Nature's Destiny - Michael Denton

Debate specific books

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Nature's Destiny - Michael Denton

Post #1

Post by otseng »

This thread is to debate the book Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton.

The following debaters are allowed to participate:
Cathar1950
McCulloch
Confused
Furrowed Brow
otseng

Here is the agenda:
- Start off with background info of the author and book.
- Clarify any terms used.
- Cover one chapter at a time and debate the points made in that chapter. We might skip some chapters if we agree to it.
- Give closing arguments and final thoughts on the book.
- Go out for a drink.

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #51

Post by Confused »

otseng wrote:
Confused wrote:I agree with your overall assessments of chapters 6 and 7 but don't agree that they are the most intelligent designs or even the best designs.
To show that they are not the best design requires you to give a plausible alternative that is superior. Otherwise, it is an unsubstantiated claim.
All of the processess are interdependent upon one another. If one of the processes is interrupted, say for instance an asteroid hits the earth leading to dust etc coating the earths atmosphere leading to no sunlight for an extended period of time so photosynthesis can't occur, global temperatures can't be maintained, and life is essentially suppressed and many plant and animals become extinct, then all the subsequent processes cannot occur.
Of course if a cataclysmic event occurs, then there will be a major disruption in life. But, I fail to see how this has any relevance to his argument.
He points to water being so essential, but fails to point out that most of what is found on earth (oceanic salt water) isn't suitable for land life.
This is true also, but again, how is the fact that land life cannot live in saltwater relevant?
But look at the climate and atmosphere required for this elegant design. It must be maintained within narrow parameters.
I think this is another evidence of fine-tuning.
Too warm waters with too cool atmosphere leads to destructive hurricanes, too cool air in too warm atmosphere leads to massive thunderstorms and tornados. Too much gas pressures in the earths core leads to volcano eruptions and earthquakes.
I don't recall anywhere where Denton argues for a "perfect" atmosphere.

But, actually I would agree that the current atmosphere is not "perfect". And I believe the atmospheric conditions prior to the flood were superior to current conditions.
And considering that fact that though most mutations are insignificant, the fact that those that are consist of more fatal mutations rather than beneficial mutations once again demands the acknowledgment that regardless of how elegant Denton wants to make this, it certainly isn't intelligent and most would consider it fairly incompetent to a degree when you factor in the inefficiency and unpredictability of the system as a whole.
I would agree that detrimental mutations vastly outnumbers beneficial mutations. But, I do not see this as evidence against design.

Just because viruses can infect Microsoft Vista does not mean that the Vista was not intelligently designed. Or if rust appears on a Cadillac, it doesn't mean the car wasn't intelligently designed.
Ok, plausible alternatives. To start with lets look at the mutations of DNA. Many of these mutations are done in vitro. I will allow that some can be traced back to something the mother did while pregnant (ie taking a medication that had unknown effects on fetus leading to mutation). Outside of these, there is no reason for these mutations to occur. The human DNA is set in stone at birth, earlier actually, during the cell division and replication phases (mitosis/meiosis/etc depending on the species). Currently, technology doesn't exist to alter genetic anomalies after cell division and replication occur to make up the fetal DNA. Anything that occurs after this point can't alter the DNA itself. Perhaps the function of it, but the DNA is the still the same pattern. Would an intelligent designer not have been more efficient had he prevented these mutations from occurring? We have an immune system that really is poorly designed at birth. We gain most immunities from our parents or from exposure or from immunizations. Would not it been more efficient if these immune systems were active and effective in vitro so as to prevent mutations from occurring? Sort of a safety system? Would not a better system be one in which can monitor itself for irregularities or correct them before they are set in stone. Part of genetic research that was being done prior to Bush limiting federal funding on embryonic stem cells involved using these cells as hosts for correct genetic codes sequences inserted into a harmless virus. These virus loaded cells could then be inserted into the embryo during the replication phase, in which the embryo wouldn't reject the cell since it is undifferentiated so it is not seen as foreign. The correct genetic sequence would then be replicated by the viral DNA in order to eradicate metabolic disorders, and a host of other genetic disorders that can be genetically linked such as sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, etc.... This is an artificial method of preventing the disease before the disease is set in stone.

Lets look at your analogy:
Your computer can get a virus at any time the program is developed. A computer programmer can go through your codes, find the virus, and eliminate it. If a human being gets a virus, the virus uses the human as a host to replicate it. We lack the ability to cure a virus. Once it is in your DNA it is there. It uses your own system of replication to replicate itself. A virus code is there for life. A good virus, such as the common cold, doesn't kill it's host, it just makes it suffer. A bad virus, such as HIV which leads to AIDS, is one in which it kills the host thereby defeating self preservation. Note again, it is impossible to cure a virus. Science has yet to do such a feat. We can treat it with anti-virals, but they don't kill the virus, they attempt to contain it. Stop taking the anti-virals, the virus comes back full force and resistant to some anti-virals. Prime example: HIV uses anti-retroviral medications to slow down the process and in some cases halt it. However, they don't cure it. So how is it that a human can create a computer virus and eliminate it as well, yet a human can create a virus (by altering existing viruses such as with biological warfare) however the human can't destroy it. Would not a better creation be one in which the immune system is stronger and doesn't in some cases, actually turn against itself (auto-immune disorders).

Currently, our best defense is tuned to react after a viral invasion. Why not an immune system that takes an offensive stand instead. One that actually fights the invasion rather than keeps the invasion in check until the virus has run its course? It seems to me that if man can do it with a computer, why can't an intelligent designer do it for His creation?

Ok, I have offered two plausible alternatives that are better designs. But the one I want you to focus on the most is the autoimmune disorders. The only line of defense a human has is their immune system. A superior design would include one in which that system doesn't turn on itself.

A superior design could also include one in which doesn't require the sodium-potassium pump in order to filtrate the kidneys. Or the function of osmosis or active filtration in the cellular structure (going from higher concentrations to lower concentrations in order to maintain homeostasis) If there didn't have to be such a narrow set of parameters on this system, then perhaps salt water wouldn't actually dehydrate the human cells by creating this disequilibrium that ultimately leads to diuresis which leads to dehydration. Last I checked the majority of the water supply on earth is salt water. Has this changed? If one is going to create more salt water than natural water, shouldn't His creation be one in which can use the salt water as well as the fresh water. Would this not be a superior system.

The cataclysmic events are relative only to the fact that if earth was created and fine tuned so perfectly for life: then why has there been not one, but two "life extinguishing" events? He claims the universe, atmosphere, etc are so intelligently designed but they can't even prevent the harmful effects of UV radiation let alone another asteroid event.

Now, the fine parameters being evidence of fine tuning. Obviously the fine tuner didn't take into account the fact that His universe is not only moving away from the sun, but that it is under constant constraints of gravity that even the most skeptical of physicists agree can't last forever. So this perfect universe, perfect planet will either implode or freeze. Good fine tuning. Not to mention the fact of global warming.

Denton doesn't argue for a perfect atmosphere, but a fine tuned one. Once again, where is the fine tuning. The requirement of these very specific parameters? No wiggle room? How many people die every year from CO poisoning? A natural gas that builds up in basements etc. This would contradict such fine tuning. As would the fact that half the earth is to dry so forest fires run rampant while the other half is being flooded every year (obviously half and half aren't exact percentages, but used to make a point instead). Is this more of the fine tuning, or is man messing that up to?

And if rust appears on a Cadillac it may not mean that car wasn't intelligently designed, but it obvioulsy wasn't fine tuned.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #52

Post by Confused »

otseng wrote:Denton covers proteins in chapter 8.
page 182 wrote:As the constructor devices of the cell, it is the proteins that carry out all the atomic manipulations upon which life depends.
However, like DNA, Denton doesn’t conclusively show that proteins are the best solution.
page 186 wrote:While there could perhaps be “alternative” proteins of very different amino acid sequence and perhaps even basic design which are functionally equivalent to hemoglobin or collagen, if the teleological position is correct, then no “alternatives” should be fitter than the natural products. Unfortunately, protein chemistry is not sufficiently advanced to provide any clear answers. Consequently, the teleological position cannot be subjected to a vigorous test.
But, current evidence shows that no other class of molecules approaches the diverse range of functionality as proteins.
page 181 wrote:Within the context of current scientific knowledge proteins are, as far as we know, the only available molecular constructor devices possessing, first, the capacity to carry out a vast diversity of structural and functional chemical roles, involving every imaginable type of specific atomic and molecular manipulations and, second, the capacity to assemble themselves automatically without the help of an external agent.
page 188 wrote:In the entire realm of science no class of molecule is currently known which can remotely compete with proteins. It seems increasingly unlikely that the abilities of proteins could be realized to the same degree in any other material form.
I agree with this premise. There may be other alternatives, but proteins/amino acids designs appear to be the most adapt to the diversity in which they are used. My only dissent ( you knew that was coming, sorry) is that the arrangement in which they currently are isn't the most efficient. For example, your hemoglobin (hgb). For each red blood cell (rbc) there are 4 hgb molecules that carry oxygen and nutrients to the cell while transporting the waste (CO2) away from the cells. Good function, except for patients who are CO2 retainers, those with cystic fibrosis, and those with pulmonary disorders in which the hgb is released prematurely thereby hyper-oxygenation some cells, while oxygen depriving other cells. Yes, I know I am nitpicking, but as the mother of one of those exceptions during which proteins arrangements actually did detrimental effects to her son rather than work as some finely tuned system, I can do no other.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Post #53

Post by otseng »

Confused wrote: Sorry, been out with flu. Will get up to speed and respond promptly by tonight.
Sorry to hear that. I've only gotten the flu once and it was enough for me.
Ok, plausible alternatives. To start with lets look at the mutations of DNA.
Before we go down too far with your scenarios, I'd like to reiterate the main points of chapter 6 and 7.

Chapter 6 covers how oxygen and carbon dioxide are the best gases for life for utilizing energy in chemical reactions. There is no indication that there are any better gases for carbon based life.

Chapter 7 covers DNA/RNA. There is no indication that there is a better mechanism for encoding the information for life. He even considers different number of nucleotide bases and different length of codons. And there is no indication that any other combination is better.

So, from a book debate perspective, there is no plausible alternate that is superior to the use of oxygen and DNA for life.

Now, outside of the book debate perpective, we can briefly consider your other questions.
Would an intelligent designer not have been more efficient had he prevented these mutations from occurring?
Well, if you do not allow for any mutations to occur, then micro-evolution would not be possible. And I think the ability of organisms to microevolve has great utility for life. Probably much more so than the scenario where organisms would not be able to microevolve.
Would not it been more efficient if these immune systems were active and effective in vitro so as to prevent mutations from occurring? Sort of a safety system?
I believe the DNA does have a self-correction system to attempt to fix transcription errors. And it has a self-repair system to fix damages.
Your computer can get a virus at any time the program is developed.
My point is that if an object can be "damaged", it doesn't mean by itself that the object was not intelligently designed.
Why not an immune system that takes an offensive stand instead?
I believe it does. The body has a self-protection mechanism against viruses. For most people, the majority of the time it is able to nuetralize the viruses.
Ok, I have offered two plausible alternatives that are better designs.
However, they are hypothetical scenarios. It would be like me telling Microsoft that they wrote an inferior operating system since it's vulnerable to viruses. But until I can demonstrate how to write an OS that is impervious to viruses, then my claim is unproven.
Or the function of osmosis or active filtration in the cellular structure (going from higher concentrations to lower concentrations in order to maintain homeostasis)
Actually, I think this is an ingenious solution.
He claims the universe, atmosphere, etc are so intelligently designed but they can't even prevent the harmful effects of UV radiation let alone another asteroid event.
Again, just because something can damage it, doesn't show that it was not intelligently designed.

Your premise is that for something to be the best, it has to be impervious to any sort of damage. Sort of like saying Superman is not the best since he is vulnerable to Kryptonite.
This would contradict such fine tuning. As would the fact that half the earth is to dry so forest fires run rampant while the other half is being flooded every year (obviously half and half aren't exact percentages, but used to make a point instead).
Forest fires can actually be beneficial for forests.

As for the fine-tuning of oxygen. If there is not enough oxygen, then life would not be able to exist. If there is too much oxygen, then fires would be uncontrollable.
page 121 wrote:The probability of a forest fire being ignited by lightning increases by as much as 70 percent for every 1 percent increase in the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere.

"Above 25% very little of our present land vegetation could survive the raging conflagrations which would destroy tropical rain forests and arctic tundra alike... The present oxygen level is at a point where risk and benefit nicely balance".
And if rust appears on a Cadillac it may not mean that car wasn't intelligently designed, but it obvioulsy wasn't fine tuned.
But if the engine is running smoothly, then it would be evidence that it is fine-tuned. ;)

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #54

Post by Confused »

otseng wrote:
Confused wrote: Sorry, been out with flu. Will get up to speed and respond promptly by tonight.
Sorry to hear that. I've only gotten the flu once and it was enough for me.
Ok, plausible alternatives. To start with lets look at the mutations of DNA.
Before we go down too far with your scenarios, I'd like to reiterate the main points of chapter 6 and 7.

Chapter 6 covers how oxygen and carbon dioxide are the best gases for life for utilizing energy in chemical reactions. There is no indication that there are any better gases for carbon based life.

Chapter 7 covers DNA/RNA. There is no indication that there is a better mechanism for encoding the information for life. He even considers different number of nucleotide bases and different length of codons. And there is no indication that any other combination is better.

So, from a book debate perspective, there is no plausible alternate that is superior to the use of oxygen and DNA for life.

Now, outside of the book debate perpective, we can briefly consider your other questions.
Would an intelligent designer not have been more efficient had he prevented these mutations from occurring?
Well, if you do not allow for any mutations to occur, then micro-evolution would not be possible. And I think the ability of organisms to microevolve has great utility for life. Probably much more so than the scenario where organisms would not be able to microevolve.
Would not it been more efficient if these immune systems were active and effective in vitro so as to prevent mutations from occurring? Sort of a safety system?
I believe the DNA does have a self-correction system to attempt to fix transcription errors. And it has a self-repair system to fix damages.
Your computer can get a virus at any time the program is developed.
My point is that if an object can be "damaged", it doesn't mean by itself that the object was not intelligently designed.
Why not an immune system that takes an offensive stand instead?
I believe it does. The body has a self-protection mechanism against viruses. For most people, the majority of the time it is able to nuetralize the viruses.
Ok, I have offered two plausible alternatives that are better designs.
However, they are hypothetical scenarios. It would be like me telling Microsoft that they wrote an inferior operating system since it's vulnerable to viruses. But until I can demonstrate how to write an OS that is impervious to viruses, then my claim is unproven.
Or the function of osmosis or active filtration in the cellular structure (going from higher concentrations to lower concentrations in order to maintain homeostasis)
Actually, I think this is an ingenious solution.
He claims the universe, atmosphere, etc are so intelligently designed but they can't even prevent the harmful effects of UV radiation let alone another asteroid event.
Again, just because something can damage it, doesn't show that it was not intelligently designed.

Your premise is that for something to be the best, it has to be impervious to any sort of damage. Sort of like saying Superman is not the best since he is vulnerable to Kryptonite.
This would contradict such fine tuning. As would the fact that half the earth is to dry so forest fires run rampant while the other half is being flooded every year (obviously half and half aren't exact percentages, but used to make a point instead).
Forest fires can actually be beneficial for forests.

As for the fine-tuning of oxygen. If there is not enough oxygen, then life would not be able to exist. If there is too much oxygen, then fires would be uncontrollable.
page 121 wrote:The probability of a forest fire being ignited by lightning increases by as much as 70 percent for every 1 percent increase in the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere.

"Above 25% very little of our present land vegetation could survive the raging conflagrations which would destroy tropical rain forests and arctic tundra alike... The present oxygen level is at a point where risk and benefit nicely balance".
And if rust appears on a Cadillac it may not mean that car wasn't intelligently designed, but it obvioulsy wasn't fine tuned.
But if the engine is running smoothly, then it would be evidence that it is fine-tuned. ;)
You requested plausible alternatives. I obliged. I can only give hypothetical, however they are possible. I will address a few things:
1) I concede to the issue of microevolution through mutations, but it's self defeating when the harmful mutations outnumber the beneficial ones.

2) No, DNA has no such self-correct system unless you consider spontaneous miscarriage a self correcting system. But DNA cannot repair itself. I would request where you get this information? If I am wrong, which is plausible though unlikely, then I stand corrected. But the latest information I have has not such correcting system. Our immune system cannot correct DNA mutations/deletions/translation or transcription errors/cell division and replication errors etc...

3) Osmosis and active filtration are brilliant. Didn't claim they weren't. Did claim they weren't the most efficient and gave reasons why. Consider the issue of salt water abundance vs fresh water. Just an example of how the environment isn't so perfectly fine tuned for life.

4) In my opinion, if something as abundant as UV radiation can harm it, it negates intelligent and efficient design. No I don't think impervious to any harm is necessary, just the majority. Dentons claim is how the universe, atmosphere, planet etc... are so intelligently designed and fine tuned for life, yet he ignores the flaws in it. This I find misleading. A fine tuned environment should take into account variable such as UV radiation, cataclysmic events, and the life in which it is to sustain. To set narrow parameters may be great for intelligent design, but shows very poor fine tuning. They fail to take into account evolution as well as atmospheric and cosmic changes.

5) If the automobile is rusting, it is only a matter of time before the rust spreads to the engine. Just as it is only a matter of time before the earth is to far from the sun to maintain temperatures. Poor fine tuning.

The minimal clips you responded to shows the limited amount you wish to entertain me. Fine, I can accept that. But Denton hits every chapter as if the conditions on earth, in the atmosphere, and the cosmos are so intelligently designed and fine tuned for life. Yet life is riddled with disease from poisonings of the precious metals he mentions to the precious gases he mentions. He fail to account for the population who requires less oxygen than the average person. These are the ones his "fine tuning" chooses to ignore. Those who live with an arterial oxygen level in the 50-60's rather than the 80+ norm. In short, he fails in every chapter in Part I to account for the life that is outside the norm. I guess these lives aren't important enough for his model of "fine tuning".
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #55

Post by Confused »

Otseng:
So, from a book debate perspective, there is no plausible alternate that is superior to the use of oxygen and DNA for life.

Now, outside of the book debate perpective, we can briefly consider your other questions.
I have to strongly disagree with your perspective here. I think it is unjust and narrow. My alternative are directly related to the chapters in which you review. Because Dentons viewpoint doesn't match mine as far as being the superior construct or even the most efficient construct in no way diminishes plausible alternatives. I agreed at the beginning that currently, what Denton claims, is by far the most logical means, however, they are anything but a product of fine tuning nor are they the most efficient means. I have backed my assertion. All within the parameters of your chosen books perspective. If I am way off base in my debating, please inform me as to how so that I may correct my methods. Otherwise, I see no need for your comments above.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #56

Post by QED »

otseng wrote:
QED wrote:I'd just like to point out that this typifies the problem with the conclusions drawn by the author. Our star is a normal main sequence G2 type, one of over 100 billion stars in our own Galaxy. There are many other different types of stars some of which pour intense Gamma rays into their vicinities. Obviously we wouldn't find ourselves in orbit around any of those. It's simply not appropriate to draw any teleological conclusions from Anthropic observations.
You'll have to explain in more detail why not.
If we went through the book paragraph by paragraph with a big red marker pen and eliminated all such worthless observations what would we be left with?
Feel free to bring up the paragraphs that you're referring to and we can discuss.
I'm trying to make point here: There's a distinct pattern to Denton's arguments of which we could catalogue every anthropic observation and consider them as one. We can make any number of observations like these and argue, in hindsight, that natural parameters have been tailored for ourselves. But this is the same as believing, when you try on an off-the-shelf suit that fits you perfectly, that the factory specifically had Mr Oliver Tseng in mind.
Douglas Adams wrote:imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
This is a type of observation and leads to the same type of unsafe conclusion. It makes no difference if we jot down one on a scrap of paper or fill an entire book with them.

Incidentally, I can't help but point out that if people perceive intelligent design in biology that's precisely because there is a form of intelligence behind it. It' s just not the same type of conscious intelligence that we're most familiar with.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Post #57

Post by otseng »

Confused wrote:No, DNA has no such self-correct system unless you consider spontaneous miscarriage a self correcting system. But DNA cannot repair itself. I would request where you get this information? If I am wrong, which is plausible though unlikely, then I stand corrected. But the latest information I have has not such correcting system.
Here are some links on DNA repair:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... epair.html
http://www.nih.gov/sigs/dna-rep/whatis.html
The minimal clips you responded to shows the limited amount you wish to entertain me.
Please don't take my terseness as being dismissive. Actually, I was trying to address some of your points, but I admit I'm not able to address all of them. Though I have been trying to address the general argument that just because something is not "perfect" it doesn't show that it was not intelligently designed.
My alternative are directly related to the chapters in which you review.
I think we are saying two different things here.

From what I gather, what you are saying is that there are "faults" with DNA, oxygen, etc. But, what I'm saying is that just because there are "faults", it doesn't mean there is something else that is better.

The argument presented in the book is that (complex) life would have to be based on water, light, carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, DNA, and proteins. There are no other liquid, energy source, element, gas, molecular structure that is superior to base any life on. This is what I'm asking for when I say a plausible alternative. Besides the things listed, are there other viable alternatives?

QED wrote:But this is the same as believing, when you try on an off-the-shelf suit that fits you perfectly, that the factory specifically had Mr Oliver Tseng in mind.
If the factory had the capability of creating suits of any size, but only created my own size, then it would lead me to believe that it was designed specifically for me.
Incidentally, I can't help but point out that if people perceive intelligent design in biology that's precisely because there is a form of intelligence behind it. It' s just not the same type of conscious intelligence that we're most familiar with.
Actually, if you're referring to natural selection, none of the chapters presented so far can be accounted for by natural selection. Only the components that would have predated the first life have so far been presented.

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #58

Post by Confused »

Otseng
Confused wrote:
No, DNA has no such self-correct system unless you consider spontaneous miscarriage a self correcting system. But DNA cannot repair itself. I would request where you get this information? If I am wrong, which is plausible though unlikely, then I stand corrected. But the latest information I have has not such correcting system.


Here are some links on DNA repair:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... epair.html
http://www.nih.gov/sigs/dna-rep/whatis.html
Ok, I see where the miscommunication was here to a degree. When I refer to self correcting, I am referring to the embryonic DNA as it is being originally coded. In such case: From wikipedia site:
The replication of damaged DNA before cell division can lead to the incorporation of wrong bases opposite damaged ones. Daughter cells that inherit these wrong bases carry mutations from which the original DNA sequence is unrecoverable (except in the rare case of a back mutation, for example, through gene conversion).
Now once the genetic code has been correctly transcribed initially, if damage occurs, the DNA does have the ability to correct itself if only one strand is damaged, the other strand can correct it with the correct sequence of the template. Enzymes can also factor in. However, not usually without consequences:
Hereditary DNA repair disorders
Defects in the NER mechanism are responsible for several genetic disorders, including:

xeroderma pigmentosum: hypersensitivity to sunlight/UV, resulting in increased skin cancer incidence and premature aging
Cockayne syndrome: hypersensitivity to UV and chemical agents
trichothiodystrophy: sensitive skin, brittle hair and nails
Mental retardation often accompanies the latter two disorders, suggesting increased vulnerability of developmental neurons.

Other DNA repair disorders include:

Werner's syndrome: premature aging and retarded growth
Bloom's syndrome: sunlight hypersensitivity, high incidence of malignancies (especially leukemias).
ataxia telangiectasia: sensitivity to ionizing radiation and some chemical agents
All of the above diseases are often called "segmental progerias" ("accelerated aging diseases") because their victims appear elderly and suffer from aging-related diseases at an abnormally young age.

Other diseases associated with reduced DNA repair function include Fanconi's anemia, hereditary breast cancer and hereditary colon cancer.


[edit] DNA repair and cancer
Inherited mutations that affect DNA repair genes are strongly associated with high cancer risks in humans. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is strongly associated with specific mutations in the DNA mismatch repair pathway. BRCA1 and BRCA2, two famous mutations conferring a hugely increased risk of breast cancer on carriers, are both associated with a large number of DNA repair pathways, especially NHEJ and homologous recombination.

Cancer therapy procedures such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy work by overwhelming the capacity of the cell to repair DNA damage, resulting in cell death. Cells that are most rapidly dividing - most typically cancer cells - are preferentially affected. The side effect is that other non-cancerous but rapidly dividing cells such as stem cells in the bone marrow are also affected. Modern cancer treatments attempt to localize the DNA damage to cells and tissues only associated with cancer, either by physical means (concentrating the therapeutic agent in the region of the tumor) or by biochemical means (exploiting a feature unique to cancer cells in the body).
From what I gather, what you are saying is that there are "faults" with DNA, oxygen, etc. But, what I'm saying is that just because there are "faults", it doesn't mean there is something else that is better.
I am saying that if it was so intelligently designed, then I question the intelligence behind it for all the reasons I have stated in previous posts. I am not saying that the design that currently is used isn't adequate or that it in some way isn't the best design available at the time. I am saying that there are alternative designs that would be more efficient and more reliable than the current design.
Otseng wrote:
The argument presented in the book is that (complex) life would have to be based on water, light, carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, DNA, and proteins. There are no other liquid, energy source, element, gas, molecular structure that is superior to base any life on. This is what I'm asking for when I say a plausible alternative. Besides the things listed, are there other viable alternatives?
Refer to:
Confused wrote:
I agree with your overall assessments of chapters 6 and 7 but don't agree that they are the most intelligent designs or even the best designs.
Otseng wrote:
To show that they are not the best design requires you to give a plausible alternative that is superior. Otherwise, it is an unsubstantiated claim.
Not really. I simply need to point to the flaws in the current designs. Denton is the one claiming they are the superior designs. If I can point to as many flaws in the design that currently exists, as I have already done, then I effectively diminish the potency of his claim. However, I went a few steps further and did point to some plausible better functioning systems than what we currently have.
Otseng wrote:
If the factory had the capability of creating suits of any size, but only created my own size, then it would lead me to believe that it was designed specifically for me.
But if that factory only created suits of your size, there would be no diversity to life. Dentons argument has yet to show how the universe adapted for life as opposed to how life adapted to the universe. Though I suspect this will be his argument in Part II, at least I hope so, it still leaves for pale comparison currently simply because I can look back in history and see how one innocuous event set off a chain reaction of events to lead to something and then turn around and say that the event was intelligently designed to set off that exact chain reaction rather than saying that the reactions were merely byproducts that adapted to the result of the initial event.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #59

Post by Furrowed Brow »

Otseng wrote: To show that they are not the best design requires you to give a plausible alternative that is superior. Otherwise, it is an unsubstantiated claim.
Confused wrote:really. I simply need to point to the flaws in the current designs. Denton is the one claiming they are the superior designs.
SSStop right there folks. How is the word design being used here? There is stuff like DNA and oxygen that each do stuff. One the hand talking about the shape and form of these interactions as a design is a useful language shorthand that prevents the need for protracted sentences. It is easier and quicker to say “the design of DNA“, than say something like “the DNA molecule is observed to be involved in a range of interactions and processes that follow from its own molecular structure and its local environment”. However if we sneak that little word design back in and say “the DNA molecule is designed to be involved in a range of interactions and processes that follow from its own structure and its local environment”, then that sentence is trying to say a whole lot more.

So when the discussion turns to the efficiency or superiority of a design then the conceptual terrain gets all messed up. Consider:

1/ “the DNA molecule is observed to be more efficient in a range of interactions and processes than alternative molecular structures”.

2/ “the DNA molecule is designed to be more efficient in a range of interactions and processes than alternative molecular structures”.

All the way through Denton wants to suggest assertions of the form of 2/ can be applied. However he never gets beyond 1/. Moreover even if we give 1 a clause.

1a/ “no alternative molecular structure is possible that is more efficient than DNA at…..”

1/ + 1a/ still do not add up to 2/

Thus Nature’s Destiny never manages to move off the base of a weak anthropic principle - things look the way they are because that’s the way we find them. The book really needs to be retitled Nature’s Lack of Destiny.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Post #60

Post by otseng »

Confused wrote:Denton is the one claiming they are the superior designs. If I can point to as many flaws in the design that currently exists, as I have already done, then I effectively diminish the potency of his claim.
However, I do not think Denton makes this claim.

Rather, what he does say is:
page 193 wrote:We have seen that, in the case of water, the carbon atom, the process of oxidation, the light of main sequence stars, the earth's hydrosphere, etc., the evidence suggest strongly that each is uniquely and optimally fit for its particular biological role. If the teleological position is correct, the DNA-protein system should also be uniquely and maximally fit for the advanced type of cellular life that exists on earth today.

... it seems hardly conceivable that there could be any other two molecules as mutually fit, or more perfectly adapted to play the fundamental roles of "information bearer" and "constructor device" in a self-replicating automaton as complex and intricate as the cell.
Confused wrote:Dentons argument has yet to show how the universe adapted for life as opposed to how life adapted to the universe.
As I've mentioned, none of the things presented so far can be explained as life adapting to the universe. All the things presented have been the basic components that are the building blocks of life. All these are necessary before even the first life could come about.

And before the first cell spontaneously appeared, life would ultimately lead to being based on light, Earthlike atmosphere, carbon, water, oxygen, and even possibly DNA and proteins. The fact is that anything else would be suboptimal or not even possible.
Furrowed Brow wrote:Thus Nature’s Destiny never manages to move off the base of a weak anthropic principle - things look the way they are because that’s the way we find them.
The book addresses this charge:
page 385 wrote:It is sometimes claimed by critics of the design hypothesis that the universe is bound to look as if it is designed for our existence because we could only be here if the universe was adapted for our existence. There is abviously an element of truth in this line of argument, for indeed the universe must be adapted to some degree for life but rather on the far stronger claim that the cosmos is otimally adapted for life so that every constituent of the cell and every law of nature is uniquely and ideally fashioned to that end.

The design hypothesis can, of course, be refuted ... For example, the discovery of an alternative liquid as fit as water for carbon-based life, or of a superior mean of constructing a genetic tape, better than the double helix, of alternatives superior to oxidation, superior to proteins ...

Locked