Distinguishing marks of intervention

From: Tim Ikeda (tikeda@sprintmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2001 - 23:49:54 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Evolution of proteins in sequence space"

    In the "Re: Evolution of proteins in sequence space" thread,
    Bert wrote:
    >Looking backwards, let posit two Models, labeled A and B.
    >Model A
    >The initial conditions were set just right so that the laws of nature
    >plus these initial conditions would lead to us.
    >Model B
    >The initial conditions were set appropriately but along the way God
    >introduced additional organims and information which lead to us.
    >Now Howard, the question is, how can be tell the difference between
    >Model A and Model B?

    Model-A holds a subset of the mechanisms found in model-B. Depending on
    the mechanisms and events unique to "B", it may be possible to detect the
    effects of the additional mechanisms. For example, if it literally rained cats
    and dogs one day, and we'd never seen such animals before, we may suspect that
    Model-A is not a sufficient explanation. There are any number of ways by which
    an interventionist being may be detected if it chose to be or if it didn't
    to cover its tracks. But if we notice a striking similarity between such
    things as
    clotting factors and previously existing proteases, then the differences
    models would be much harder to demonstrate. (I find that those invisible pink
    unicorns are really tough to flush into the open!)

    Of course, if observations do not permit us to distinguish between the two
    I think one would have a heck of a time justifying a preference for Model-B.

    Tim Ikeda

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 03 2001 - 23:50:18 EDT