Design in Living Things Goes Far Beyond Machines

[Anguspure]

Seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes conceived of living things as complex machines, a concept now known as the “machine metaphor.” In 1998, Bruce Alberts (who was then president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) wrote that “the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”....

Sometimes the Metaphor Backfires
Charles Darwin called his theory of evolution “descent with modification,” and he insisted that the process was undirected. Some people have tried to use the machine metaphor to illustrate evolution, but their efforts have backfired. In 1990, biologist Tim Berra published a book titled Evolution and the Myth of Creationism that included photographs of some automobiles. Berra wrote, “if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.”3 Since automobiles are engineered, however, the series of Corvettes actually illustrated design rather than undirected evolution. In 1997 Phillip E. Johnson, a critic of Darwinism and advocate of intelligent design, called this “Berra’s blunder.”

In 2014, three engineers published an article in the Journal of Applied Physics comparing the evolution of airplanes to the evolution of animals. According to the authors, “Evolution means a flow organization (design) that changes over time,” and they argued that animals and “the human-and-machine species” (airplanes) “evolved in the same way.”5 But once again, the comparison of machines and living things implied design rather than undirected evolution.

According to pro-evolution philosophers Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, the machine metaphor should be abandoned altogether. In 2010 they wrote: “Creationists and their modern heirs of the Intelligent Design movement have been eager to exploit mechanical metaphors for their own purposes.” So “if we want to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom, not only do we have to exclude the ‘theory’ from the biology curriculum, but we also have to be weary [sic] of using scientific metaphors that bolster design-like misconceptions about living systems.” Pigliucci and Boudry concluded that since machine metaphors “have been grist to the mill of ID creationism, fostering design intuitions and other misconceptions about living systems, we think it is time to dispense with them altogether.”...

Awe-Inspiring Design
An organism, however, in contrast to an isolated structure, rearranges its parts over time. An organism imposes organization on the materials it comprises, and its organization changes throughout its life cycle.

To see how remarkable this is, imagine a machine familiar to most of us: a laptop computer. If a laptop computer were a plant or animal, it would start out as a protocomputer consisting of perhaps a few transistors, a little memory with some software, and a battery on a small circuit board. Then it would obtain materials from its surroundings to fabricate other components, and it would make its circuit board larger and more complex. Along the way, it would find ways to recharge its own battery. It would also write more programs. After reaching maturity, the laptop would run its programs by itself — imagine keys on the keyboard going up and down as though pressed by some unseen finger. If components were damaged, the computer could repair or replace them while continuing to operate. Eventually, the computer would fabricate one or more protocomputers, each capable of developing into other laptops just like it.

A lot of design goes into laptop computers. How much more design would have to go into making a laptop computer that could do all the things listed above? No one knows. But such a computer would certainly require more design, not less. And the design would be radically different from human design, because after the origin of the protocomputer the design it would be intrinsic rather than extrinsic.

So the inference to design from molecular machines is robust, but it’s only the beginning. There is design in living things that far transcends the machine metaphor — and it should inspire awe.

Jonathan Wells

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/design-in-living-things-goes-far-beyond-machines/

 

[pitabread]

The "awe and wonder" argument. Unfortunately, people's emotional reaction to something plays no bearing in how that thing came to be.

 

[Kylie]

Some people have tried to use the machine metaphor to illustrate evolution, but their efforts have backfired.

Here's one that doesn't.

 

[Skreeper]

Evolutionnews is a propaganda website managed by the Discovery institute.

You got a source that isn't notoriously biased and has an agenda?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes conceived of living things as complex machines, a concept now known as the “machine metaphor.” In 1998, Bruce Alberts (who was then president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) wrote that “the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”....

Sometimes the Metaphor Backfires
Charles Darwin called his theory of evolution “descent with modification,” and he insisted that the process was undirected. Some people have tried to use the machine metaphor to illustrate evolution, but their efforts have backfired. In 1990, biologist Tim Berra published a book titled Evolution and the Myth of Creationism that included photographs of some automobiles. Berra wrote, “if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.”3 Since automobiles are engineered, however, the series of Corvettes actually illustrated design rather than undirected evolution. In 1997 Phillip E. Johnson, a critic of Darwinism and advocate of intelligent design, called this “Berra’s blunder.”

In 2014, three engineers published an article in the Journal of Applied Physics comparing the evolution of airplanes to the evolution of animals. According to the authors, “Evolution means a flow organization (design) that changes over time,” and they argued that animals and “the human-and-machine species” (airplanes) “evolved in the same way.”5 But once again, the comparison of machines and living things implied design rather than undirected evolution.

According to pro-evolution philosophers Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, the machine metaphor should be abandoned altogether. In 2010 they wrote: “Creationists and their modern heirs of the Intelligent Design movement have been eager to exploit mechanical metaphors for their own purposes.” So “if we want to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom, not only do we have to exclude the ‘theory’ from the biology curriculum, but we also have to be weary [sic] of using scientific metaphors that bolster design-like misconceptions about living systems.” Pigliucci and Boudry concluded that since machine metaphors “have been grist to the mill of ID creationism, fostering design intuitions and other misconceptions about living systems, we think it is time to dispense with them altogether.”...

Awe-Inspiring Design
An organism, however, in contrast to an isolated structure, rearranges its parts over time. An organism imposes organization on the materials it comprises, and its organization changes throughout its life cycle.

To see how remarkable this is, imagine a machine familiar to most of us: a laptop computer. If a laptop computer were a plant or animal, it would start out as a protocomputer consisting of perhaps a few transistors, a little memory with some software, and a battery on a small circuit board. Then it would obtain materials from its surroundings to fabricate other components, and it would make its circuit board larger and more complex. Along the way, it would find ways to recharge its own battery. It would also write more programs. After reaching maturity, the laptop would run its programs by itself — imagine keys on the keyboard going up and down as though pressed by some unseen finger. If components were damaged, the computer could repair or replace them while continuing to operate. Eventually, the computer would fabricate one or more protocomputers, each capable of developing into other laptops just like it.

A lot of design goes into laptop computers. How much more design would have to go into making a laptop computer that could do all the things listed above? No one knows. But such a computer would certainly require more design, not less. And the design would be radically different from human design, because after the origin of the protocomputer the design it would be intrinsic rather than extrinsic.

So the inference to design from molecular machines is robust, but it’s only the beginning. There is design in living things that far transcends the machine metaphor — and it should inspire awe.

Jonathan Wells

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/design-in-living-things-goes-far-beyond-machines/

Argument by semantic definition.

 

[tyke]

How about : Argument by REALLY wishing it were so???

 

[SkyWriting]

The "awe and wonder" argument. Unfortunately, people's emotional reaction to something plays no bearing in how that thing came to be.

That was a very minor point in the post written. So your analysis of the post failed.

 

[Speedwell]

That was a very minor point in the post written. So your analysis of the post failed.

What else was there? That lame analogy between a laptop computer and a straw-man version of evolution?

 

[SkyWriting]

What else was there? That lame analogy between a laptop computer and a straw-man version of evolution?

Ok. About 20 sentences, 10 words each, and two emotional words as the last two words of the post - "inspire awe". That's a fail for analysis.

 

[pitabread]

That was a very minor point in the post written. So your analysis of the post failed.

What other point was there? That machines are an inadequate comparison to living things? Okay... and?

 

[Ophiolite]

The diversity of life in terms of metabolism, structure, environment, behaviour, reproduction and much besides should invoke a sense of awe and wonder in everyone, whether they are a creationist or an evolutionist. However, the evidence for evolution is abundant and open to all, whereas the creationist view is dependent upon faith and personal revelation. I don't understand the logic of going with the latter.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't understand the logic of going with the latter.

Then you should work on that.

 

[SkyWriting]

The "awe and wonder" argument. Unfortunately, people's emotional reaction to something plays no bearing in how that thing came to be.

Awe and Wonder is worth millions per year but that declines after you pass away.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes conceived of living things as complex machines, a concept now known as the “machine metaphor.” In 1998, Bruce Alberts (who was then president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) wrote that “the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”....

Called a metaphor for a reason. While using it can make it easier to explain certain cellular processes, it also inevitably makes the explanation a little less accurate. This is because cells DON'T function like machines do beyond some shallow similarities. For example, yes, both computers and human brains have "memory", but how the computer "remembers" information is nothing like how brains do. Brain cells actually change their shape and connections to form memories, and different shapes allow for differences in how easily something is recalled. No part of a computer physically changes shape when you save a file. Plus, thanks to the artificial system, items you open just once on a computer are just as accurately saved as ones looked at many times, unlike how a human usually needs repetition of information in order to retain it long term.

Sometimes the Metaphor Backfires

Charles Darwin called his theory of evolution “descent with modification,” and he insisted that the process was undirected.

He didn't insist that, only noted that there was no evidence supporting otherwise.

Some people have tried to use the machine metaphor to illustrate evolution, but their efforts have backfired.

-_- because machines don't work like living organisms, in that they don't have genetic material, they don't reproduce, etc. Also, metaphors don't illustrate anything, they can just make understanding and communicating a topic easier to do. For example, how neurons fire is commonly compared to how toilets flush when an in depth explanation isn't necessary.

In 2014, three engineers published an article in the Journal of Applied Physics comparing the evolution of airplanes to the evolution of animals.

Note how none of the people that published that were biologists.

According to the authors, “Evolution means a flow organization (design) that changes over time,” and they argued that animals and “the human-and-machine species” (airplanes) “evolved in the same way.”5 But once again, the comparison of machines and living things implied design rather than undirected evolution.

What do you know, people that build machines for a living don't have a background in biology. What a shock. -_- if anything, this is an embarrassment to engineers, not evolutionary biologists.

According to pro-evolution philosophers Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, the machine metaphor should be abandoned altogether. In 2010 they wrote: “Creationists and their modern heirs of the Intelligent Design movement have been eager to exploit mechanical metaphors for their own purposes.” So “if we want to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom, not only do we have to exclude the ‘theory’ from the biology curriculum, but we also have to be weary [sic] of using scientific metaphors that bolster design-like misconceptions about living systems.” Pigliucci and Boudry concluded that since machine metaphors “have been grist to the mill of ID creationism, fostering design intuitions and other misconceptions about living systems, we think it is time to dispense with them altogether.”...

I agree with them. Since cells don't actually function like machines do, the metaphors inevitably result in misunderstandings about cells. For example, protein complexes aren't assembled cleanly, with all parts neatly coming together. No, often they are just floating around until the right parts connect together -_-. Something like 20% of mRNA produced is made incorrectly; what factory worth running produces faulty, useless garbage that frequently? Cell functions are messy and imprecise, to the point that your DNA has tons of genes dedicated to fixing when this stuff messes up; and those genes also mess up.

Awe-Inspiring Design

An organism, however, in contrast to an isolated structure, rearranges its parts over time. An organism imposes organization on the materials it comprises, and its organization changes throughout its life cycle.

Organized like a room decorated by a team of orangutans. Yeah, stuff is in specific spots that they don't stay in, so organized and neat (sarcasm). Exactly what would a disorganized cell look like? Because disorganized and "organelles being in pieces" are two different things. Because the only cell organelles I know of that have much consistency of physical position within a cell are the nuclei and the outer membrane, and the latter is a given because how is the outer membrane going to be anywhere but the outside of the cell? It is the outermost membrane by definition. And when I say that nuclei have some consistency, it is just some. There are always deviations from the most typical placement of it, and don't even get me started on cells that have more than one.

To see how remarkable this is, imagine a machine familiar to most of us: a laptop computer. If a laptop computer were a plant or animal, it would start out as a protocomputer consisting of perhaps a few transistors, a little memory with some software, and a battery on a small circuit board.

-_- in what universe do people claim, from an evolutionary perspective, that organisms started out multicellular? I have never seen any evolution supporter claim that.

Then it would obtain materials from its surroundings to fabricate other components, and it would make its circuit board larger and more complex.

A comparison that doesn't make sense, because machines don't have a metabolism.

Along the way, it would find ways to recharge its own battery.

-_- mitochondria, ever heard of them? How about chloroplasts? How about freaking heat? Energy is all around us for cells to utilize, and the mechanisms by which they do utilize it have become very complex as a result of billions of years of specialization and development. A lot of people are unaware of this, but the vast majority of reactions catalyzed by modern cells are ones that occur outside of cells, just at a far slower pace. Ancient protocells existed at a slower pace, and as better and better mechanisms for utilizing energy developed, they became able to handle organelles that had a higher energy requirement. After billions of years of that going on, modern cells have come to a point that they have far too many energy demanding processes to handle such a slow pace ever again.

How much more design would have to go into making a laptop computer that could do all the things listed above? No one knows. But such a computer would certainly require more design, not less. And the design would be radically different from human design, because after the origin of the protocomputer the design it would be intrinsic rather than extrinsic.

-_- yeah, if life started out just as complex as modern multicellular organisms, then I would also be a creationist. But it didn't.

So the inference to design from molecular machines is robust, but it’s only the beginning. There is design in living things that far transcends the machine metaphor — and it should inspire awe.

Jonathan Wells

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/design-in-living-things-goes-far-beyond-machines/

Being a parrot for Evolution News, which is a creationist organization, must make it very easy on your brain compared to thinking for yourself. Too bad their arguments suck.