“In other words, upon what

Comment on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes by Sean Pitman.

“In other words, upon what basis would you declare any particular phenomenon to be a likely artefact of non-human intelligent design?” – Sean Pitman

I think that is a fair question.

Thank you. However, you still don’t seem to want to directly answer this question…

The short answer is if those phenomena can be explained by the cause and effect mechanisms of Nature then the default position of ID is likely ruled out.

I agree. ID would not be the only rational nor the most likely explanation for such phenomena. However, the question at hand isn’t about what phenomena are most likely the products of various “raw” forces of mindless nature. The question I’ve been asking you for quite some time now is what kind of phenomena could only rationally be explained by the hypothesis of intelligent design? – given the information that is currently in hand?

The trend in the advancing sciences is to provide cause and effect explanations for why all natural phenomena occur. Just because Science does not have all the answers, yet, or gets it wrong, does not mean the answer is supernatural ID.

We’re not talking about “supernatural” ID at this point. A God is not required to produce our granite cube. We’re just talking about regular ID here – regardless of the source of intelligence. Also, SETI scientists do not propose some “raw” force of nature to explain the radio signals that they’re looking for. They propose intelligent design as an explanation. Upon what basis do they do this? Is their argument rational and scientific?

You want to jump directly into arguments for or against God or the Supernatural instead of dealing with the simple basis of detecting intelligent design regardless of its source or Source.

Is it possible for God to make a loaf of bread that looks exactly like the kind my wife makes? Sure. So, it is possible that a God could design on a human or human-like level of design where no one could tell the difference except for the fact that both of the loaves of bread (God-made vs. human-made) were clearly the result of intelligent design… and not the result of some “raw” force of mindless nature.

What then is the difference between our highly symmetrical polished granite cubes or a loaf of bread vs. considering the structure of our universe or of a living thing?

As an aside, consider that the most simple living thing is informationally far more complex than the universe when it comes to the degree of precision of the functional information necessary to produce each.

Could the same criteria for detecting design be used in both situations? – where design on different levels of intelligence and creativity can be detected by the same basic rational argument? In other words, it doesn’t take a rocket scientists to make a granite cube or a loaf of bread while it does take a rocket scientist to make a rocket. Yet, the same method for detecting deliberate intelligent design behind various artefacts can be used to detect design behind either a loaf of bread or a NASA-like rocket. It’s the very same argument. The only difference is that this same argument can be used to detect design that required different minimum levels of intelligence and creative power…

Does this rule out the wee green man making granite cubes with strange inscriptions thereon? No, but that is only a hypothetical until such objects, akin to man made design, are discovered. Haven’t observed anything of that manner yet.

So, do you now agree that such an object, if found on an alien planet, would be good evidence of intelligent design? Have you changed your mind here? Upon what is the scientific argument for intelligent design based? If you don’t know what a true artefact should look like, based on some kind of testable scientific argument, how can you hope to know one when you do see it beyond mere hunches and guesswork? Don’t you need to have some set of criteria as to what you’re looking for and why before you set off to look for artefacts of intelligent design? What might that be?

Might SETI some day pick up radio transmissions from aliens? Possibly, but that likely wouldn’t have any connection with the origins or design of the universe, any more than man made artefacts do.

Forget about the origin of the universe for the moment. Start with the basics. Upon what basis is any artefact detectable as a true artefact? What is the rational scientific criteria for determining this? Once you seriously consider this question, you can start asking if various phenomena fit these criteria – to include various features of the universe itself. It’s all the same argument, only on different scales or levels of intelligence is all…

While the radio signals that SETI scientists are looking for might not have anything to do with the origin of the universe (to be sure), the arguments used to detect such signals as true artefacts might also be used to detect other various features of the universe and within the universe as artefactual as well… on various levels of intelligent design and creative power.

What you are attempting to do with ID is extrapolate the criteria used for the manufacture of human artefacts to analyse Nature Itself. Mixing apples and oranges. Different kettles of fish, etc.

They’re not different kettles of fish and I’ll explain why if you will finally explain how you could recognize a true artefact on an alien planet. Why not directly answer my question then about the detection of non-human design on alien planets? Why not tell me the scientific argument used by SETI scientists? – and if you think the SETI argument is rational and truly scientific? Once you do this we can talk about if various other features of and within the universe (and within our own world) are or are not clearly artefactual… and how you’re being inconsistent in your use of criteria for detecting true artefacts of intelligent design (along with most scientists living today).

How does One actually go about designing a Law of Gravity? A bit different than chiselling and polishing the ole granite cube, don’t you think?

Again, let’s try to start with the basic concepts of the arguments for design before we leap into a discussion of the origin of the universe. There are many things within the universe and within our own world that are very much like the polished granite cube example (except that many of these examples demonstrate far higher levels of detail and precision).

So, if you can admit that the granite cube examples I’ve given you would be clear evidence of intelligent design if found on an alien planet, we have a discussion and can start talking about various levels of intelligent design. If not, there is no basis for further discussion.

What then your answer? Would the examples I’ve given of highly symmetrical polished granite cubes be good evidence of intelligent design if found on an alien planet? – yes or no? and why? I want a clear answer to this question from you before I’ll get into any further discussion of this topic…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

I was not clear enough in my comment. There are 14 ERV’s that are intact and able to produce virus that we share with the chimps.

This is not true. According to a study published in 2005, no human ERVs capable of replication have been identified; all appear to be defective as far as producing infective viruses is concerned due to major deletions or nonsense mutations.

Belshaw R, Dawson AL, Woolven-Allen J, Redding J, Burt A, Tristem M (Oct 2005). “Genomewide Screening Reveals High Levels of Insertional Polymorphism in the Human Endogenous Retrovirus Family HERV-K(HML2): Implications for Present-Day Activity”. J Virol. 79 (19): 12507–14.

These occur at the same location in the genome of both humans and chimps. There is no question as to the function of these 14 ERV’s. Some of these are associated with disease states in humans.

This is also not true. While many ERVs are being found to be functional, most of these functions are beneficial to one degree or another, and some are even vital to life. Also, there have been no proven cases of human ERVs causing disease.

“HERVs have frequently been proposed as etiological cofactors in chronic diseases such as cancer, autoimmunity and neurological disease. Unfortunately, despite intense effort from many groups, there remains little direct evidence to support these claims, and moreover some studies have served only to muddy the waters for others.” – http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/6/reviews/1017

“Many still manage to generate proteins, but scientists have never found one that functions properly in humans or that could make us sick.” – http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter

It’s like arguing that regular genes cause disease. The real reason for disease is a loss of regulation of the normal function of regular genes, and perhaps ERV sequences on occasion, due to random mutations that destroy their original functionality.

If these are a product of design by God then why is reverse transcriptase part of the code in these viruses? They could have been placed directly in the genome as DNA. Did God design us to have disease? Would it not be more likely that these represent the past viral attacks on a common ancestor which were then incorporated into the germ cell and passed on the future generations of descendants? It would only require one ERV to prove common descent and we have 14. Ask yourself what is more reasonable?

Your knowledge about ERVs is very inaccurate. There are many rational reason for ERV-type sequences to be included, by design, in our genome. As already mentioned, many ERV sequences are being discovered to produced beneficial effects – some are even vital to life. Some ERVs have even been shown to fight against infection by exogenous retriviruses:

“The HERV-W env gene product has also been shown to block infection by an exogenous retrovirus, suggesting that the expressed HERV-W env gene could have a beneficial function to the host (Ponferrada et al., 2003).” – http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/1203

“However, in the case of both Fv4 and Rmcf, the mode of defense is by the domesticated env gene blocking the receptor required for retrovirus entry.” – http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=
10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0010044

Beyond this, the theory that the ERV sequences within the human gene pool were derived from external viral infections is untenable given the population bottlenecks that would have been required to achieve this effect within the germline of humans or any other animal. Even modern retroviral infections never insert themselves within the germline cells of their host. Such a theory is based on something that is so extraordinarily unlikely that it hasn’t even been observed.

“No current transposition activity of HERVs or endogenization of human exogenous retroviruses has been documented so far.” – http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/suppl_2/14572

“Most of these elements represent ancient retroviral infections, as evidenced by their wide distribution in primate species, and no infectious counterparts of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are known to exist today.” – http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/6/1668

In any case, for further details along these lines, please refer to these detailed discussions of ERVs:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Endogenous
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogenous_retroviruses.html

Sean Pitman

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
We share far more than 14 ERVs with chimps.

Not too long ago it was thought that around 30,000 ERVs existed within the human/ape genomes, comprising between 1-8% of each. As of the 2005 Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, where the entire chimpanzee genome was compared to the human genome, it is now thought that approximately 200,000 ERVs, or portions of ERVs, exist within the genomes of both humans and apes – totaling around 127 million base pairs (around 4% of the total genomic real estate). Some authors suggests a 45% ERV origin for the human genome at large (Mindell and Meyer 2001) and 50% for mammalian species in general, if all small fragments of ERV sequences are included in the estimate. In any case, of these hundreds of thousands of recognizable portions of ERVs, the vast majority of them seem to match up, at the very same loci, between humans and chimps. Less than 1% of the ERVs are lineage specific for either humans or apes. In other words, the vast majority of ERVs are shared or “orthologous” between humans and chimps (a significant increase from the seven or so that were once thought to infect both humans and chimps at identical locations).

So, doesn’t this make the case all that much stronger than humans and apes share a common ancestor? After all, what kind of intelligent designer would have put so much shared “junk” in both of our genomes?

Well, recent research is turning out some surprising discoveries on what was once thought to be junk-DNA. Much of what was thought to be junk is turning out to be functional to one degree or another – to include ERVs.

For more information on this most interesting topic, please visit:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html

Sean Pitman

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Now you’re just projecting. How about putting your own ideas to the test and see where they stand? Isn’t it a bit strange that I’m willing to respond to questions and challenges regarding my position, but you are not? Are you willing to even consider that you might be wrong? What kind of evidence or demonstration would that take? – short of a conversion of most scientists?

I’ve spelled out quite clearly that my position is easily falsifiable and that I’d be more than willing to leave Adventism and even Christianity behind as convincingly falsified if reasonable evidence supporting the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism, or any other mindless naturalistic mechanism, could be produced… or that life has actually existed and evolved on this planet over hundreds of millions of years. I have no desire to believe in any falsehood – not matter how attractive it may seem to me. I really do desire to know the truth and follow where it leads as I am able to discover it.

What about you? What would make you leave agnosticism behind and consider that a personal God who thinks about you and cares for you and died for you actually exists?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

P.S. By the way, science is also required to make leaps of faith. Science isn’t about absolute proof or demonstration. Science is about taking what little is known and using it to make educated leaps of faith into that which is not and cannot be known with absolute confidence.