they just believe variation is intelligent. I welcome proof of this, if it becomes available. It has certainly been investigated.