Mid-morning mug: Are Darwinists running out of insults and profanity?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 13, 2010

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Recently, biochemist Michael Behe published an article in Quarterly Review of Biology, titled “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” arguing that “the most common adaptive changes seen … are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function.”

So, not only must the long, slow process of Darwinian evolution create every exotic form of life in the blink of a geological eye, but it must do so by losing or modifying what a life form already has.

This, apparently, got evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne’s recent attention:

Anyway, Behe reviews the last four decades of work on experimental evolution in bacteria and viruses (phage), and finds that nearly all the adaptive mutations in these studies fall into classes 1 and 3. We see very few “gain of FCT” mutations. Although this is not my field, the review seems pretty thorough to me, and the conclusions, as far as they apply to lab studies of adaptation in viruses and bacteria, seem sound.

It looks as though Coyne must now actually take Behe’s argument seriously.

Of course, he should have a long time ago, but for years Darwinists were happy to let trolls lob insults and profanity. Somewhat the way a deadbeat curses the bank officer who knows he hasn’t got the goods.

Comments

F/N: Those concerned to further explore the cumulative, step by step case in 59 etc above [and in response to LT's unwarranted claim of non sequitur], may wish to examine the discussion here, noting in particular the problem of good and evil as discussed here. (Notice how reticent current atheists are to raise this issue in informed company? No prizes for guessing why.)kairosfocus_{December 29, 2010
December
12
Dec
29
29
2010
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

PS: Mr Tanner would find the disuccion on scientific investigations, methods and limitations in the general context of origins science here a useful corrective, especially if he takes to heart the further corrective on the distorting impact of a priori imposition of Lewontinian evolutionary materialism, here (in the page that he snipped out of context above).kairosfocus_{December 27, 2010
December
12
Dec
27
27
2010
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Sometimes, one wishes he did not have to further correct the willfully and insistently incorrigible. But, something needs to be on the record. Unfortunately, Mr Tanner at 102 continues his regrettable career of incivility [he has yet to apologise and retract his invidious comparisons, vulgarity and slanders], and ill-informed objections. In particular, if one is ignorant of the number of unobservable entities in physics [they take meaning from how they link to observables, e.g. the electron is an unobservable -- we infer it confidently from things we do observe], or the way that the laws of thermodynamics are supported, or refuses to accept the logic of implication and that of cause-effect bonds [foundational to scientific explanation] one will make all sorts of avoidable errors. On FSCI, a subset of complex specified information, where specification comes from observed function, LT seems to be unaware of how the second law of thermodynamics in particular was conceptualised and is supported in physics. (Cf my discussion with Null earlier this morning, here.) In particular, he needs to familiarise himself on the statistical properties of random selection from large configuration (or, more broadly, phase) spaces in which we have sufficient states and sufficiently different statistical weights of macro-observable states [clusters of configs that we can recognise at macro level] that we can see why some states overwhelm others. In short, the point of FSCI is that beyond a certain threshold, 1,000 bits of storage capacity [picked as a useful threshold on config space grounds], the number of possible configs, 1.07*10^301, is so large that the resources of the observable universe are vastly inadequate to scan as much as 1 in 10^150. So if islands of observable function -- note the subjectivity of an observer involved, in an objective context of a reliable empirical world, and how this is of course part of the generic scientific method [selective hyperskepticsm, as usual surfaces in the, objection] -- are sufficiently specific to be deeply isolated, they will reliably not be found on the gamut of our osmos, by chance + necessity without intelligence. (Cf Abel here on the universal plausibility bound. LT's attention has been drawn to this already, but he has consistently ignored it.) In the case LT refers to from my 101 note here [artfully, not linked as the objections game would then be up], fig I.1, he knows or should know that Mt Rushmore's figures are highly specific, instantly recognisable high-resolution portraits of known historical figures. By contrast, New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain, was a vague, face-like profile similar to how we "see" face-like features in wood surfaces, or in brown marks on toast. We can construct a precise wireframe mesh to specify Mt Rushmore's faces, generate the equivalent code strings, and then vary such to see at what point the faces wash out of being recognisably specific. A comparison with OMOM will show that a wiremesh for that will be far looser, as face-like features are easily spotted at very low resolution or specificity. (All of this is of course related to the work of computer animators.) LT then goes on to try to make out that FSCI is about say poetry/non-poetry, when he knows or should know that the threshold would come at: text in recognisable English, say. The just above paragraph will be just as acceptable as say:
IF you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too . . . . If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools . . .
In short, a poem, or an asembly language program --
;#include ;#include ; ;int main() ;{ ; time_t t; ; time(&t); // get the current time ; cout << ctime(&t); // convert to string and print ; return 0; ;} ; ; This code may be assembled and linked using Borland's TASM: ; tasm /la /m2 showdate ; tlink /Tdc showdate ; STDOUT equ 01h ; handle of standard output device DOS_GET_DATE equ 02ah ; get system date DOS_GET_TIME equ 02ch ; get system time DOS_WRITE_HANDLE equ 040h ; write to handle DOS_TERMINATE equ 04ch ; terminate with error code DOSINT macro function, subfunction IFB mov ah,(function AND 0ffh) ELSE mov ax,(function SHL 8) OR (subfunction AND 0ffh) ENDIF int 21h ; invoke DOS function endm
. . . would equally count as FSCI. I don't even try to write the former, but once used to read the equivalent numerical codes to the assembly language expressions for the old 6809. LT also manages to try to suggest that the term "FSCI" is not used in the general scientific literature, so by suggestion it is suspect and dismissable, with hints of "metaphysics" and "pseudoscience." He has not bothered to check that it is in fact -- as is explicitly identified in the UD weak argument correctives, here -- a descriptive, convenient abbreviation for a term or concept developed in OOL research going back to Orgel in 1973. Let us excerpt Orgel:
In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [Source: L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189.]
You can see specific, complex, functional information at work, and how it and the closely linked functional, specific, complex organisation in the living cell are distinguished from orderly arrangements of atoms in crystals in a granite matrix, or random mixes commonly called tars. Meaning, in short, should be understood in light of relevant and accessible context. (In my case, every comment I have ever made at UD links this discussion, in its wider context.) And, the described FSCI concept is widely applicable, to effectively anything that is reducible to digital text of a reasonable threshold, and that has a recognisable, objective function, with a particular eye to linguistic function or algorithmic function. It is instantly familiar to those who have had to design say a microcontroller, or to write a technical computer program. It is less familiar to those who write text in say English, but surely we can see the distinction Thaxton el al made in ch 8 of the epochal TMLO, the first technical design theory book, in 1984:
1. [Class 1:] An ordered (periodic) and therefore specified arrangement: THE END THE END THE END THE END Example: Nylon [a polymer], or a crystal . . . . 2. [Class 2:] A complex (aperiodic) unspecified arrangement: AGDCBFE GBCAFED ACEDFBG Example: Random polymers (polypeptides). 3. [Class 3:] A complex (aperiodic) specified arrangement: THIS SEQUENCE OF LETTERS CONTAINS A MESSAGE! Example: DNA, protein
Indeed, Abel et al, in recently discussing three classes of string sequence complexity, orderly, random and functional, provided a handy and acceptable definition in 2005 -- and a handy graphical illustration -- in precisely the peer-reviewed technical literature of recent years. They have gone on to provide specific quantification, based on an extension of the Shannon H-metric for average information per symbol in a string of symbols. And in any case, as was specifically identified above, the Internet provides billions of test cases on the point that FSCI is routinely and in our observation only produced by intelligent direction. We can also notice from the distractive, distorting and denigratory -- notice how LT slips in a reference to pseudoscience -- trifecta fallacy rhetorical objection being made by LT, that he plainly cannot meet the objective, reasonable test of providing a string of at least 1,000 bits length [a sentence or two of about 20 characters would do] that was objectively produced by chance and mechanical necessity without intelligent direction, and that is functional in a recognisable and specific way, as algorithnmic information or linguistic information. But being bound and determined to object to what he evidently does not understand, but rejects on the grounds that it may point to the unwelcome foot of a designer in the door for life, he makes irrelevant and distractive, denigratory objections. But, if one's objective is to dismiss, and one has a track record of disrespect and slanderous denigration, careful fact checking and fair assessment on the merits -- and recognition of when one is plainly and increasingly out of depth on a technical matter [cf here for a 101 on the thermodynamics underpinnings required for a serious assessment of the FSCI concept] -- are not likely to be in one's habitual practice. Let us hope that Mr Tanner will make and try to keep a new year's resolution to do better than this. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 27, 2010
December
12
Dec
27
27
2010
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

F/n: On galaxies, Cosmology and fine tuning, now here; the first table of contents for an IOSE page now being in place. (HT BA77 on the engineered cosmos paper.)kairosfocus_{December 27, 2010
December
12
Dec
27
27
2010
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

F/N c: I am being advised I may have jumped a few intermediate steps above, making some of the above hard to follow. (And, the Wiki stub article cited in toto above may be just as hard to follow.) Some explanatory side-bars: 1] Stellar physics, solar system formation and cosmology I have done an origins science context outline on this here. This was linked above, but maybe putting it first will help. (NB: this includes a link to the Privileged Planet video. That video will rivet the significance of simultaneous fine tuning and having life-friendly sites being those that invite exploration of the cosmos.) The conclusion of this is obvious, we are on a highly privileged planet in a very special location/site in a very special cosmos. Fine tuning is a reality, and we need a cogent account of the cosmos bakery that cooks it up. 2] On cosmos bakeries . . . Robin Collins has a bread-baking machine, and that inspired him to draw an analogy to cosmology. If the ingredients are not just right, and in the just right proportions, or the timing is wrong, or the temperature is not right, a bread making machine will produce burned hockey pucks or half-baked doughy messes, not nice tasty loaves. Just so, our observed cosmos credibly -- this is now more or less a given -- had a beginning; often dated on reversing the Hubble expansion cosmological timeline back to a point, 13.7 BYA. And, just like for a burning match's flame, if there is a beginning, there is something that is external to the observed cosmos that is a necessary causal factor, that if absent/present would block/enable our cosmos. In short, our observed cosmos is contingent and has at least one external causal factor. On many, many factors, our cosmos is finely balanced at an operating point that enables Carbon-chemistry, cell-based life. (This is explored in section b in the linked 101. [Pardon, one has to trick out Blogger with named anchors and full URL links with in-page hooks to the anchors to get a hot, Wiki-style table of contents, and -- having only recently worked out the trick [Blogger accepts some aspects of html but not all] -- I have not got around to that yet.]) W@hat this boils down to is that even if one proposes an underlying wider cosmos as a whole in which sub-cosmi like ours pop up, we need to address contingency, and fine-tuning to set up a cosmos at a special operating point. 3] Contingency and fine-tuning Even thinking of the imagined -- there is actually no observational evidence, it is proposed as in significant part an intended alternative to the otherwise obvious import of fine-tuning: design -- wider cosmos, we have to address necessary and also sufficient causal conditions for a cosmos like ours. For instance, if there is a tendency of the wider cosmos to bubble up sub-cosmi with varying physical parameters and/or laws, we need to face the issue that our particular sub-cosmos seems to be at a very precise, sensitive and narrow band operating point. Twiddle any of dozens of parameters a relative little and the result would be the burned hockey puck. In short, the wider cosmos has to be at a fine-tuned operating point to produce even a distribution of sub-cosmi that includes our sub-cosmos. The cosmos bakery has to be set right to work. And, at the root of such a chain of contingent causes leading to the world in which we live and to ourselves in it, lies a necessary being. One that is not dependent on external necessary causal factors, was not switched on, and cannot be switched off. Also, one capable of setting up a cosmos, up to and including a cosmos bakery. One capable of a highly skilled, deeply knowledgeable design. 4: What of the algebraic zero net energy cost issue? This is of course yet another case of the confidence of physicists in mathematics and its ability to capture reality. So, why the astonishing, miraculous power of concepts to capture reality and predict its behaviour so successfully? Could this be: thinking God's creative and sustaining cosmos-organising thoughts after him? [A classic expression of the nature of science.] More on the specific point, in the famous Copenhagen conference that defined the classic school of quantum physics, there was a major wrangling with Einstein trying desperately to get rid of the uncertainty in the discipline. he thought he hit on the killer, a thought experiment that exposed the hole in Q-mech, namely his famous energy-time formulation of the uncertainty principle. That stunned everyone, but then I think it may have been Bohr or Planck, came back next day with the point: this is real and it fits right in, explaining some important things. Einstein was quite deflated! Anyway, here is the formulation: delta-E*delta-t > h/2*pi. In the observable world, a lump of energy multiplied by the corresponding lump of time must be at least of the order of Planck's constant with a small adjustment. So, for instance, a laser beam has a bandwidth linked to the frequency which is linked via the de Broglie relation, to the energy of its photons, and to the coherence length of the beam. And, the relationship has the implication that we can view force interactions as the exchange of particles -- think of two people pulling or pushing on a stick as they pass it between them, exerting forces on one another as a result -- and virtual particles are possible in the vacuum, which turns out to be a rather busy and energetic place. Once we are within the time-limit, virtual particles can pop up as particle-antiparticle pairs. The Casimir effect is a classic observed effect of this. David Darling's useful enc of sci has a good discussion:
According to modern physics, a vacuum is full of fluctuating electromagnetic waves of all possible wavelengths which imbue it with a vast amount of energy, normally invisible to us. Casimir realized that between two plates, only those unseen electromagnetic waves whose wavelengths fit a whole number of times into the gap should be counted when calculating the vacuum energy. As the gap between the plates is narrowed (to a few nanometers), fewer waves can contribute to the vacuum energy and so the energy density between the plates falls below the energy density of the surrounding space. The result is a tiny force trying to pull the plates together – a force that has been measured and thus provides proof of the existence of the quantum vacuum. Pushes, pulls, and nanotechnology Casimir's original theory applied only to ideal metals and dielectric materials; however, in the 1950s and '60s, the Russian physicist Evgeny Lifshitz extended Casimir's theory to include real metals and found that the forces at work could be repulsive as well as attractive. Because of his contribution, the Casimir effect is now also known as the Casimir–Lifshitz effect. To date, only the attractive form of the effect has been studied in detail and without any immediate practical application. But the emergence of nanoscale devices has brought to light a drawback of the Casimir–Lifshitz effect: it can cause tiny pieces of machinery, such as microscopic cogs, to stick together. As such devices continue to shrink, the consequences of the effect will need to be taken seriously . . .
But what happens when net delta-E is zero? 5] The zero net energy sub-cosmos This is where the zero net energy sub cosmos idea pops up. As wiki (per y/day's excerpt) puts it:
during inflation [the expansion of the universe, esp the proposed period when the rate exceeded the speed of light] energy flows from the gravitational field (or geometry) to the inflaton field—the total gravitational energy decreases (becomes more negative) and the total inflaton energy increases (becomes more positive). But the respective energy densities remain constant and opposite since the region is inflating. Consequently inflation explains the otherwise curious cancellation of matter and gravitational energy on cosmological scales which is a feature of a zero-energy free-lunch universe, which is consistent with astronomical observations . . . . Due to quantum uncertainty [Einstein's energy-time expression above] energy fluctuations such as electron and its anti-particle a positron can arise spontaneously out of nothing [not quite -- out of the quantum vacuum, i.e there is a too fast to follow sleight of hand. Without a space to act in, there is no quantum vacuum to fluctuate, and this would extend tothe proposed underlying cosmos as a whole, which is a proposed necessary being . . . ] but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.
Notice the zip-by assumption/assertion that particles coming up in a quantum vacuum are coming out of nothing spontaneously? This is the point where the logic breaks down. By speaking of fluctuations and the energy-time uncertainty, you are in fact implying an underlying quantum-vacuum space, full of invisible energy. And, this is a necessary causal factor underlying the popping up of bubble fluctuations. So, you are not getting something for nothing, from nothing, spontaneously, without a cause. And,that underlying space is going to be specified -- fine tuned -- to get to the possibility of popping up a sub-cosmos thsat just happens to be well-formed for life like we know it. In short, we have here a proposed cosmos bakery. Just, that inconvenient little point is being glided over quick-quick, maybe not even recognised. In short, it is the logic, not the physics. Just as TGP pointed out. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 27, 2010
December
12
Dec
27
27
2010
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

It’s the logic, not the physics . . .
Call these stories stories "logic" if you wish. To me, they look like a patchwork of carefully selected and worded facts dressed up to make a circumstantial case (See post 59, for example, and the huge leaps taken with the final points. In post 91, it is said:
So, regardless of the fact that there’s more than one way to skin a cat-fish [design and implementation methods vary considerably and may be unknown in a particular case], we are fully entitled on solid empirical grounds — the Internet alone now accounts for trillions of observations — to accept that FSCI is a reliable signature of intelligence. How ’tweredun, and whodunit are interesting but secondary questions, compared to the significance of the first one: that twerdun
So FSCI, or some threshold number of it in relation to a "thing," makes a reliable signature of that thing's having been designed at one or more points in the things history--this is what I understand you to be saying. If so, then I would expect there to be plenty of available resources and examples where we see, for instance, FSCI for Mt. Rushmore vs. New Hampshire's "late" Old Man of the Mountain. In any case, I don't see how, or if, one separates between the observance of design and the influence of the observer in defining what "is" about the object in question. A poem is a poem if I as a reader (and tradition) says so. There may not be anything in or inherent in a text to warrant its label as poetry. Apparently, FSCI can be used to make the classification of defined things less arbitrary. But I think, then, that some references demonstrating this application of FSCI across a wide set of domains (with known designed and non-designed things) would settle our disagreement once and for all. This point brings me to post 95, where we read:
Now, we routinely observe that FSCI is a uniformly reliable signature of intelligently directed configuration, aka design. It is a reliable signature of design.
Do we routinely observe this? I'm not aware of the term "FSCI" being used in research to identify design. I'm not being catty or snarky: please let me know of disciplines using this concept productively. My Google Scholar search comes up with zero hits. Without some references, it seems to me that ID remains a primarily metaphysical avocation. I think of Carl Sagan's great story on metaphysics from The Demon Haunted World:
At a dinner many decades ago, the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to the toast, "To physics and metaphysics." By "metaphysics," people then meant something like philosophy, or truths you could recognize just by thinking about them. They could also have included pseudoscience. Wood answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it seems to make. He consults the scientific literature. The more he reads, the more promising the idea becomes. Thus prepared, he goes to the laboratory and devises an experiment to test it. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are checked. The accuracy of measurement is refined, the error bars reduced. He lets the chips fall where they may. He is devoted only to what the experiment teaches. At the end of all this work, through careful experimentation, the idea is found to be worthless. So the physicist discards it, frees his mind from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded as he raised his glass high, is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.
LarTanner_{December 26, 2010
December
12
Dec
26
26
2010
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

F/N b: It's the logic, not the physics, . . . TGP, you are right above, when you highlight that even brilliant physicists can be blinded if they ignore basic principles of right reason, here, causality. So, let's play the ex nihilo, algebraic zero net energy game for a moment: 1 --> Per Einstein's energy-time version of uncertainty, a fluctuation that is below the h-bar limit, permits virtual particle-antiparticle production for the moment, so long as they vanish back into the vacuum. [This is responsible for some interesting phenomena in physics, e.g. the Casimir effect, and electromagnetism has infinite range as the photons have zero mass. Etc.] 2 --> As wiki summarises the zero net energy premise: __________________ >> The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. When the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations.[1] The amount of positive energy in form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in form of gravity.[2] [edit] Free-lunch interpretation A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.[3][4] It is this balancing of the total universal energy budget that enables the open-ended growth possible with inflation; during inflation energy flows from the gravitational field (or geometry) to the inflaton field—the total gravitational energy decreases (becomes more negative) and the total inflaton energy increases (becomes more positive). But the respective energy densities remain constant and opposite since the region is inflating. Consequently inflation explains the otherwise curious cancellation of matter and gravitational energy on cosmological scales which is a feature of a zero-energy free-lunch universe, which is consistent with astronomical observations. [edit] Quantum fluctuation Due to quantum uncertainty energy fluctuations such as electron and its anti-particle a positron can arise spontaneously out of nothing but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.[5] >> __________________ 3 --> We may pause for a laugh: creation, ex nihilo, out of nothing. Sounds familiar? Maybe, it should:
Gen 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! Isa 45: 9 ???????One who argues with his creator is in grave danger, one who is like a mere shard among the other shards on the ground! The clay should not say to the potter, “What in the world are you doing? Your work lacks skill!” . . . . 18 ???????For this is what the LORD says, the one who created the sky – he is the true God, the one who formed the earth and made it; he established it, he did not create it without order, he formed it to be inhabited – “I am the LORD, I have no peer.
4 --> Let us go further, per the suggestion by Hawking, of a quantum foam of micro-black holes, spread out to be the fabric of space time. 5 --> Maybe, even -- just for fun -- suggesting that the black holes safely lock away the missing antimatter to match the observed matter of the cosmos. [What is behind an event horizon is locked away from our cosmos, as not even light can come back out.] 6 --> Let us take the algebraic trick on board, and let the negative energy of gravity balance or near balance out the positive of the inflation field, etc. So, we have an expanding sub-cosmos that pops up for a zero net energy cost, and grows by stretching out space itself [that is the usual explanation for the Hubble expansion, space itself is stretching out, and gravitationally bound local zones like galaxies therefore are spreading apart] "like a tent" with a similarly zero net energy cost. 7 --> We then have to face a material cosmos that steadily stretches out, and that allows hydrogen balls to form under mutual gravitational attraction [and with numbers of protons and electrons balanced to 1 in 10^39 so electromagnetism -- which is of unlimited range, just like gravity -- does not overwhelm gravity], crunching down, heating up and cooking off the first wave of stars. 8 --> We still have to have spiral galaxies that form 2nd-generation stars in habitable zones, that have sufficient distance from the overly-energetic galactic centres, and sufficient proximity to have enough heavy elements to have a complement of terrestrial planets. 9 --> We still need to form such a star of reasonable mass, with terrestrials, and well behaved jovians,so that they do not come rolling in and discombobulating the inner planets, serving instead as shields against bombardment [as with Shoemaker-Levy 9]. (Cf 101 leve; exploration here.) 10 --> We still need to form a sub-cosmos with just the right, locally deeply isolated balance as John Leslie describes with his fly on the wall analogy [cf 99 above]. 11 --> In short, we are back to the issue that to get an observed cosmos with a beginning, i.e. one that is contingent; and precisely functionally specified for C-chemistry, cell based life, we LOGICALLY imply at least one necessary (i.e. potentially blocking/enabling depending on whether "off" or "on") causal factor that serves as a control switch. And, we need a finely tuned, functionally specific "cosmos baking bread factory." 12 --> And, at the root of such a contingent -- thus caused -- and highly functionally specified, -- thus, finetuned and organised -- cosmos, lies the root cause of such an observed contingency: an ontologically necessary being. If something contingent exists, it is caused and in the end, the root cause is a necessary being.
(In the days of the steady state theory of the cosmos, the observed cosmos was viewed as the necessary being. The current attempts to get a multiverse in significant part boil down to getting back to that happy condition for materialists, but it will not work, once we see design on cosmological fine-tuning, and the moral government we face.)
13 --> A necessary being is one that has no beginning, is self-sustaining, depends for existence on no external causal factor, and so is eternal. 14 --> Facing, now,too, the functionally specific configuration of our observed cosmos and its deep local isolation, the most credible candidate for that necessary being is an intelligent, highly knowledgeable and powerful designer. (Notice, warrant on inference to best explanation, as opposed to pretence of proof beyond doubt on premises acceptable to all. This is how science works. So, to object to such a move that it is not a proof, is to be selectively hyperskeptical. Instead one needs to provide a superior explanation. Given the multidimensionality and precision of the finetuning, good luck.) 15 --> Raise that cosmological design inference challenge by an observation that is closely connected to our experience of ourselves as conscious, intelligent creatures living in a cosmos that is at least in part intelligible: by essentially universal consent (the exceptions are patently monstrous) we find ourselves to be morally governed, and thus under obligation to be fair, respectful, caring, etc. 16 --> We can dismiss such, but on pain of then implying that our minds are so delusional that we have no reason to trust our first, equally subjectively experienced, intuitions of mind as we bridge from mind to external world; collapsing the whole project of trying to understand our world.
(Observe here Kant's gap between the inner phenomenal world and the world of things in themselves, and the self-referential incoherence that if one sees an unbridgeable gap, one implies knowledge of the external world in order to try to deny it. Subjectivity is real, but does not undermine objectivity of knowledge and reasoning.)
17 --> That brings us back to the force of the IS-OUGHT gap. If, on pain of otherwise being utterly delusional, we are in fact morally bound, we live in a cosmos where oughtness is real. 18 --> So, there credibly is a grounding is for the cosmos that is a basis for oughtness being real. The only viable candidate for that is a good, wise creator-God. And, amoral alternative worldviews such as materialism, then face the problem of the near-universal intuitions that good and evil are real and important. Indeed, even their favourite problem of evil challenge to the existence of God presupposes this, which is at once fatal to materialistic views. (Cf Koukl on the significance of the reality of evil, here, and the discussion of the problem of evil as an objection to God, here. [Note to LT: Trying to dismiss this issue by pretending that a Dembski is playing at bait and switch evangelism so can be dismissed or invidiously comparing a GEM of TKI to Torquemada's thumbscrews, racks and bundles of dry branches is simply a cynical, demonising distractor.])
(The materialistic world-picture, by contrast, will be inherently amoral and can have no is that can ground ought. Other monist views, similarly, will founder on not having the capacity to ground diversity, including the reality of and distinction between good and evil, is and ought.)
19 --> So, since the IS-OUGHT gap is the dagger pointing to the heart of the unreality, incoherence and explanatory impotence of evolutionary materialism, maybe we can now understand why LT was so violently strident, and slanderously dismissive once the issue has been put on the table. ____________ It's the logic, not the physics . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 26, 2010
December
12
Dec
26
26
2010
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT}

F/N: Above LT made something of Hawking's algebraic net zero for the energy of the cosmos we observe. Basic problem: it -- per logic of cause as discussed with the match example etc -- had a beginning, so there is a necessary (potentially blocking, if absent) causal factor out there that had to be in place for its existence as a C-chemistry life facilitating, fine tuned sub-cosmos to be possible. This holds even in a multiverse where things bubble up in a statistical distribution that allows bubbles like our observed cosmos to pop up. For, we have to have the proverbial well-set up cosmos bakery that can produce the distribution that captures our local very special cluster of cosmological ingredients and bakes up something like what we live in. Fine tuning is not so easily got rid of, and we do not get to something from nothing, once we see the beginning thus the contingency and the presence/absence of necessary [potentially blocking] causal factors. Contingent sub-cosmi in turn, as previously discussed, point to an ontologically necessary being, as the causal root. Hawking has not got something from nothing, algebraic virtuosity and speculations on cosmic spacetime fabrics made up from networks of micro blackholes that help get the zero energy net balance notwithstanding.kairosfocus_{December 25, 2010
December
12
Dec
25
25
2010
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

TGP: Excellent. Great Christmas morning reading. Good stuff for onward discussion after the big day. LT, cf 82 - 83 ff above, needs to reflect on the case study of a fire and what having -- or even credibly having -- a beginning leads to. Namely, as already explained [but ignored as per usual] -- that that which has a beginning is not self-sufficient, and requires an external, necessary factor. A necessary causal factor. One without which, nothin' doin'. And so, Mr Carroll is bluffing, and/or speaking without checking logic out first. Notice his either-or: underlying cosmos as a whole OR pop out of nothing. Also, his we can explain the existence of nature on the laws of nature. But, laws, insofar as they are realities, are mental realities: limits on what is or can be in the physical world, which we can discover and conform objectively. Whence, that carefully balanced ordering and organisation that sets up a cosmos that sits at an operating point that is exceedingly and dozens of times over finely balanced so that it facilitates the existence of C-chemistry, cell based life? No answer. On the first alternative, he is proposing a multiverse model. On the second, he is failing to see that from nothing, nothing comes. That there is something that credibly had a beginning requires a cause. On fluctuations, which he mentions in passing, that implies something that fluctuates, and something that needs to be in place for that possibility of fluctuations to come up with a finely balanced sub cosmos that is at the operating point for C-chemistry cell based life. What Carroll is actually doing is giving out soothing noises, incantated in a confident manner and on the strength of his location at Caltech, the shelves of books behind him, and the implied authorities he names. But, "abracadabra, hey, presto" is still abracadabra. And, "you can imagine . . ." is not to be equated with: it is well warranted, empirically, factually and logically. His bottomline is that he is committed to a priori materialism, and hopes that the physical cosmos as a whole is the necessary being that is the root cause of our observed world. Therein lieth the first rub. His speculative, imagined underlying cosmos as a whole is not an observed fact, nor is it subject to observation. It is a metaphysical speculation. He has crossed over into philosophy without notice. And, he therefore would need to ground his metaphysics at the table of comparative difficulties. And, notoriously, his preferred materalistic cosmos as a whole is to be recognised as utterly amoral, which cuts clean across one of the strongest facts of life, affirmed by the consent of humanity when we have quarrels: we are morally bound. So, there credibly is an IS that grounds OUGHT. Such an is, Mr Tanner and Mr Carroll, must be inherently moral. The only good answer to that is that there is a good God who is our creator. Is is grounded in his intelligence, laws of nature are the laws of his plan for the cosmos, science thinks his creative and sustaining thoughts after him [as the founders of modern science were fond of saying], and ought is grounded in his coherently good character, whereby ought is neither external to him nor arbitrary and capricious. The Euthryphro dilemma, so-called, crashes in flames. Theism is a far superior answer. On the multiverse game, let me pull John Leslie's telling remarks on CONVERGENT fine-tuning, and his related fly on the wall swatted by a bullet observation, which sits in my always linked note, section E: ____________________ convergence of the fine-tuning: >>One striking thing about the fine tuning is that a force strength or a particle mass often appears to require accurate tuning for several reasons at once. Look at electromagnetism. Electromagnetism seems to require tuning for there to be any clear-cut distinction between matter and radiation; for stars to burn neither too fast nor too slowly for life’s requirements; for protons to be stable; for complex chemistry to be possible; for chemical changes not to be extremely sluggish; and for carbon synthesis inside stars (carbon being quite probably crucial to life). Universes all obeying the same fundamental laws could still differ in the strengths of their physical forces, as was explained earlier, and random variations in electromagnetism from universe to universe might then ensure that it took on any particular strength sooner or later. Yet how could they possibly account for the fact that the same one strength satisfied many potentially conflicting requirements, each of them a requirement for impressively accurate tuning? [Our Place in the Cosmos, 1998 Emphases added. Updated link courtesy Wayback Machine.] >> Fly on the wall swatted by a bullet, from the same: >> . . . the need for such explanations does not depend on any estimate of how many universes would be observer-permitting, out of the entire field of possible universes. Claiming that our universe is ‘fine tuned for observers’, we base our claim on how life’s evolution would apparently have been rendered utterly impossible by comparatively minor alterations in physical force strengths, elementary particle masses and so forth. There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned.< Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly. >> ____________________ Worth a thought or two. Happy Christmas to all. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 25, 2010
December
12
Dec
25
25
2010
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

LT @ 86 "Please give an example of biological information and identify the mind that causes this information, as well as the mechanism used by the mind to transfer information from the mind into the message, and then from the message to the receiver. Please identify the receiver also." What does any of this have to do with the fact of biological information? Let me ask you two questions. Do you deny the existence of biological information? Do you deny the existence of a biological language or code? "Your comment gets pretty nasty at the end. I’m amused to have you tell me what concepts I deny and which ones I cannot explain. I’m also amused to read you telling me that I’ve somehow claimed to be able to explain everything." I went back and reread my comment and if you want to count mild sarcasm as pretty nasty then you are welcome to do so and I apologize. I guess we grew up in different neighborhoods, so to speak. Where I come from that doesn't even approach rude, much less nasty. Certainly direct and maybe a little Smart A$$ but nasty? As for telling you what you can and cannot explain, I did no such thing. I told you what an intellectually serious naturalist (again, not that there are any) would claim to explain. If you are one of them then I did tell you that and rather than get your nose out of joint why not just prove me wrong by telling me where I went wrong in my analysis? "But I look forward to hearing how you have all the answers for those things that matter to human beings, including what matters." Did I say I had all of those answers? Odd, if so, I have forgotten many of them already. Here's one question I don't have the answer to. How is it that people can be exposed to rigorous, rational, empirically confirmed, in other words, SOUND arguments and still ignore them or not be persuaded to even seriously engage with them? That's one of the great mysteries of life. Here's looking forward to you enlightening me about that. As far as what "matters?" Please. What's the point? Why am I here? Where am I going (if anywhere)? Why do I feel bad when I hurt someone? Why do I feel wonder when I look around the universe? Does God exist? Did He reveal Himself to me? If so, how did He? How would I know? Am I responsible to Him? Will I answer to Him someday? How do I know anything? Why does reason work? Why is there a universe and more importantly why am I in it? How can I love another human being so much I would die for them? Why does music stir my soul? Why can I just think of or see my wife, daughter, step-sons, parents, brothers, friends, etc... and KNOW that it's all worthwhile and that there's a point? You know, stuff like that. See human history for the past 5 or 6 thousand years. Of course, naturalists deny that any of these things matter. What a joke.tgpeeler_{December 24, 2010
December
12
Dec
24
24
2010
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

LT @ 54 "tgpeeler (41), You present a nice case. Let me ask, though, whether you find terms such as “past,” “cause,” and “first” in the context of the origins of the universe. Are these terms, as we are using them here, appropriate and applicable to the origins of the universe?" First of all, thank you. Second of all, absolutely these terms are appropriate in the context of the origin of the universe. I'm curious, why anyone would think they wouldn't be? Those are all "finite" terms and the universe is finite, ergo... "When it comes to our universe, we have a scientific case for claiming that we can explain it without having to go outside of it. For a very high-level, 101, explanation of what I’m saying see Sean Carroll’s video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCVqJw7T1WU." I watched this and I read Hawking’s book about two weeks after it came out last fall. He may be a stellar physicist but he flunks logic 101. I found Carroll’s comments to be mostly parroting what Hawking had to say so he flunks logic 101, too. I don’t have time to undo or correct all of the logical errors Carroll made in about three minutes, much less the ones Hawking made in an entire book, but I will comment on this phrase uttered by Carroll starting at 2:22 in the linked youtube video. "The universe could just obey its own laws. It could be a natural, physical, material universe obeying the laws of physics and that can be a complete explanation of everything." The universe is FINITE. That means, according to the law of identity, that it began because that’s part of what finite means. And if it BEGAN, then it needs a CAUSE or EXPLANATION of its beginning, else it wouldn't be here. But it is here. To just say that "we can explain it without having to go outside of it" without providing some rationale for that statement, some evidence, some proof, some argument, is ridiculous. On the face of it, it's false. To say, in the absence of any empirical evidence whatsoever, that universes can create themselves because Einstein said the net energy of the universe is zero and that the law of gravity allows them to, is utter nonsense. For one thing, as far as I've read, not that I track it closely, dark matter and/or dark energy comprise about 94% of the observable universe and no one really has a clue about what they are. I know for certain that the four fundamental forces have yet to be unified, the M-Theory metaphysical project not withstanding. But I’m supposed to believe that Hawking KNOWS that universes can be spontaneously created because of the laws of physics, the precursors to this natural, physical, material universe, "allow" that to happen? Ha. Sure. Not likely. Are you kidding me? Can anyone say or spell thermodynamics?? The other thing that strikes me right off the bat about this is something that the naturalists/physicalists/materialists never seem to grasp and which “we” allow to pass all too easily and often and it is this. What explanation do the laws of physics have for themselves? What explanation do the laws of physics have for the mathematical language in which they are expressed? Can either the language (the mathematics) or the physical laws be empirically detected? In other words, can they be sensed? No. They cannot. If you think they can, feel free to tell me what the Pythagorean theorem tastes like in your reply to this post. So Hawking and Carroll cannot even rationalize the existence of the laws (and the language in which the laws are written) that they say allowed the universe, and other universes, to merely pop into existence. Think of this. That this kind of commentary purports to be scholarly, or if not scholarly, at least authoritative, is just amazing to me. That these guys are not summarily laughed off the stage only reflects the general level of ignorance of rational thinking in America, at least, and I’d probably also say the “West” in general. “One of the arguments I’ve made to Kairos is that when going “outside” our universe, we are hard-pressed to extrapolate from the present (e.g., as you say, “things are changing in the present”) to a past as far back as the very origins of our universe.” And why are we hard-pressed to do that? Why would you say that? I do it effortlessly all the time and so do many others out here. “So, I think most everything that you or I could possibly say about a “first cause” would not only be uncertain, but I might wager it would be wrong (including this statement I just made). But now I’m speculating wildly, too.” Of course you are. I am not. I am rigorously reasoning. There is a big difference. This is supposed to be a responsible conversation. That means that anything that anyone says that is logically sound is absolutely certain. It doesn’t matter when or where it’s said or by whom. “I said before that we have a scientific case for the universe creating itself from nothing (I think this is close enough to the famous statement from Hawking’s recent book). I’m saying it’s a great or even a good case; I’m only asserting that there is a case. This much I think is indisputable.” Did you actually read Hawking’s book? There’s also a case to be made that politicians are NOT lying, thieving, traitorous vermin that have destroyed the US economy but that doesn’t make it true. I’m sure some people think a “case” can be made that OJ is innocent, too. So what? I’m not interested in “cases,” I’m interested in rational arguments supported with empirical evidence. And so should you be. “So, I have your case and I have Hawking’s case. I think the question at this point is how should reasonable people evaluate the two cases against each other (and other cases, as may be appropriate). Taking a neutral stance toward both cases, we need to know what criteria to apply in determining the quality of cases and the comparative evaluation.” I am all for ignoring authority and going with the quality of the argument, i.e. reason and evidence. “My intuition is that this is as far as any of us can go." May I sincerely and with no malice aforethought suggest that you go with reason and evidence over intuition. The argument I have presented is an exercise in pure reason, backed up with empirical evidence. The universe is finite. Therefore it needs a cause that cannot be finite. I recommend that you “get over” your speculation and intuition and start rigorously reasoning and demanding real evidence from the people who influence your thought. p.s. And if that is not enough, please consider the claim Carroll made in the quote above. “It could be a natural, physical, material universe obeying the laws of physics and that can be a complete explanation of everything." Oh really? So physics can explain “everything.” I suppose, if everything means everything then I have a few questions for Carroll (and you). Can physics explain information (or thought)? Or the necessary prerequisites for information (or thought)? – NO. (see the questions below) Can physics explain Language (symbols and rules) – NO. Can physics explain Free Will (the ability to manipulate symbols according to a certain set of rules – in this case English – so as to encode information, a message, into them) – NO. Can physics explain Intentionality (the conscious, deliberate intent to communicate the message) – NO. (If I didn’t intend to say anything, I wouldn’t be writing something. But I am writing something. So I DO INTEND to say something.) Can physics explain the Laws of Rational Thought (First Principles). Being, Identity, Non-contradiction, Excluded Middle, Sufficient Causality. Without which no coherent thinking is possible. (If 10 is less than 20 and 5 is less than 10. What do we know about the relationship between 5 and 20? Exactly, 5 < 20.) – NO. Can physics explain mathematics? (See can physics explain Language.) – NO. Can physics explain the Mind. That which reasons, freely chooses, and acts intentionally? – NO. Must we go on? Physics cannot be a complete explanation of everything. Anybody with a normally functioning mind that has not been polluted with the intellectual virus of naturalism knows this. What does physics have to say about why it’s wrong to steal or murder or rape? Come on, man. You’re killing me…tgpeeler_{December 24, 2010
December
12
Dec
24
24
2010
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

F/N 4: An example of a step by step information rich procedure in the cell, the bacterial flagellum that appears at the head of this page.kairosfocus_{December 24, 2010
December
12
Dec
24
24
2010
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: I see an attempt to marginalise my focus on the key features of cell based life: metabolising and self-replication. Without the first, the organism cannot interact with its environment to take in energy and materials resources then use them to build needed components and carry put life processes. Without the second, life forms would not reproduce. Both are absolutely central to life as we know it, and so it is utterly revealing that the two evolutionary materialistic schools of thought on the subject for OOL are mutually self-destructive. Instead, a more fruitful approach would recognise the key factor: both processes are deeply information-based. FSCI, the special type of information involved, is in our uniform experience, the product of intelligence, and for excellent reasons as already discussed yesterday. those who try to insist that chance is a viable source of the required FSCI, consistently do so because of an a priori commitment to materialistic explanations, not because of solid empirical evidence that chance can produce FSCI and associated processing machinery and organisation. On the evidence in front of us, that a priori commitment is deeply suspect. __________________________ F/N 3: related, is the objection above, that to infer to intelligence -- note, as opposed to "the supernatural" -- as the consistently observed source of information, in the context of OOL is a violation of the present is the key to the past principle. This is simply a rephrasing of the all too common, crude accusation and imposition that to infer to intelligence is to infer to the supernatural and this is verboten. In short, it is the old, question-begging Lewontinian imposition of a priori materialism. A hardy perennial, that. Sorry, we routinely observe and experience ourselves as intelligent, information-using creatures. Intelligence, and its characteristic signs, are observable, experienced features of our world. The world that science should seek to explain as it is, not as a priori materialism wants it to be. So, again, here is a basic definition of science:
science, at its best, is the unfettered -- but ethically and intellectually responsible -- progressive pursuit of the truth about our world, based on empirical observation, inference to best current theoretical explanation, logical-mathematical analysis, empirical testing and uncensored discussion among the informed.
If you can accept this, the rest follows. If you reject it, then you owe us a good explanation of why. And a priori materialism tied to closed-minded dismissal of alternatives is not a good explanation. Now, we routinely observe that FSCI is a uniformly reliable signature of intelligently directed configuration, aka design. It is a reliable signature of design. As such, it should be allowed to speak as evidence, even when that is not convenient for one's preferred materialistic worldview. On pain of closed-minded question-begging. And, that, unfortunately, seems to be the real problem.kairosfocus_{December 24, 2010
December
12
Dec
24
24
2010
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

F/N: Looked back up at 54. Saw this:
I see no good reason to make changes to the posts at my blog.
This, in a context where the relevant post contains (a) a slanderous, invidious association with Torquemada, and (b) a false accusation of censorship repeatedly exposed by the fact that LT has continued to post at UD. We hardly need to mention the use of vulgarities [one used to address the undersigned], and the harbouring of equally unacceptably demonising commentary. No claimed apology can be sincere in such a context, sadly. So, it is not a matter of my refusal to accept a genuine apology by LT; i.e. this is yet another slander. Instead, the following is fair comment: as long as he continues to project slanders and false accusations, he continues to do and hope to profit by the wrong that puts him beyond the pale of civility. To return to the pale of civility, he needs to correct this. (And, by glancing at the headings for things he highlights in his blog, he needs to do a major clean-up.) The underlying conclusion, is that we are seeing the consistent use of the trifecta fallacy rhetorical tactic: distract, distort, demonise, to the intent of poisoning and polarising the atmosphere by projecting an unjustified hatefulness unto those of us who think in design and especially theistic and Christian terms. All, as duly counselled by the utterly amoral Saul Alinsky in his agenda to utterly disorganise our civilisaiton, in order to remake it in the service of his atheistical, totalitarian ideology. That insistent sowing of rage that congeals into hate is dangerous and destructive. It is yet another sign of the mortal wounds that rend our civilisation. One hopes for a miracle, but absent such, the wounds, I fear, are mortal. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 24, 2010
December
12
Dec
24
24
2010
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

LT @ 54 Somehow I missed this post. I will reply to this and #86 tomorrow. Good evening.tgpeeler_{December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

F/N: Bits, or binary digits can be seen as cascaded YES/NO decisions. One of them suffices to turn a light switch on or off. 4 will more than suffice to code decimal numbers. Seven or eight, to code English text [16 are used for the universal system]. Active computer memory often has 1 - 2 billion these days. A 500 GB hard drive has 500 billions. Something like an engineered part can be reduced to a specifying wireframe mesh of nodes and arcs, which can be expressed in bits; for serious things, easily in the millions. So, the more bits, the more specific and complex your function. Once function requires complex and specific configurations, that is a signature of intelligence. (One coin, can be in one of 2 configs. 1,000 coins, arbitrrily tossed will on overwhelming likelihood, be in no particular order among the more than 10^301 possible, most likely nearish to a 50-50 heads tails split, as the binomial distribution peaks sharply at that point. All heads, or alternating heads and tails, or spelling out a message in ASCII code, is design, not chance, to moral certainty.)kairosfocus_{December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Pardon a necessary aside: it is a little rich to see the person who without provocation, invidiously and slanderously associated me with Torquemada still trying to accuse me of being "nasty." (And to date he has evidently not retracted such uncivil behaviour. In such a context, "nasty" is unfortunately a very loaded term indeed.) Let us address merits. I have already posted this morning, highlighting how the step by step -- i.e. algorithmic [notice that stop codon and its import for halting] -- process for the protein synthesis uses digitally coded, functionally specific information and associated organised cellular nanomachinery; and this in a context that joins metabolic processes to self-replication. That self-replication facility therefore instantiates a von Neumann self-replicating entity. As also already noted. If LT cannot follow above, perhaps the video of protein synthesis and the associated diagrams here [which was previously linked], in section a, will make things clearer. That the genetic code is a code can be seen here. In life forms, DNA complements run from a bit over 100,000 bases for parasitic cells, to in excess of a billion. The code functions through the work of mRNA, Ribosomes and tRNA [with dozens of helper molecules in the background], is specific -- the assembled protein has to fold to a particular shape and have specific properties and possibly functional groups to work in the cell -- and in aggregate the information runs well past 1,000 bits of storage. The island nature of protein fold domains is sufficient to show the islands of function, and they are deeply isolated in the configuration space specified by strings of the relevant length. Thus, proteins instantiate FSCI, as we have come to abbreviate the special kind of information of interest. Since this is in an origins science context, we are using the same general approach in use since Lyell, Darwin and others: inferring from the present to find the best, empirically warranted explanation of the past. That present for FSCI -- e.g. the text strings for this post -- is that on our universal experience, these are the product of intelligent configuration of contingent elements. The islands of function in seas of non-functional configurations phenomenon, also implies that it is maximally implausible to hit on the shores of such an island by chance, just for the data string. As for the whole complex to put the string to work, it gets even steeper of a challenge. For, just 1,000 bits specifies 1.07*10^301 possible configs. (In principle a given DNA base has 4 possible states and stores up to 2 bits; redundancy in actual strings leads to a lower bit value on average, similar to the non-even pattern of usage of letters in English text.] The significance of 1,000 bits is this: rounding down the Planck time to 10^-45 s as the shortest reasonable time [particle interactions tend to take 10^20 longer than that], and using a gamut of 10^80 atoms and 50 mn times the timeline since the singularity [credible thermodynamic lifespan of the observed cosmos], we are looking at the observable universe being unable to scan as much as 1 in 10^150 of the possible configs of an entity storing just 1,000 bits. Intelligence, using purpose, knowledge and skill, routinely produces functionally specific, information-bearing entities well beyond this threshold. (Posts in this thread are a case in point.) So, regardless of the fact that there's more than one way to skin a cat-fish [design and implementation methods vary considerably and may be unknown in a particular case], we are fully entitled on solid empirical grounds -- the Internet alone now accounts for trillions of observations -- to accept that FSCI is a reliable signature of intelligence. How 'tweredun, and whodunit are interesting but secondary questions, compared to the significance of the first one: that twerdun. And, we should not allow second order questions -- the challenge of detecting the suspect and the challenge of reverse engineering [and I am interested in resilient community construction sets, which approach implementation of a von Neumann self replicator [vNSR]] to rob the first order question of its significance. For, if life is based on FSCI and implements a vNSR, then it credibly was designed. So, given the existing base of empirical evidence and associated results on configuration spaces, unless solid counter-evidence can be provided for observation [not Lewontinian a priori imposition of materialist explanations], we can confidently infer from such phenomena in the cell to design of the cell. On observable empirical evidence that we know provides a reliable signature of design, even when we do not directly see the designers at work or know their methods. This is enough to revolutionise science, and in particular to challenge the a priori imposition of materialism on science. Red herrings on second order questions should not distract us from this first result. And, that has been pointed out to the sort of objectors LT exemplifies, over and over and over again. One gets the distinct impression they are not really listening. And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, if your rhetorical aim is to get to the trifecta's goal of polarising personalities as soon as possible [cf LT's habitual behaviour above and at his own blog], a red herring is a great start. A strawman then makes a handy prop to soak in ad hominems. Add some incendiary rhetoric, and boom, a conflagration is soon blazing and the real issue is forgotten. His insistent behaviour has removed him from the presumption of innocence, so I am entitled to point this out, as a warning. LT should understand that a second order question may distract from the force of the answer to the first order one, but it is an informal fallacy of distraction if so used. And, he should understand that he has a lot to live down, to return to the pale of civility. Good afternoon. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

KF: "But significant problems persist with each of the two competing models that have arisen—usually called “genes first” and “metabolism first”—and neither has emerged as a robust and obvious favorite." so, because the current models have significant problems, your conclusion is that there can't be any alternative models that don't. "your coding facility has to store the information for itself and for the mertabolic facility, and there have to be associated, carefully organised and irreducibly complex machinery. This rapidly takes us well beyond the 1,000 bit FSCI threshold, which is itself based on the observed scope of time and relevant materials available in our observed cosmos." You are still working with the systems that current OOL researchers themselves have identified as unsatisfactory. And you still haven't defined or justified a configuration space.molch_{December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Garbled prose above. Meant to say:
How was intelligence applied and which potential outcomes were suppressed so that the desired outcome could be realized?
And good day to you, too.LarTanner_{December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Post 87,
Given the implied complexity and the fact that even so small a set of digital, coded, functionally specific information as 1,000 bits sits in a configuration space of 2^1,000 ~ 10^301, the whole observed cosmos of ~10^80 atoms across its lifespan and changing state every Planck time could not credibly undergo enough states to sample 1 in 10^150 of that space. That is, a random walk search of that config space rounds down to no search.
I had mentioned in post 60 that the writer's point was eluding me. But I still don't see how this specific item makes a clear point about biological information. Can you please just make this point directly and without being nasty? When you don't spell out your conclusions, other people are forced to guess, and then you yell and scream about straw men. So just make your point.
Now, we can identify that the living cell — even in the simplest observed cases — has in it digitally coded, functionally specific, complex algorithmic information, especially that associated with protein synthesis.
Does this information have a history? Can we look at cells and their parents, grandparents, etc., and trace a history of the information being transferred from one generation to the next? How far back can we go? Can we identify anything or any number of things that may be considered "sources" of this information? I ask this question because post 65 says this:
The aggregate complexity and specific, functional organisation of that system scream design to all but those who are deafened by a priori commitments to denying what would overturn their comfortable, amoral materialism.
Maybe. You might be right about this. To help figure it out, let's look at the definition of design given in the UD glossary (https://uncommondescent.com/glossary/)
Design — purposefully directed contingency. That is, the intelligent, creative manipulation of possible outcomes (and usually of objects, forces, materials, processes and trends) towards goals. (E.g. 1: writing a meaningful sentence or a functional computer program. E.g. 2: loading of a die to produce biased, often advantageous, outcomes. E.g. 3: the creation of a complex object such as a statue, or a stone arrow-head, or a computer, or a pocket knife.)
So, all we need to do is figure out when we think "intelligent, creative manipulation of possible outcomes" were applied to the living cell. When do you think that was? How was it applied and potential outcomes were suppressed so that the desired outcome could be realized?LarTanner_{December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Re LT: But Item C [notice, how he -- tellingly -- consistently does not give the source, in 59 above] doesn’t talk about biological information. this is willfully and demonstrably false, by utterly wrenching out of immediate and utterly clear context. Let us therefore first put the context back in place, from 59 above [cf also correctives to distortions and objections from 63 - 69], so we can see just how horrendously the actual argument has been strawmannised by LT, sadly of a piece with his unfortunate habitual red herring, strawman, and ad hominem tactics as we have seen in recent days (already addressed at 63): _______________ >> a –> The genetic code (yes, CODE, as in, LANGUAGE) based DNA –> mRNA –> Ribosome + tRNAs –> protein chaining process is precisely a case of discrete-state, code-based information system processing, i.e. instantiation not metaphor or analogy. (This, at length, LT had to concede.) b –> Moreover, this digital information system is a key part of a self-replicating entity that also interacts with and acts on its environment, i.e the cell indeed instantiates the generic von Neumann type self-replicator. c –> Given the implied complexity and the fact that even so small a set of digital, coded, functionally specific information as 1,000 bits sits in a configuration space of 2^1,000 ~ 10^301, the whole observed cosmos of ~10^80 atoms across its lifespan and changing state every Planck time could not credibly undergo enough states to sample 1 in 10^150 of that space. That is, a random walk search of that config space rounds down to no search. d –> So, chance, the other source of highly contingent outcomes [natural selection filters simply cut off lower or non-functioning sub populations so, it does not create configurations] is not a credible explanation for such an information system. Intelligence routinely produces objects and systems that exceed this threshold, e.g. this post. e –> Credibly, life is designed. [And by an intelligence, and in a cosmos that sits at a finely and complexly balanced operating point that facilitates such C-chemistry cell based life, i.e the cosmos is also credibly designed. Something very much like God is credible.] >> __________________ LT's rhetoric tries to stand the clear sequence on its head. We did not of course directly observe the origin of biological information in the cell. So, the origin of bio-informaiton is an origins sciecne problem, one to be solved by identifying key patterns and empirically reliable principles in the present then projecting them to the deep past of origins. LT's problem is that when this is done on a sound footing, it does not comport well with his evolutionary materialistic views, so he seeks to divert attention, and ends up creating and knocking over a strawman, based on a red herring. Now, we can identify that the living cell -- even in the simplest observed cases -- has in it digitally coded, functionally specific, complex algorithmic information, especially that associated with protein synthesis. We do know a lot about the source of such information, i.e. that FSCI is in every directly observed case, the product of design. Also, via the fact of high contingency and the issue of finding islands of specific function in large config spaces, the challenge a chance process [the other source of high contingency] will face to get to the shores of an island of function, starting from an arbitrary initial configuration of the relevant elements. And, of course the generally discussed mechanisms for evolutionary development rest on chance variations interacting with environmental culling on differential reproductive success. That is, we have to have a metabolising entity with a self-replicating facility before we can profitably talk about natural selection. But, the problem is precisely to first get to that combination of ability to access energy and materials from the environment and transform them into the machines and energy resources of the living cell (metabolism) and the ability to self-replicate on stored genetic information. No function including metabolism and self-replication, no success at replication, no possibility of descent with modification, through chance variation and natural selection. And, as von Neumann discussed, we may see that such self-replicating functionality requires [cf here, section a for details and links]:
(i) an underlying storable code to record the required information to create not only (a) the primary functional machine [[here, for a "clanking replicator" as illustrated, a Turing-type “universal computer”; in a cell this would be the metabolic entity that transforms environmental materials into required components etc.] but also (b) the self-replicating facility; and, that (c) can express step by step finite procedures for using the facility; (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader [[called “the constructor” by von Neumann] that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions; thus controlling: (iv) position-arm implementing machines with “tool tips” controlled by the tape reader and used to carry out the action-steps for the specified replication (including replication of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that as a part of their function, can provide required specific materials/parts and forms of energy for the replication facility, by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment. Also, parts (ii), (iii) and (iv) are each necessary for and together are jointly sufficient to implement a self-replicating machine with an integral von Neumann universal constructor. That is, we see here an irreducibly complex set of core components that must all be present in a properly organised fashion for a successful self-replicating machine to exist. [[Take just one core part out, and self-replicating functionality ceases: the self-replicating machine is irreducibly complex (IC).] This irreducible complexity is compounded by the requirement (i) for codes, requiring organised symbols and rules to specify both steps to take and formats for storing information, and (v) for appropriate material resources and energy sources. Immediately, we are looking at islands of organised function for both the machinery and the information in the wider sea of possible (but mostly non-functional) configurations. In short, outside such functionally specific -- thus, isolated -- information-rich hot (or, "target") zones, want of correct components and/or of proper organisation and/or co-ordination will block function from emerging or being sustained across time from generation to generation. So, once the set of possible configurations is large enough and the islands of function are credibly sufficiently specific/isolated, it is unreasonable to expect such function to arise from chance, or from chance circumstances driving blind natural forces under the known laws of nature.
The quantity of storage to do that is at least 100 times the 1,000 bit threshold, if observed life is any reasonable indicator. And, observed life is the only control we have on speculation. Going further, to get to the various major body plans from fungi, flies and fish, to trees, turtles, worms and men, increments in DNA on the order of 10's - 1,000's of millions of bits of information are required. In addition, a new body plan has to be feasible from embryological development right through to reproduction. Such islands of function are even more isolated in the space of possible configurations. Body plan level macroevolution cannot get started until we can get to the islands of function. This is a roadblock. One that LT -- not to mention, actually the evolutionary materialistic new magisterium that dominates the study and public presentation of origins science -- has not been able to dismantle. LT's objections are consistently based on distraction, distortion, and demonisation, and fail. Indeed, the consistent resort to such fallacies of atmosphere poisoning shows that the failure on the merits is catastrophic for the evolutionary materialistic view and ideology. No wonder, given the personal and institutional investment in the failed paradigm, we see such uncivil stridency from adherents of evolutionary materialism as the thread above documents. And, we can see that LT has no credibility to address the matters on the merits. He wishes to object, without even first making sure to be fair and accurate in summary in light of substance and context. In addition, repeatedly, he has misunderstood key concepts and failed to grasp basic terms and facts. (His habitual incivility, as already addressed but not retracted or corrected, simply compounds the problem,and starkly reveals the underlying issue: the fallacy of the ideologised, hostile, unfortunately closed mind. Until he sheds the chains of mental slavery and stands up, facing the light that has cast the Plato's Cave artfully constructed and promoted shadow-shows he is mistaking for enlightening reality, he cannot be helped. But, painful as it plainly is to put the finger on the problem, that is the first step to his shedding he chains of such mental slavery in the marterialistic cave of shadow shows in which digital codes [thus, language based on symbols and rules for configuring them], algorithms, programs, data structures and associated implementing machinery can be held to be credibly able to assemble themselves spontaneously out of molecular lucky noise in some warm pond or other, without intelligent guidance. never mind the configuration space challenge that has been repeatedly identified. But, if materialism is question-beggingly imposed a priori, a la Lewontin et al, then this is what MUST have happened, so it is willy nilly held plausible in the teeth of the strongest evidence thast says this is so utterly unlikely that it should not pass the giggle test. Sad, and sadly revealing about the ongoing, accelerating disintegration of our civilisation.) Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 23, 2010
December
12
Dec
23
23
2010
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler (68),
I don’t believe you have. In fact, you couldn’t have gotten it more wrong. The argument is not “I can’t imagine how something this complex could arise by chance and time so it must not have.” The argument is “we ALWAYS find mind behind information in every aspect of life so it bears thinking about that biological information may also be caused by mind.” What, pray tell, is so difficult to comprehend about that?
But Item C doesn't talk about biological information. Please give an example of biological information and identify the mind that causes this information, as well as the mechanism used by the mind to transfer information from the mind into the message, and then from the message to the receiver. Please identify the receiver also. Your comment gets pretty nasty at the end. I'm amused to have you tell me what concepts I deny and which ones I cannot explain. I'm also amused to read you telling me that I've somehow claimed to be able to explain everything. But I look forward to hearing how you have all the answers for those things that matter to human beings, including what matters.LarTanner_{December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: the objections section from p 13 on is interesting. Particularly note those on causality, Q-mech [my own observation is thsat I would make expplicit the presence of necessary causal factors in quantum phenomena, K exemplifies but does not highlight that aspect] and infinite regress. [Note, I have made a different challenge: get to the present from infinity past through discrete steps in a causal chain, i.e the number of sub-worlds is finite if we are here. Koons' point from Leibniz that mere aggregation of the set is itself a contingent fact that has a cause is relevant, but additional, i.e there are two issues for objectors to answer, the second holding even if one can get to the present by finite steps from the infinite past.]kairosfocus_{December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

F/N: Money Quote from Koons, pp. 6 - 7: __________________ >> In his debate with Copleston, Russell insisted that there is a difference between claiming that scientists should always look for a cause and claiming that there is always a cause there to be found. Russell followed Kant's suggestion that the universality of causation be seen as a canon or prescriptive rule for reason, and not as a description of mind-independent reality. The cosmological argument depends on using the principle of universality as a descriptive generalization. I have two principal responses. First, it is hard to see why the abundant success of empirical science in finding causes for contingent facts does not provide overwhelming empirical support for the generalization to all contingent facts. The category of wholly contingent facts is not an unnatural, gerrymandered kind like `grue' or `bleen'. Are we to believe that it is merely a coincidence that time and time again we find causes for contingent facts? Second, the denial of the universality of causation as a descriptive generalization constitutes a very radical form of skepticism. All of our knowledge about the past, in history, law and natural science, depends on our inferring causes of present facts (traces, memories, records). Without the conviction that all (or nearly all) of these have causes, all of our reconstructions of the past (and therefore, nearly all of our knowledge of the present) would be groundless. Moreover, our knowledge of the future and of the probably consequences of our actions depends on the assumption that the relevant future states will not occur uncaused. The price of denying this axiom is very steep: embracing a comprehensive Pyrrhonian skepticism. >> _________________ And of course, resorting instead to selective hyperskepticism in particular cases is a matter of agenda-serving question-begging. So, accept causality, or surrender rationality about the past, decision-making, and science. (For this last, it is commonly said that cause is absent from modern physical thought. As someone who has studied any number of physical EFFECTS, I am astonished to hear such. Effects have causes, by direct implication.) Do we really want to pay that price?kairosfocus_{December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

PS: Onlookers, Please go get a box of matches and do the match experiment: 1: Strike a match, let it burn a bit, then tilt it up so the flame tries to re-burn the burned part. 2: What happens or tends to happen, why? 3: What does this tell us -- empirically and observationally [Hume et al notwithstanding] -- about the reality of necessary causal factors? 4: Similarly, slide a second match slowly over the strike strip. Notice what happens when there is not enough heat. This is a second necessary factor. 5: Get a match book or the like, and a bowl of water. Dip in the match and book, then try to strike under water. What happens or tends to happen? What does that tell us about the importance of air as a causal factor for this sort of fire? 6: Do we now see how necessary factors can be clustered to form a sufficient condition? 7: Think. Can you think of anything that has a beginning and/or that may come to an end that does not have at least one necessary causal factor? Given the concept of necessary causal factors that may be "on"/"off" does this make sense? 8: Does it make sense to view such beings that are subject to necessary causal factors as "contingent" upon them? Why or why not, in light of your match exercise? 9: Did our observed cosmos credibly have a beginning? If so, does it credibly have one or more necessary causal factors? 10: Can that chain go on forever? [To think this through, think about starting at negative infinity, and counting down step by step to the present. Will you ever arrive here, at our zero-point in the present?] 11: Now, look at the inference from contingent being P to necessary being Q, just above. 12: Is it a reasonable view to hold that a contingent cosmos P implies a necessary being Q that is its causal ground? 13: What are the implications of views that reject this? 14: On balance, which sort of view makes best sense? Why? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

VJT: Excellent resources as usual. I loved the Autumn reading thread when it came out. I noted above on the case of a fire, to show that a contingent being is dependent on external necessary causal factors, which is why such a being has a beginning, and why it may come to an end: there is at least one external factor that was not there until the beginning. And should some similar factor be withdrawn, the being will cease. Just like a fire. Credibly, our cosmos is of this order, given the evidence that points so strongly to a beginning, generally dated to 13.7 BYA. So, it has an external cause that has in it at least one necessary factor that was not "on" until the universe came into being. A suggested chain of such causes will terminate, as we cannot successively instantiate an infinite chain of causes, per the absurdities of an attempted infinite succession. So, if we inhabit a contingent world [P], that is because -- full logical sense of necessity -- there is an underlying cause [Q] that is not contingent, i.e is necessary: P => Q. Q being a self-contained being, without external, necessary factors. If a contingent P exists, a necessary Q exists as its root cause. This is reinforced by the if not impossible, then actual principle for Q. There is no internal contradiction in Q as a concept, so Q is actual. The real, serious issue is the nature of Q. A glance at our fine-tuned cosmos sitting at an operating point that enables C-chemistry, cell based life, and it is apparent that Q is intelligent and knowledgeable, also purposeful towards such life. These characteristics point to person. That holds even through a multiverse as such will have to be finely balanced to have a "sub-cosmos bakery" that produces a distribution of sub-cosmi that have in it a range that includes at least one cosmos such as ours. We are back at he point of having good reason to infer to a necessary being who is a powerful, intelligent, purposeful designer and implementer of our world. As we reflect on ourselves as credibly morally governed, that in turn points to Q being an IS who is inherently good as to character so able to ground OUGHT. The conclusion is obvious: Q = God. Not offered as a proof that compels assent of all rational observers, but as the best warranted explanation. And, to reject the explanation P because Q, one has to commit to premises and presuppositions that are sufficiently counter intuitive or even outright absurd, to give pause. (Take a look at Russell's objections, as Koons reports here! rejecting the concept of a universe? Even 60 years ago, that should have given serious pause! Same, for infinite chains of contingent beings! And, for many other skeptical objections. For instance, go take out and strike a match. Watch the fire for a bit, then tilt the match up so the flame tries to re-burn the charred part. It goes out. Why? Be-CAUSE fuel is a necessary factor for a fire. The reality of necessary cause is prior to our conceiving the term or the concept. A fire is a contingent and caused being, with at least one necessary factor so it begins, is sustained and may cease. Can you give one good reason why a cosmos with a beginning does not have a similar necessary causal factor? And so by implication we move from the contingent tot he necessary. LT of course has objected to implication, presumably because he does not like where this one points. He and we routinely hang far more than our hats on the power and reality of implications and causes. In short, the objection is question-beggingly selectively hyperskeptical, is inconsistent with how we must live, and is ideological and tied to the now common dismissal of the three plus one key first principles of right and sound reasoning. [cf slightly updated discussion here.]) And, the credible reality of God is all we need, for millions restify to having met and known him in life transforming ways: in him we live, move and have our being. Through him, we find a transforming breakthrough to our moral and other personal and cultural dilemmas. And if the testimony of these millions is to be dismissed as delusional, starting with their sense of being morally governed, one ends up committing to such a dim view of the mind that the mind is now utterly suspect. Which drastically undercuts the credibility of the thinking of the materialistic skeptics themselves. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

PS: In the nearer term, such explorations should be tied to the sort of resilient communities development initiative that Jakubowski and others are looking into. We need to look at genuinely sustainable and robust development, rethinking industrial civilisation and agriculture. (All we need to do is to keep in mind the prospect of building a town and farms into an asteroid and finding a propulsion system to push it out into the reaches of space.) If we are wise . . .kairosfocus_{December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

LarTanner (#60): I have been following this exchange with interest. The last couple of days have been a little busy for me, but I now have some free time to address your questions on the existence of a Necessary Being. (I'll leave the discussion of the requirements for the first cell to kairosfocus, whose command of the scientific literature on the subject is far better than mine.) Some time ago, I set up a Web page of useful articles for Professor Jerry Coyne - including evidence for the existence of God, for the occurrence of miracles, for the immateriality and immortality of the soul, and for the central doctrines of Christianity. I deliberately picked the best articles available on the Web. The Web page is available online at http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/jerry.html and if you want to understand the argument for a Necessary Being, I suggest you have a look at section 1.2.1, on the modal cosmological argument. I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the arguments developed by Dr. Robert Koons. Section 1.2.4 deals with the fine-tuning argument in depth, and 1.2.5 has a long list of articles relating to Intelligent Design. If you're wondering why we should believe that a Necessary Being is personal, I suggest you have a look at section 3.1. As regards the Necessary Being, here's something you might want to keep in mind. When I was reading Germain Grisez's book Beyond the New Theism (1974), I was struck by Grisez's use of a rationality norm: one should always ask a question, unless there is a good reason not to ask it. There is no good reason why we should not ask: what explains the cosmos? In every conceivable way, it is totally contingent. Whether we look at each entity within it, or consider it as a whole, it remains utterly contingent. It's not a good place to stop in a demand for explanations. What would be? Well, obviously, something outside space and time. Anything in space and time, or for that matter, anything capable of coming into existence or going out of existence, is not a being which obviously requires no explanation. It still seems reasonable to ask of a being that can go out of existence: what explains its existence? Ditto for any being with specific attributes (e.g. this size or this color), especially quantitative ones. The universe, however, has such attributes. Thus it is reasonable to look beyond it to a Transcendent Cause beyond space and time, for an explanation of its existence. As to why this explanation should be a personal Being, I'll have to recommend the articles on my Web page (section 3.1). That's all for now.vjtorley_{December 22, 2010
December
12
Dec
22
22
2010
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT}

Ms Molch: Did you read through my linked on OOL? (Pardon my directness, but it does not seem so from your remarks. As, you would have seen inter alia the discussion of M. pneumoniae, which was a recent great hope for a pointer to the imagined "simple" primitive cell, again disappointed. If you have not done that bit of basic homework, you are in no position to fairly project unto me the notion that I have not thought about or addressed the issue of requisites for original life. If you have read, then on fair comment you are guilty of willful, irresponsible and unfair strawmannish misrepresentation.) A glance at the linked will show that while I have discussed various ideas about origin of life and characteristics of life, I zeroed in on two key linked characteristics that even minimal cell based life would have to have: [a] metabolism and [b] self-replication on some form of genetic code. Surely, you are familiar withthe dominant two schools of thought on OOL, metabolism first [Shapiro], and Genes/RNA first [Orgel]? Did you see my excerpted exchange between the two and the resulting mutual destruction of the main schools of thought, leading to the conundrum highlighted by science writer Robinson:
. . Scientists have come a long way from the early days of supposing that all this would inevitably arise in the “prebiotic soup” of the ancient oceans; indeed, evidence eventually argued against such a soup, and the concept was largely discarded as the field progressed. But significant problems persist with each of the two competing models that have arisen—usually called “genes first” and “metabolism first”—and neither has emerged as a robust and obvious favorite. [["Jump-Starting a Cellular World: Investigating the Origin of Life, from Soup to Networks."
In short, you have set up and knocked over a strawman. Let us turn instead to look at he two halves of the key point. Metabolism, to take in and process energy and materials form the environment to make working components and the energy to carry out the work. Self-replication, to reproduce. And, potentially, per the theory of evolution, to vary, to compete for niches and so to have that descent with modification via differential reproductive success that is the touch-stone of the theory of evolution. But, to have metabolism joined to a self-replicating, code based facility, i.e to be relevant to life as we observe it -- i.e. provide observation of another form of life and of how it could have given rise to the cells we see or you are posing empty speculation under false colours of science -- we are dealing with the requisites of a von Neumann self-replicator. Indeed, when this was proposed in the late 1940's it predicted the role for DNA. And, once we see the [in fact, logical as well as empirical] need for these two linked capacities, your dismissal attempt collapses. For, your coding facility has to store the information for itself and for the mertabolic facility, and there have to be associated, carefully organised and irreducibly complex machinery. This rapidly takes us well beyond the 1,000 bit FSCI threshold, which is itself based on the observed scope of time and relevant materials available in our observed cosmos. (In fact, it is generous, as by far and away most materials are in H and He, or are in non-habitable zones.) As I summarised in the linked: ________________ >> Now, following von Neumann generally (and as previously noted), such a machine uses . . . (i) an underlying storable code to record the required information to create not only (a) the primary functional machine [added: in the cell, the metabolic entity, in the "clanking replicator" as illustrated a universal computer that covers comparable ground] but also (b) the self-replicating facility; and, that (c) can express step by step finite procedures for using the facility; (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader [[called “the constructor” by von Neumann] that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions; thus controlling: (iv) position-arm implementing machines with “tool tips” controlled by the tape reader and used to carry out the action-steps for the specified replication (including replication of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that as a part of their function, can provide required specific materials/parts and forms of energy for the replication facility, by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment. Also, parts (ii), (iii) and (iv) are each necessary for and together are jointly sufficient to implement a self-replicating machine with an integral von Neumann universal constructor. That is, we see here an irreducibly complex set of core components that must all be present in a properly organised fashion for a successful self-replicating machine to exist. [[Take just one core part out, and self-replicating functionality ceases: the self-replicating machine is irreducibly complex (IC).] This irreducible complexity is compounded by the requirement (i) for codes, requiring organised symbols and rules to specify both steps to take and formats for storing information, and (v) for appropriate material resources and energy sources. Immediately, we are looking at islands of organised function for both the machinery and the information in the wider sea of possible (but mostly non-functional) configurations. In short, outside such functionally specific -- thus, isolated -- information-rich hot (or, "target") zones, want of correct components and/or of proper organisation and/or co-ordination will block function from emerging or being sustained across time from generation to generation. So, once the set of possible configurations is large enough and the islands of function are credibly sufficiently specific/isolated, it is unreasonable to expect such function to arise from chance, or from chance circumstances driving blind natural forces under the known laws of nature. >> ___________________ The involved process logic of metabolism joined to self-replication through step by step information based procedures leads to these factors and constraints, not mere dismissive personal incredulity or the like. [BTW, add a few trillion dollars and about 100 years of research, and we are looking at a preview of the machinery for galaxy exploration and colonisation ships, probably based on exploiting the resources of our local asteroid belt. That is my other angle on all this stuff: how do we begin to prepare for the breakout from the Sol system?] That logic is supported by the observed -- and remember, this is a successful prediction by von Neumann here [a sort of proto success of design theory BTW] -- systems of cell based life as confirmed over the past 60 years. So, if you want to speculate over non-observed life, let us recognise that for speculative science fiction, and let us insist instead on empirical support relevant to life as we see it or as we can empirically support. Speculative computer simulations do not count, as they are not only designed from top to bottom, but they are not constrained by the inconvenient statistical thermodynamic [isolated islands of organised function] realities of warm little ponds or undersea vents or cometary dirty snowballs etc. Or as TGP put it -- thanks for watching my 6 again -- in his response:
Kuppers says in “Information and the Origin of Life” that “The question of the origin of life is thus equivalent to the question of the origin of biological information.” So molch, all you need do is show how information can be created apart from language, free will, rationality, intentionality, and mind. Oh, and only using the laws of physics.
Going beyond that, a similar challenge arises to try to explain body plan level biodiversity. Leading to a very similar conclusion. On the evidence of metabolising, self-replicating cells as the foundation of observed life on earth, I have excellent reason to see FSCI through and through, and to infer that since it is an empirically reliable signature of intelligently directed configuration, aka design, then life and its major body plans are designed. As a scientific, inductively anchored, inference to best explanation view. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

Clive: "What already exists as life is a good starting point." sure, but where do you go from there when researching into life forms that obviously do no longer exist? Fortunately most scientists disagree with you that research efforts into topics like what kind of life might be possible, and what life might have looked like on the young earth, are "phantasies"; Maybe they will be successful, maybe they will not. But it sure would be a bummer if the people that suspected the existence of microbes would have listened to those that called them crazy;molch_{December 21, 2010
December
12
Dec
21
21
2010
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply