“Is it your understanding that the defendant used an analogy which used the word design to describe a structure in biology, DNA."
Interesting idea to put yourself on trial, and you seem to have a handle on some of the biology and genetics involved in "the case". However, it seems you're starting off on the wrong foot and wind up barking up the wrong tree by relying on anything to do with design or structure -- which you apparently acknowledge by entering a "guilty" plea.
The whole point of the biological definitions is that they're based on the presence of transitory reproductive processes: no process, no sex. See my earlier points about clownfish and hundreds of other species which change sex over the course of their lives. Which are simply incompatible with any definitions based on structure or design.
But given your apparent "guilty" plea, I'm at a loss to interpret this later statement of yours:
AH: "... the witness is committing the same error I mentioned in my initial comments on the bipedal analogy, one cannot claim that something is designed and also not designed at the same time and in the same respect."
I assume your "witness" is that Cleveland Clinic source you're quoting though didn't more than skim them so can't say that they're saying both designed and not-designed. Somewhat irrelevant in either case -- more on which later -- but it does highlight a common misperception that genes and chromosomes are more or less like blueprints -- entirely different kettles of fish; see:
But quite agree with you that something can't be A and not-A, at least simultaneously. Though I expect they may have different senses to the word in mind. But consider a definition from Google/Oxford that is roughly equivalent to those blueprints:
"design: a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made"
Many people want to make the sex chromosomes, the karyotypes, into those plans and drawings that "build" the sexes. But a blueprint for a car is entirely different from the car itself. In addition to which, many different blueprints -- for millions of species -- all lead to the eventual existence of processes -- in the "as-built models" -- that produce large or small gametes:
Thank you, Steersman, I am always excited to see what you have to say in the comments. I learn something each time you reply. It is particularly helpful in identifying things we think are self-evident but are not. For clarity, I was being a bit sarcastic when I said, "I was found guilty of course of denying science". More importantly, I think you have highlighted one of our primary areas of disagreement,
Steersman: "The whole point of the biological definitions is that they're based on the presence of transitory reproductive processes: no process, no sex. See my earlier points about clownfish and hundreds of other species which change sex over the course of their lives. Which are simply incompatible with any definitions based on structure or design."
I don’t think there is any reason for us to continue to disagree on this one. Often, I just need to be reminded of what I already know to gain insight. With your experience in control systems, I am certain you are more than competent at finding the relevant functional necessity in a problem and are intimately familiar with the concept whether you use that terminology or not. When troubleshooting a problem, you need to know the required parts. By definition, a required part is necessary to perform the overall target function. To find the source of the problem when the overall function is not working, you check each functional requirement of the system until you find where the problem is, and the problem will always be where a functional necessity is not functioning properly. This is all the information and understanding we need to reconsider the topic of organisms changing sex within a single lifetime.
Steersman: “there is still the brute fact that a great many species change sex over the course of their lives: were they "designed" to produce both sperm and ova and are therefore both male and female?”
Any process which we know is occurring, we know there is a reason for it. I have heard this called the “no magic” principle. So how does an organism change sex during its lifetime. There must be something driving the change between one sex and the other, there is no magic occurring. Let’s take frogs for example,
“The authors of the study speculate that the frogs are instead reacting to local changes in temperature or other environmental factors.”
Let’s assume it is adjusting the temperature specifically inducing the frog’s sex change from male to female. Following the no magic principle, we know that something in the frog is detecting the change in environment, and this triggers the system responsible for changing the organism's sex while it is alive. There is no evidence to suggest that all species can do this, but there is evidence that the offspring of the frog will be able to accomplish this. This tells us the ability to change sex is being passed from parent to child and we do know how that happens, with DNA, which by functional necessity, must hold the information required to accomplish the function that the frogs possess. Frog DNA mutations are defined the same way as human mutations, as copying errors, errors which cause loss of function. So, the DNA is the coded information for how to build the organism and maintain it in all stages of its life cycle. No number of Scientific American articles will ever change that, and I’d suggest that you and I can know that because of the no magic principle or functional necessity.
"particularly helpful in identifying things we think are self-evident but are not."
Indeed. Reminds me of a favorite of Mark Twain's:
MT: "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so."
However, not to give you a hard time -- or much of one ... 😉🙂 -- this still looks a bit disingenuous even with your "sarcasm" qualification:
AH: "I was found guilty of course of denying science"
You seem rather clearly in the position of "denying science" by refusing to recognize, or at least being rather evasive about recognizing, the standard biological definitions for the sexes and their logical consequences. You may wish to try calling a spade a shovel and reading the writing on the wall.
“Is it your understanding that the defendant used an analogy which used the word design to describe a structure in biology, DNA."
Interesting idea to put yourself on trial, and you seem to have a handle on some of the biology and genetics involved in "the case". However, it seems you're starting off on the wrong foot and wind up barking up the wrong tree by relying on anything to do with design or structure -- which you apparently acknowledge by entering a "guilty" plea.
The whole point of the biological definitions is that they're based on the presence of transitory reproductive processes: no process, no sex. See my earlier points about clownfish and hundreds of other species which change sex over the course of their lives. Which are simply incompatible with any definitions based on structure or design.
But given your apparent "guilty" plea, I'm at a loss to interpret this later statement of yours:
AH: "... the witness is committing the same error I mentioned in my initial comments on the bipedal analogy, one cannot claim that something is designed and also not designed at the same time and in the same respect."
I assume your "witness" is that Cleveland Clinic source you're quoting though didn't more than skim them so can't say that they're saying both designed and not-designed. Somewhat irrelevant in either case -- more on which later -- but it does highlight a common misperception that genes and chromosomes are more or less like blueprints -- entirely different kettles of fish; see:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dna-is-not-a-blueprint/
But quite agree with you that something can't be A and not-A, at least simultaneously. Though I expect they may have different senses to the word in mind. But consider a definition from Google/Oxford that is roughly equivalent to those blueprints:
"design: a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made"
Many people want to make the sex chromosomes, the karyotypes, into those plans and drawings that "build" the sexes. But a blueprint for a car is entirely different from the car itself. In addition to which, many different blueprints -- for millions of species -- all lead to the eventual existence of processes -- in the "as-built models" -- that produce large or small gametes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system
That's what makes the biological definitions for the sexes "universal".
Thank you, Steersman, I am always excited to see what you have to say in the comments. I learn something each time you reply. It is particularly helpful in identifying things we think are self-evident but are not. For clarity, I was being a bit sarcastic when I said, "I was found guilty of course of denying science". More importantly, I think you have highlighted one of our primary areas of disagreement,
Steersman: "The whole point of the biological definitions is that they're based on the presence of transitory reproductive processes: no process, no sex. See my earlier points about clownfish and hundreds of other species which change sex over the course of their lives. Which are simply incompatible with any definitions based on structure or design."
https://open.substack.com/pub/abr4ham/p/some-positive-propositions-on-the?r=nlgen&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=42328863
I don’t think there is any reason for us to continue to disagree on this one. Often, I just need to be reminded of what I already know to gain insight. With your experience in control systems, I am certain you are more than competent at finding the relevant functional necessity in a problem and are intimately familiar with the concept whether you use that terminology or not. When troubleshooting a problem, you need to know the required parts. By definition, a required part is necessary to perform the overall target function. To find the source of the problem when the overall function is not working, you check each functional requirement of the system until you find where the problem is, and the problem will always be where a functional necessity is not functioning properly. This is all the information and understanding we need to reconsider the topic of organisms changing sex within a single lifetime.
Steersman: “there is still the brute fact that a great many species change sex over the course of their lives: were they "designed" to produce both sperm and ova and are therefore both male and female?”
https://open.substack.com/pub/abr4ham/p/thinking-about-accidental-and-essential?r=nlgen&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=42107288
Any process which we know is occurring, we know there is a reason for it. I have heard this called the “no magic” principle. So how does an organism change sex during its lifetime. There must be something driving the change between one sex and the other, there is no magic occurring. Let’s take frogs for example,
“The authors of the study speculate that the frogs are instead reacting to local changes in temperature or other environmental factors.”
https://wildlife.org/frogs-change-sex-even-in-natural-settings/
Let’s assume it is adjusting the temperature specifically inducing the frog’s sex change from male to female. Following the no magic principle, we know that something in the frog is detecting the change in environment, and this triggers the system responsible for changing the organism's sex while it is alive. There is no evidence to suggest that all species can do this, but there is evidence that the offspring of the frog will be able to accomplish this. This tells us the ability to change sex is being passed from parent to child and we do know how that happens, with DNA, which by functional necessity, must hold the information required to accomplish the function that the frogs possess. Frog DNA mutations are defined the same way as human mutations, as copying errors, errors which cause loss of function. So, the DNA is the coded information for how to build the organism and maintain it in all stages of its life cycle. No number of Scientific American articles will ever change that, and I’d suggest that you and I can know that because of the no magic principle or functional necessity.
"particularly helpful in identifying things we think are self-evident but are not."
Indeed. Reminds me of a favorite of Mark Twain's:
MT: "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so."
However, not to give you a hard time -- or much of one ... 😉🙂 -- this still looks a bit disingenuous even with your "sarcasm" qualification:
AH: "I was found guilty of course of denying science"
You seem rather clearly in the position of "denying science" by refusing to recognize, or at least being rather evasive about recognizing, the standard biological definitions for the sexes and their logical consequences. You may wish to try calling a spade a shovel and reading the writing on the wall.