Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Sci-News: Moths Produce Ultrasonic Defensive Sounds to Fend Off Bat Predators

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scientists from Boise State University and elsewhere have tested 252 genera from most families of large-bodied moths. Their results show that ultrasound-producing moths are far more widespread than previously thought, adding three new sound-producing organs, eight new subfamilies and potentially thousands of species to the roster.

A molecular phylogeny of Lepidoptera indicating antipredator ultrasound production across the order. Image credit: Barber et al., doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117485119.

Bats pierce the shadows with ultrasonic pulses that enable them to construct an auditory map of their surroundings, which is bad news for moths, one of their favorite foods.

However, not all moths are defenseless prey. Some emit ultrasonic signals of their own that startle bats into breaking off pursuit.

Many moths that contain bitter toxins avoid capture altogether by producing distinct ultrasounds that alert bats to their foul taste. Others conceal themselves in a shroud of sonar-jamming static that makes them hard to find with bat echolocation.

While effective, these types of auditory defense mechanisms in moths are considered relatively rare, known only in tiger moths, hawk moths and a single species of geometrid moth.

“It’s not just tiger moths and hawk moths that are doing this,” said Dr. Akito Kawahara, a researcher at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

“There are tons of moths that create ultrasonic sounds, and we hardly know anything about them.”

In the same way that non-toxic butterflies mimic the colors and wing patterns of less savory species, moths that lack the benefit of built-in toxins can copy the pitch and timbre of genuinely unappetizing relatives.

These ultrasonic warning systems seem so useful for evading bats that they’ve evolved independently in moths on multiple separate occasions.

In each case, moths transformed a different part of their bodies into finely tuned organic instruments.

[I’ve put these quotes from the article in bold to highlight the juxtaposition of “evolved independently” and “finely tuned organic instruments.” Fine-tuning is, of course, often associated with intelligent design, rather than unguided natural processes.]

See the full article in Sci-News.

Comments
ET: There isn’t any physical nor chemical interactions that determined the error detection that ribosomes have. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.200900647 Correction of Errors during Protein Synthesis by Mathias Sprinzi
Quality control: The incorporation of a wrong amino acid into a growing polypeptide chain induces a correction step in which the release factor (RF1) hydrolyzes the peptide from the incorrectly matched peptidyl-tRNA (see picture). The nascent erroneous polypeptide is released from the ribosome and degraded.
Sadly only the abstract is available. But clearly at least some of the chemistry is known.JVL
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
And what do you know about how “error detection” works with regard to ribosomes?
I know that error detection requires knowledge. Which is clearly more than you know about it.ET
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
ET
There isn’t any physical nor chemical interactions that determined the error detection that ribosomes have.
And what do you know about how "error detection" works with regard to ribosomes?Alan Fox
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Alan Fox is clueless:
Science can stand on its own merits as it is repeatable and testable.
Your position doesn't have that, though! No one can test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced the genetic code or any bacterial flagellum, for example. Alan Fox is clearly a hypocrite and scientifically illiterate fraud.ET
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
@ LCD ? ;)Alan Fox
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Science is not about proof, but science is OK if something is proved. Alan Fox:
Nonsense, it’s physical and chemical interactions at every point.
Nonsense. There isn't any physical nor chemical interactions that determined what mRNA codon represents which amino acid. There isn't any physical nor chemical interactions that determined the error detection that ribosomes have.ET
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
@KF : It's too painful for AF to accept the reality. Somehow I understand him because he is 80-90 years old and that would be a fundamental change in his worldview .That imply to break down his old worldview and to rebuild the new one and at his age to do that is hell but is better than end in eternal one. Free choice is a reality . Focus shifted from Biology to Climate alarmism because the gig is up with "darwinism" but what happens with people brainwashed with darwinism for years and years ? The brain can't shift on the spot after was fed with darwinism for many years. They can't shift like changing the channel on tv in 1 sec .So they choose to deny the evidences (because is easier) than change their entire worldview(painful and time consumption)Lieutenant Commander Data
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
KF getting Wikipedia to confess:
During transcription, a section of DNA encoding a protein, known as a gene, is converted into a template molecule called messenger RNA.
:) :) :)Alan Fox
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
AF, the ribosome assembles AA chains in accord with an algorithm as a key part of protein synthesis.
Nonsense, it's physical and chemical interactions at every point. What's wrong with ID proponents and their computer-morphisms? Remind me, you trained as some sort of engineer, I'm guessing.
That is proved
Nonsense! Science does not deal in proof.
Nobel Prize winning fact
The only facts that pertain to Nobel prizes are that the Nobel Committee awards them and give their reasons for doing so. Absolutely irrelevant to whether the science is sound. Science can stand on its own merits as it is repeatable and testable.
...not analogy.
Yes, analogy and a poor one.
And you know it.
You are very fond of this verbal tic. Why you think it adds anything to your comments, I have no idea.Alan Fox
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
AF, the ribosome assembles AA chains in accord with an algorithm as a key part of protein synthesis. That is proved, Nobel Prize winning fact, not analogy. And you know it. KF PS, Wikipedia confesses:
Protein synthesis can be divided broadly into two phases - transcription and translation. During transcription, a section of DNA encoding a protein, known as a gene, is converted into a template molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA). [--> actually, a string data structure used bby a train of loaded tRNAs to assemble the AA chain per the genetic CODE] This conversion is carried out by enzymes, known as RNA polymerases, in the nucleus of the cell.[2] In eukaryotes, this mRNA is initially produced in a premature form (pre-mRNA) which undergoes post-transcriptional modifications to produce mature mRNA. [--> editing . . . !] The mature mRNA is exported from the cell nucleus via nuclear pores to the cytoplasm of the cell for translation to occur. During translation, the mRNA is read by ribosomes which use the nucleotide sequence of the mRNA to determine the sequence of amino acids. [--> algorithm] The ribosomes catalyze the formation of covalent peptide bonds between the encoded amino acids to form a polypeptide chain. Following translation the polypeptide chain must fold to form a functional [--> that "dirty" word . . .!] protein; for example, to function as an enzyme the polypeptide chain must fold correctly to produce a functional active site. In order to adopt a functional three-dimensional (3D) shape, the polypeptide chain must first form a series of smaller underlying structures called secondary structures. The polypeptide chain in these secondary structures then folds to produce the overall 3D tertiary structure. Once correctly folded, the protein can undergo further maturation through different post-translational modifications. Post-translational modifications can alter the protein's ability to function, where it is located within the cell (e.g. cytoplasm or nucleus) and the protein's ability to interact with other proteins.[3] Protein biosynthesis has a key role in disease as changes and errors in this process, through underlying DNA mutations or protein misfolding, are often the underlying causes of a disease. DNA mutations change the subsequent mRNA sequence, which then alters the mRNA encoded amino acid sequence. Mutations can cause the polypeptide chain to be shorter by generating a stop sequence which causes early termination of translation. Alternatively, a mutation in the mRNA sequence changes the specific amino acid encoded at that position in the polypeptide chain. This amino acid change can impact the protein's ability to function or to fold correctly.[4] Misfolded proteins are often implicated in disease as improperly folded proteins have a tendency to stick together to form dense protein clumps. These clumps are linked to a range of diseases, often neurological, including Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.[5]
Bonus, it confesses on what mutations typically do. Damage leading to diseases.kairosfocus
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Jerry:
Since you have programmed, the code is CSI and specifies instructions to the computer that it reads and then does some operation that produces a completely separate result/output.
But isn't that process strictly deterministic, just like attempts to quantify "CSI"?
Similarly much DNA causes a protein to be made through a complicated process called transcription and translation.
Much? Not in humans, unless you are calling 2% "much".
It almost entirely analogous to a computer program since there are physical structures inside the cell that reads the transcription of the DNA that then produce a completely different output, called a protein.
Ribosomes, Jerry. The amazing fact about ribosomes is there catalytic ability is centred on RNA as the active site, not protein. Ribosomes are ribozymes. And not really analogous to how computers work. There needs to be an analogous word to anthropomorphism for the "it's like a computer" fallacy.
The takeaway is that anything that is CSI in our universe has only been produced by a human.
Really? Doesn't that suggest it is a bogus concept that can't be consistently defined, let alone quantified.
There are no examples of anything in the purely material world that is CSI.
As always, we end in agreement. ;)Alan Fox
August 19, 2022
August
08
Aug
19
19
2022
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
PPPS, we can observe text in the cell, in D/RNA, expressing for starters, the genetic code used to make proteins. Occasionally, there are mutations and such blind, random changes may make a difference for good or bad. The sickle cell trait protects against malaria, but full sickle cell condition tends to be fatal by about age 30 as I recall and observed . . . I lost two friends to it. Some propose that a small fraction of mutations are beneficial and give rise to advantages that make sub populations survive and reproduce better, leading to changes of population. Galapagos finches are a classic study, though in the '80's it was discoverded that different species were interfertile. Some propose, this leads to unlimited cumulative modification across the diverse body plans of life forms often shown as a tree of life. Search is a metaphorical description of the variation. Notice, the chance variation is the source of change to information, differential reproductive success is about culling. Those changes can be described as a search. As you see above, the key issue is that complex function based on configuration tends to come in "islands" in the space of possibilities separated by spans of non functional gibberish. Notice, how we fear radiation as it fosters mutation, indicating how heavily the odds point to deteriorated or lost function. KFkairosfocus
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
PPS, do these contrasting cases from Thaxton et al, The Mystery of Life's Origin, help clarify?
We may therefore contrast three sets of letters that show the distinction among three classes of linearly ordered digital sequences, by way of illustrative example (one paralleled by Peterson as cited above): 1. [Class 1:] An ordered (periodic) and therefore specified arrangement: THE END THE END THE END THE END Example: Nylon, 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. Such a linear spatial pattern makes the case in a very simple, effective and relevant way, as DNA and proteins as initially formed are precisely such linear discrete-state chains of information-bearing elements, typically 300 monomers long -- requiring 900 DNA base pairs, which can store 1,800 bits of information. And, we observe that sufficiently long class-three strings of letters are invariably the product of intelligent agents. (Thus, we see again the point that the inference to design on observing such a pattern is based on a great deal of empirically based knowledge about the sources of such phenomena.)
kairosfocus
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
FG, WLOG is as you said. AutoCAD of course provides DWG files that specify engineering drawings, through bit strings and shows how a description language can specify complex functional entities. Note, bit strings, so focussing on strings is without loss of generality. Orgel and Wicken described functionally specific, complex, information rich organisation, I just summarised and abbreviated. Complex Specified information as defined by Dembski is a superset, where specification needs not be functionally defined. A string of n bits runs through a span from 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1, think about counting up one by one, and there are 2 x 2 x 2 . . . x 2, n times or 2^n possibilities, forming a configuration space. The binomial theorem allows us to expand the number of ways for each case from 0 ones to all ones and is a sharp bell shaped curve peaking at 50-50. For 500 bits, 2^500 possible configurations, so much that 10^88 possible searches on our sol system are about 3 in 10^-63 of the space. Negligible search, blind search is utterly unlikely to find special, functional configurations. Starting with origin of life. The Sol system is our effective universe for atomic interactions. For the cosmos as a whole go to 1,000 bits and the needle in haystack blind search gets much worse. Of course we have seen trillions of cases of FSCO/I, and reliably, it is by design. KF PS, this may help https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/kairosfocus
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
I’m hope though that it would be possible to get a basic grasp of CSI
You are overthinking this. It’s very simple. Just use CSI and forget about any other terms. It’s all the same. They just get in the way of understanding. See above https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-sci-news-moths-produce-ultrasonic-defensive-sounds-to-fend-off-bat-predators/#comment-763334 Since you have programmed, the code is CSI and specifies instructions to the computer that it reads and then does some operation that produces a completely separate result/output. Similarly much DNA causes a protein to be made through a complicated process called transcription and translation. It almost entirely analogous to a computer program since there are physical structures inside the cell that reads the transcription of the DNA that then produce a completely different output, called a protein. The takeaway is that anything that is CSI in our universe has only been produced by a human. There are no examples of anything in the purely material world that is CSI. So when CSI shows up in biology, how did it happen? Since no natural process has ever done it, the origin is most likely due to some intelligence. Hence Intelligent Design. (ID) ID is open to any natural explanation but so far none have appeared. Because of probabilistic issues, it is beyond what nature can likely do.jerry
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
KF @ 625: Thanks for the reply. I've done a bit of programming in my time so I can relate to the example you give of composing text. I vaguely remember Binomial Theory from school but it would take me a while to get back to that again. Not sure what WLOG is (tried to look it up - without loss of generality?) and I don't understand the significance of Autocad and descriptive language because I only just barely know what Autocad is. A lot of the rest of the post is honestly waaay above my head and there are a lot of terms and concepts that aren't familiar to me. But I'm hope though that it would be possible to get a basic grasp of CSI and/or FSCO/I without an advanced degree in mathematics, so I will keep trying. Or is that not really possible? What I am now trying to visualize is to take the composing text example and translate it to the natural world. The text example is easy because I could even imagine how to program something like that, but in the chemical/biological world, how do molecules, proteins, or even atoms, do a "search"? How do they know what the configuration space is (I assume configuration space is the term for a possible search space?) And as AF has pointed out, how would natural selection play into all of that because obviously in the real world, it isn't entirely random?Fordgreen
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
AF at 629, Baloney. It's not goal oriented. Random randomness.relatd
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
AF, the usual talk point is that the selection part makes evolution non random. This has come up ever so many times and is yet another strawman caricature of the actual challenge. First, let us start with a going concern organism, much as Darwin did. We see, for chance variation [CV], differential reproductive success [DRS], descent with modification [DWM] : CV + DRS --> DWM -- Eq 1 How does this get to a branching tree of life across dozens of major body plan? By an implicit modification: descent with UNLIMITED modification, DWUM, leading to branching tree macroevolution [BTME] CV + DRS --> DWUM --> BTME -- Eq 2 But a question has been begged, incremental variation across a continent of function, when the evidence is that FSCO/I will come in discrete islands separated by seas of nonfunction. This is equivalent to the question of arriving at a beach-head of function and doing so dozens of times. For relevant evidence start with what 6,000 protein fold domains, scattered in AA sequence space, many of them singletons, with no viable path between. Proceed to the variety of reproductive systems, blend in the variety of sex determination systems, etc. This builds on the logic of function coming from correct, matched multiple parts properly arranged, fitting and coupled to achieve function. And no, this is not mere assumption. That is already a killer backed by the systematic gaps between body plans in the fossil record, start with the Cambrian fossil revolution. However, a bigger yet question is begged, getting to the first cell based life. The gap between a darwin pond or the like and a functional cell is the biggest gap of all. Where though you will deny, sidestep and obfuscate, we see coded algorithms so language and goal directed procedure. Strong signs of design. Coming back, there is a further issue with the eqn, DRS CULLS, it does not create fresh bioinformation. The only engine of information is CV, chance variation. Where in seas between islands of function, there is no success to filter off poorer performing variants, all are non functional. There is no upslope warmer/colder message to push uphill. The dominant challenge is to cross seas of nonfunction, and there is no good mechanism to do that. First life needs a genome 100 - 1 mn bases and dozens of body plans need 10 - 100+ mn bases, dozens of times over. Hill climbing within an island of function cannot bridge seas of non function. So, expect this to be denied and dismissed. But note, there will be no substantial reason for that. KFkairosfocus
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
There are only 2 options : 1.random or 2.designed there isn't the third option. If is random is not designed if is designed is not random. If there is a function then it is not random if it is random is not a function. Functions exist ,therefore...I rest my case.Lieutenant Commander Data
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Alan Fox still doesn't understand what natural selection is! Natural selection is a process of elimination (Mayr). Natural selection is non-random in that not all variants have the same odds of being eliminated. It is nothing more than contingent serendipity. No one has ever demonstrated that natural selection can do anything beyond changing allele frequencies, over time, within populations. And because Alan doesn't understand natural selection, he continues to misrepresent it.ET
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
natural selection, that allows for the accumulation of small changes over time
True. But also true is that this process has never produced anything but trivial changes and is no source of anything substantial. When I said this is much ado about nothing, one of the nothings is natural selection. This commenter constantly produces nothing but irrelevant assertions. There is no evidence that can be produced despite tens of thousands of PhDs who call themselves evolutionary biologists. He is a supporter of ID but does so by exposing how vacuous any objections to it are by his inability to make a comment of any consequence. He’s here solely to provide nonsense which he does very well. Where does Barry find such people? On the other hand, the very simple idea of CSI exposes the farce that natural selection is a meaningful mechanism for anything substantive. This discussion should have been over in 10 comments. But obfuscation is the objective from both sides not clarity.jerry
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
Fordgreen:
And I’m correct in understanding the design is beyond the probabilities that could have happened through nature or randomly.
No, you are only half correct. The assumption both by Dembski and Kairosfocus is that nature is random. This is not correct. There is a non-random element, generally referred to as natural selection, that allows for the accumulation of small changes over time. The claim that natural processes are just random is incorrect.Alan Fox
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
There is nothing more funny than trying to deny the primacy of intelligence using intelligence. Using intelligence as an absolute judge to declare matter as absolute( because matter is considered by materialists the origin and source of intelligence). The concept of materialism is self-defeated because declare that something inferior(matter) can produce something superior(intelligence) by chance. Chance produce (a mind that have) a goal with a sleight of hand . Pure magic.Lieutenant Commander Data
August 18, 2022
August
08
Aug
18
18
2022
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
Much ado about nothing. Pretty accurate assessment from Jerry. ;)Alan Fox
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
JVL, 598, every objecting comment you make is an example of intelligently directed configuration, generally well beyond the 500 - 1,000 bit threshold. And, it is quite repeatable to produce meaningful text strings beyond threshold, by art and they can be tested, just look at your own comments above. The objecting challenge literally answered itself. There is no responsible doubt that intelligence is possible and that it may produce artifacts reflecting signs of intelligence acting through art not plausibly traceable to blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Text strings are a beginning, we live in a world of ART-ifacts. As opposed to what archaeologists call natural. The forensics people agree, and more. Plato was right 2360 years ago in The Laws Bk X. KFkairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
FG, start with a string of elements *-*- . . . *. Let each be binary, 1/0. For n elements there are 2^n possibilities, 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1. For 500, 2^500 = 3.27*10^150, for 1,000, 1.07*10^301. Every possible bit string of that length is in there. Binomial theorem, the 1-0 proportion runs like a sharp bell, cf actual experiment with 10^4 "coins" here. This includes ascii code for every possible string of relevant length in English. This ios WLOG as a description language such as AutoCAD can reduce any functional arrangement to suitable strings and binary strings can code for any alphanumeric character. One would imagine, one can make a program to compose text by blindly searching the space of possible configurations, using chance and/or necessity. Not so, given only 10^57 atoms in the Sol system and 10^80 in the observed cosmos, 10^-14s for a search operation with each atom observing 500 or 1,000 coins respectively for 10^17 s since bang. 10^88 is negligible relative to 10^150 and 10^111 relative to 10^301. Such boils down to negligible search utterly unlikely to find any functional string. Hence, Infinite Monkeys Theorem. Overwhelmingly, most configs are near 50-50, in no particularly meaningful or functional order, plausibly random gibberish, leading to deeply isolated islands of function dusted through the [virtual] space of possibilities. The ultimate needle in haystack blind search. An imagery is, we conceive of beaches of function rising to peaks inland on those islands, the challenge is to reach a beach, within the island increments may work to hill climb but first you have to find the island through seas of gibberish. Islands as multiple parts that must be oriented, sized, organised and coupled just so, often with key-lock fit needed, as requisites of function. Ask why there are auto parts shops. Intelligence plans and organises then effects functional combinations starting with comments in this thread. So, we see blind search challenge vs intelligent action, and how observed FSCO/I of sufficient complexity [beyond 500 - 1,000] bits is observably a highly reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration. KF PS, see earlier discussion and examples here: https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/times-arrow-the-design-inference-on-fsco-i-and-the-one-root-of-a-complex-world-order-being-logic-first-principles-25/ PPS, configuration or state spaces are cut down versions of phase spaces used in Physics. Notice the following from Walker and Davies:
In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).
[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]
Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]
more on the anthropic principle from Lewis and Barnes https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hitchhikers-guide-authors-puddle-argument-against-fine-tuning-and-a-response/#comment-729507kairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Jerry, the O has to do with Wicken Wiring Diagrams with information implicit in the organisation of parts. KFkairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
KF: FG, I would use plausibility given blind search challenge, more generic than trying to define and calculate per particular models and distributions that will lead to endless debates. Not sure I understand, what do you mean by a "blind search challenge"? In reading these threads, I see a lot of references to search space, but have never really understood it. What is searching for what and how? By plausibility do you simply mean if something looks designed than it probably is? Am I correct in thinking then you don't see much value in even trying to do some of the CSI/FSCO type calculations but prefer to rely on identification of "function"?Fordgreen
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
PS: Orgel
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 . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
[--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, -- here and -- here -- (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]
One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [--> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]
Wicken
‘Organized’systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions and/or repetitive stepwise procedures] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [ --> originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
The source for the abbreviation FSCO/I should be obvious. Others speak of functional sequence complexity and Dembski as already cited talks to biology cashing out specification as function. My favourite example is a fishing reel exploded view. Simpler than a watch. And of course the von Neumann kinematic self replicator highlights that self replication greatly increases complexity . . . shutting the door to one of the rhetorical talk points that may come up. You should see what Paley had to say in Ch 2 of his book!kairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
FG, I would use plausibility given blind search challenge, more generic than trying to define and calculate per particular models and distributions that will lead to endless debates. Function, based on correct parts, properly oriented, organised and coupled together is observed. Text of your comment is a case in point. FSCO/I is a subset, actually CSI is a superset building on Orgel and Wicken. Functional information, of course is the stuff of the information age and is embedded in blueprints, process flow networks etc. KFkairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 23

Leave a Reply