Viruses intentionally choose how they infect


#141

Evidently we learn that not all physicists lack a sense of self-confidence. :grin: The very computer you are typing on was designed by an engineer.


(A.M. Wolfe) #142

I think @Christy has you both beat. If it weren’t for linguists, you wouldn’t have a written language to write to each other in.

Booyah

:smiley:


(Randy) #143

Awesomeness


(Mitchell W McKain) #144

I am reminded of the scene in the excellent sci-fi film “Arrival,” where the scientist challenges the claim of the linguist that language is the foundation of human civilization. He claims that science is the foundation of human civilization. In my opinion the scientist is an idiot. I may be a scientist, but I agree with the linguist 100%. LANGUAGE is the foundation of human civilization! There is no doubt about this whatsoever.


(Christy Hemphill) #145

I think we should all take a moment to reflect on I Cor 12:17-20 and be grateful for diversity. :slight_smile:


(Christy Hemphill) #146

But we would all speak it just fine, even if no one had ever described serial verbs or raising constructions.


(Mervin Bitikofer) #147

Where is the “two manly men thumping chests” emoji when you need one?

[Sorry, Christy. Maybe this is why we need more women in the forum!]


(Martin R) #148

you are right… i was tired, it was 2.00 PM here in Europe when i replied.
I misunderstood T_aquaticus.


(Martin R) #149

first off, i apologize for my tone in my previous reply.

Previously you said “i don’t believe in design in nature”.

So, you are a physicist … not sure it qualifies you to speak about design, but lets pretend it does, the following will be very simple:

You see a mechanical pump with all the valves etc… a pump controlled by an electrical signal … a pump that works flawlessly and uninterrupted for 400 years (moreover, no maintenance needed) …

are you really saying, that this pump is not designed because it is not made of steal?


(Mitchell W McKain) #150

@Christy
Yes, and… the electrons and planets will continue in their orbits without any physicists. We don’t claim responsibility for what we study, we only try to understand it. But how can engineers do anything without the discoveries of physicists to provide them with the means? You can also argue… how can physicists do anything without the mathematicians to do the same? Only… history will show that physicists are quite ready, willing, and able to invent whatever mathematics is needed quite by themselves (e.g. Newton coming up with calculus).

However, I am not seriously arguing for the superiority of physicists over engineers. It was only an affectation in response to an attitude I was confronting. He has apologized and thus I will say that engineers not only do not limit themselves to what physicists have discovered but often find solutions to problems which physicists find difficult to explain. It is kind of like how evolutionary algorithms can find engineering solutions which far outstrip the efficiency of anything which we have designed.

@martin_r
See the paragraph above in response to Christy. But reading your response I am tempted to continue our spat, and suggest that just because some engineers have managed to design a few things without copying what physicists designed first does not make them the authority on the word “design.” On the other hand, perhaps we should both shut our faces and ask the linguist.

I applaud Dawkins coining of the word “designoid” for things which have the appearance of design which are not a product of design. I would however call a halt to this when it comes to words like “purpose” and “intention,” which do not require design. The human heart is not a product of design but of the self-organizing process of evolution, but this does not mean that the heart has no purpose. It doesn’t simply have a role but exists because of that role, and I would call that purpose. A pump may be designed even if it is largely by imitating what the heart already does. But the heart is no product of a design process and the materials used has absolutely nothing to do with it (I already said I expect we shall one day be designing biochemical machines similar to viruses). I would not hesitate to call it a learning process however.


(Martin R) #151

hello again. Yesterday it was 2.00PM here in Europe, i was tired, so i have totally misunderstood your message. I left a few responses, please ignore it all.

Let me comment on tree-like pattern.

A time ago i have read an article on convergent evolution of 200 genes. For an engineer like me it is not easy to believe, that echolocation can evolve once, by random mutations, with no help from engineers. To realize, that you guys seriously think, that echolocation evolved at least 10 times independently, by random mutations, was quite shocking. Moreover, in totally unrelated species and environments.

Then i found out, that convergent evolution is everywhere … meanwhile, i have collected around 100 articles on convergent evolution (morphological convergence, molecular convergence…)

As you may know, new articles on convergent evolution are published every day.

My favorite cases of convergent evolution:

C4 photosynthesis, 60 independent origins.

Myrmecochory - seed dispersal by ants - 147 independent origins.

Basically all articles on convergent evolution using words like “striking, unexpected, intriguing …”

Recently i found a case of “RAPID CONVERGENT EVOLUTION”. That one was a shocker.

Anyways, the article on convergent evolution of echolocation ends like follows:

"The discovery that molecular convergence can be widespread in a genome is "bittersweet,” Castoe adds. Biologists building family trees are likely being misled into suggesting that some organisms are closely related because genes and proteins are similar due to convergence, and not because the organisms had a recent common ancestor. No family trees are entirely safe from these misleading effects, Castoe says. “And we currently have no way to deal with this.”

Could you comment on convergent evolution, because it looks like you guys believe in miracles, or, there is something very wrong with your theory…


(Martin R) #152

i can’t get what you educated guys demonstrate in 21st century. It is crazy… you, an educated guy, most probably much smarter than me, you use thousands of words to deny what is so obvious. You see a pump, but actually, it is not a pump … I really start to think this is some kind of conspiracy.

By the way, prof. Dawkins is a very confused guy, like most of you. You guys will never understand what you are looking at. No offence.


(Christy Hemphill) #153

Nobody is denying the heart is a pump. That’s clearly its function. Just because something in nature has a function analogous to a machine that engineers can build does not mean that something in nature was designed by an engineer. Here is your logic and your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises.

We know some pumps are designed.
The heart is a pump.
Therefore the heart is designed.

You would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all pumps are designed.” But you haven’t.

Just because the wings on a plane are designed by engineers does not mean the wings on birds were designed by engineers. You keep talking about things being obvious, but you keep ignoring the most obvious thing of all: there is a fundamental difference between living organisms that grow and reproduce and engineered inanimate products that are manufactured.


(Martin R) #154

Hello Christy,

very very very bad analogy…

it is exactly the other way around…

Airplane wings are reverse-engineered birds wings.


(Martin R) #155

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all joints are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all buoyancy compensators are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all color displays are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all gears are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all autofocusing cameras are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all RGB image processors are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all image stabilizators are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all echolocators are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all sound processors are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all proofreading systems are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all repair systems are designed.”

And then i would need to establish the validity of the premise “We know all deffence systems are designed.”

as i replied to the other guy, i can’t get what you educated people demonstrate in 21st century.


#156

Science can neither prove nor disprove the metaphysical concept of design. In addition, you’re creating a false dichotomy between evolutionary processes and design.


(Martin R) #157

sure it can … when SETI receives various signals from outter space, they will recognize which one is eventually designed… how it comes?


(Martin R) #158

some pumps? have you ever seen a pump which was not designed?


#159

If SETI ever identifies those signals, the evidence would be tested against alternative theories for the origins of these signals. It would demonstrate high probability that intelligent life exists not that such life was designed since science cannot prove or disprove a metaphysical claim.


(Martin R) #160

tested based on what?