Re: [asa] Re: "junk" DNA

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Jun 15 2007 - 17:40:39 EDT

I see, yes, I agree -- if "detecting" design is the question, yes, we may
not be able to detect it depending on the process chosen. I was only trying
to suggest that apparent imperfections in the final product -- such as "junk
DNA" -- don't vitiate the possibility of design. In my experience, atheists
use "junk DNA" not only to refute certain kinds of ID arguments, but also to
deny that any kind of design is operative at all.

On 6/15/07, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> I get your point, but note that it applies to humans acting. They are
> neither omniscient nor omnipotent. So they put in something that may be
> relevant down the road. It is a design process that produces designed
> objects. In contrast, if evolution is God's appointed means, then it is a
> designed process which produces objects that may not have an indication
> of design that we can detect.
> Dave
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:00:09 -0600 Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> writes:
> >
> > On Jun 15, 2007, at 2:51 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:
> >
> > > D.S. said: A designed process, even with input, is far different
> >
> > > than a designed object.
> > >
> > > But all objects are designed using design processes. They aren't
> >
> > > just poofed into existence by their designers. And, therefore, on
> >
> > > careful examination, a designed object will usually display
> > > evidence of the process by which it was designed, including
> > > artifacts of the design process that have no functionality in the
> >
> > > final object. The presence of such non-functional artifacts of
> > the
> > > design process does not necessarily suggest the completed object
> > is
> > > "flawed" or "inefficient." An efficient design process may very
> >
> > > well result in a completed object that possesses some non-
> > > functional elements.
> > >
> >
> > Engineers design the following:
> >
> > 1. The process
> > 2. The product
> > 3. And this is important -- the ability to easily create future
> > generations of the product
> >
> > Take the case of semiconductor design. The empty places on the
> > design
> > we place spare gates and gate array backfill cells. In the latter
> > case we have completely unconnected transistors. No electricity
> > flows
> > through them at all in the original revision of the design. New
> > requirements come along and we connect the transistors for the new
> >
> > function. This is lower cost since we don't have to re-do the more
> >
> > expensive base layers but only the metalization layers and -- tada!
> >
> > -- new function.
> >
> > If you look at the semi-conductor design and you see unconnected
> > transistors -- which I view as directly analogous to what we
> > discussing -- you might wrongly conclude that this was a design
> > flaw.
> > Rather, its purpose is to accommodate the next generation. So, if
> > you
> > are designing multiple generations of objects then this kind of
> > functional but not coding DNA makes sense just like transistors but
> >
> > not connected.
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 15 17:41:18 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 15 2007 - 17:41:18 EDT