| Uncommon Descent

_{Robert Sheldon

September 24, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Hidden Light The Fibonacci post has generated a longer comment thread than anything else I’ve written. I was just digging a little dirt and must have hit a power line. The question I tried to address, was “is there any physics in Fibonacci, or is it just a mathematician’s curiosity?”

Here’s the physics that came back:

a) AJ Meyer has looked at the galactic rotation curves, and pointed out that “rigid-body” rotation which is observed, can be obtained by having a mass which increases with radius. Now since we can look at galaxies from the side, and they don’t get thicker with radius, it would seem that this increase in mass must be due to something else. Gallo argues that it could be dust, or non-glowing “dark” matter. Meyer argues that a logarithmic spiral distribution, like the arms of spiral galaxies, would contribute more mass at larger radii, exactly as required to match the rotation curves. In other words, there is no “missing matter” in spiral galaxies, but precisely the rotation curve for being a spiral galaxy. Of course, Meyer has no explanation for why the stars are arranged in Fibonacci spirals.

Comments

Gpuccio #159 For the nth time it is circular :=) The catch in your procedure is the condition c) Whose complexity is higher than 150 bits for a given string you determine this by: c) If we know, at least approximately, both the search space and the target space, it is easy to compute the functional complexity for a function I thought that complexity in ID speak meant the probability of arising through necessity or chance was incredibly small? This does not follow from this calculation at all. You have to also assume there is no known non-design cause which would lead you to the target in the search space. However, instead of trying to show where your logic is wrong I thought I would take a moore positive approach. I am sorry it is so very long. This a shortened version. A fuller version is on my blog. First a clarification. The argument "I cannot see how this can have arisen through necessity or chance therefore it must have been designed" is not circular. It is a lousy argument, but it is not circular and it not the one I am picking on. The argument I find circular is: "All objects except biological ones with dFSCI are known to be designed. Therefore, biological objects with dFSCI are almost certainly designed." First my summary of your argument. I hope this demonstrates I understand your argument. I am sure you will tell me if you disagree [start summary]] You classify the world into outcomes which exhibit dFSCI and those which do not. Also the world includes outcomes which fall into three groups: (A) we known them to be designed (because we observed humans design them or have reliable reports of humans designing them) e.g. Brooklyn Bridge (B) we known not to be designed (because we know how they were produced) e.g. the pattern of iron filings on a magnetic field (C) we do not know for sure whether they are designed or not because we do not know how they were produced (which includes aspects of life such as proteins, but also such things as old marks on rocks). You argue there is a correlation between dFSCI and group A. So if dFSCI is present in outcomes in group C we can conclude that they also are designed. [end summary] Now look at each of the defining characteristics of dFSCI and see to what extent it correlates with groups A and B. Is any charactistic rarely absent or rarely present in either group? I think you will find that, with two exceptions, they are all often present and often absent in both groups. (I expand on this in my blog). The exceptions are 4) Complexity is greater than 150 bits and 5) No explanatory necessity mechanism is know I will combine those as "there is no known plausible non-design mechanism". I hope that makes sense? Here at last we have something which is not found in one of the groups and might act as an indicator of design. Group A includes things for which this feature is present as well as things for which it is absent. We often make things that could have plausibly been produced without intervention. But group B - stuff we know is not designed - always has a known plausible non-design mechanism. But hang on - how did we select stuff to be in group B? Because we knew it was produced by a plausible non-design mechanism! i.e. group B lacks the key feature "no known plausible non-design mechanism" by definition. Here lies the key circularity. Now there is a further possibility. Maybe what you are saying is that often things in group C have the feature “no apparent non-design cause” and then it turns out later that they were designed. This would be legitimate and non-circular. Unfortunately it is not true. History is stuffed with things for which there was no apparent non-design cause which later turned out to have a natural cause. Well that was very long. If nothing else I hope I have shown that the concept of dFSCI is far from straightforward. And I haven't got into the complexities arising from defining the function specification.markf_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Mark: what are you saying? The type of oxygen binding in hemoglobin is very specific, has very strict biochemical properties, and cannot be achieved by a simple proteins molecule. There is no simple necessity algorithm which produces that kind of molecule. You need a very specific sequence, with a specific fold and interaction with the heme group. In the case of hemoglobin (but not myoglobin) also a quaternary structure which defines very useful dynamic properties of progressive oxygen binding. In the case of the magnet, you just need a magnet. In what sense do you believe that the properties of hemoglobin are "simple"? By the way, I had already said all that in my post #123: "That’s why, in your example, I would definitely choose the answer: a) attach an oxygen atom which is the biochemical function of the protein itself, but adding some better description of the properties necessary for that function to be biochemically useful for the higher level necessioties of the system: the oxygen atom must be bound with a reversible link, in different conditions of pH and so on. That remanisn a definition of the biochemical function of the single protein, but it describes better what is required of the protein in a larger system."gpuccio_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

#160, #161 Now I am seriously confused. I thought "carries an oxygen atom" was an example of a specification. Certain configurations of protein happen to do this but actual functional specification they meet is simply "carries an oxygen atom". This would appear to be simple - just as it is quite simple to specify the pattern which the iron filings must conform to.markf_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Mark: Uhm. First I heard of this. The specification also has to be unlikely to arise through chance or necessity? No, again you equivocate. What is required is that the complexity must be necessary for the specification to be there. IOWs, we have to compute the minimal complexity which gives that specification. That's why we consider the rate between functional space and search space as complexity, and not just the search space. For instance, in a protein some AAs can be indifferently any of the 20 available, and the function does not change. Others can vary only in a restricted range of possibilities. Others can have only one value. The Durston method deals very elegantly with that, through the application of Shannon's H to the single aminoacidic positions. So, what SCheesman was saying is very simply that in your example of the magnet, no complexity is necessary to specify the resulting pattern: the simple necessity mechanisms connected with the electromagnetic field and its laws are enough. Any further complexity given by random variables does not contribute to the pattern: the magnetic field can work on any set of random variables, giving as a result the same pattern. The random variability is one thing, and the necessity pattern is another. The random vairability is complex, but in itself has no connection with the regular pattern. On the contrary, the necessity mechanism is simple, and it determines the pattern, except for the non regular part which is due to the random variability.gpuccio_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

markf
Uhm. First I heard of this. The specification also has to be unlikely to arise through chance or necessity?
Did you read what I wrote? "Unlikely to arise through chance and necessity" is not equivalent to "Complex". Complex things can arise by design or by necessity. Your example is no more convincing than the fact that rain falls to the ground and forms a thin layer. What's the chance of all those molecules being compressed in one-dimension? That's analogous to the iron filings being arrayed in a dipole field. They have no choice, and the full specification is contained in the mathematical description of the force applied. The specification is simple, but the results can be complex. The specification and the results are not the same thing - like the Mandelbrot Set, produced by a simple equation - simple specification leads to great complexity, but again, you must separate the specification from result or application of that specification. It is the specification itself that must be complex. Like this paragraph. Like a DNA code. Both of these are complex specified entities that produce complex results. To repeat. A magnet dipole moment is Simple Specified Information, that, when interpreted using iron files, produces a result which is Complex Unspecified Information. YOu are talking about two differnt things, and ignoring the parts you don't want.SCheesman_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

Mark: a clarification about the dFSCI procedure. Yes, it is built intentionally so that it can discriminate between those strings which are certainly designed and those which probably are not (let's say in the set of non biological strings, for the moment). And it does exactly what it was built for. You are not observing any circularity: you are observing a tool which has been designed for a function, and accomplishes that function. Saying that it is circular is like saying that a diagnostic test which can identify a disease is circular because it was thought and chosen to identify that disease. That is simply silly. In empirical sciences, we do that all the time: we build operational procedures to achieve a specific result, and we build them according to our precious observations and knowledge, and then we verify that the result is correct. In medicine, we do that all the time. Nobody thinks that methodology is "circular". The application of the procedure to biological information, whose origin is debated, is obviously an inference by analogy, as I have said maybe hundreds of times, and has therefore a different meaning. But the procedure itself is built on human artifacts, to detect them and works absolutely fine. It is empirical, scientific, non circular, useful, and it has no false positives and many false negatives, exactly because it was built to work that way. Are you complaining that we have built a good procedure? Maybe yes. Maybe that's exactly the point.gpuccio_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Mark: No circularity, for the nth time. I say: "We have necessity and chance as possible causes. Then we have design. Human beings design things. Those things are different from those we usually see as the product of necessity and chance. Then we, being curious intelligent beings, ask ourselves: in what are they different? After some analysis, we dosciver at least one property which allows us to distunguish the two categories: CSI." and you say: "But what is the definition of CSI – part of it at least is: “not the product of necessity or chance”. So the property that allows us to distinguish between “necessity or chance” and “design” is “not necessity or chance”." No. The definiotion of CSI, and in particular of dFSCI, is: a) A string of digital values b) Scarcely compressible c) Whose complexity is higher than 150 bits d) Which conveys the information for a well defined function… If you want, we can make explicit what is already implicit in b), and add: e) For which no explanatory necessity mechanism is known. You are wrong about circularity. The definition is empirical. Each of the conditions can be objectively tested on a specific string (the only poitn which is not alway available is the computation of the complexity)). a) It is rather easy to verify if a string can be read as a series of digital values. b) We can verify if it is compressible by known compression systems. c) If we know, at least approximately, both the search space and the target space, it is easy to compute the functional complexity for a function. d) It is easy to verify if a function has been explicitly and objectively defined for the string. e) If a necessity explanatory mechanism is know, well, someone has to provide it. Otherwise, none is known. This is not a logical definition of anything. This is a procedure to attribute a property, which we call CSI, to something (in particular, to a string). The procedure can be applied to any known string, and if all the necessary information ios available, it will classify the strings in two sets: those exhibiting CSI, and those not exhibiting it. Forget for a moment the meaning of "CSI". Let's call "gpuccio" the calss of the strings satisfying our procedure, and "markf" the other class. At present, we are not attributing any meaning to that classification. Therefore, there can't be any circularity. How can you deny that I can classify strings according to an explicit, algorithmic procedure, which can be applied to any string, and which has only a binary output? How I have built the procedure has no relevance here (although I will discuss that later). The procedure is there. Now, when we apply the procedure to known strings, 3 things can happen, in principle: a) All known strings classify as "markf" b) All known strings calssify as "gpuccio" c) Some strings classify as "markf", and some classify as "gpuccio" If a) or b) were empirically true, my procedure would obviously be useless, giving the same result for all strings. But we well know that c) is empirically true. So, we can build two sets of strings. After some work, we observe something remarkable: our "markf" set is rather eterogenous, and includes all sorts of strings occurring in natural systems, aqnd even some simple human artifacts; but our "gpuccio" set is rather monotonous, and is formed of only two kinds of string, human artifacts and biological strings. Now, we make a very simple inference: most cases of strings designed by humans fall in the "gpuccio" set. That means that for them no explicit necessity mechanism, not involving a human designer, is known, and that their complexity is too high for any hope of generating them in a random system to be real. Let's be even more specific. There is no doubt that Hamlet is in the "gpuccio" set (and I am rather satisfied of that :) ). Nobody knows how to generate Hamlet through an algorithm, without any intervention of a human designer (I would say of a Shakespeare!), and obviously without prior knowledge of Hamlet itself. At the same time, the poissibility of obtaining Hamlet from randomly typing monkeys is so unreal, that nobody uses that model any more. So, Hamlet is in the "gpuccio" set. And so are most of human writings, including this post. And so are most of human software programs, including those for Microsoft :) And so are most basic protein domains. Now, hyamòlet and similar, and computer software, are considered a product of human design. So we call them "designed objects". The above classification in two stes is very useful if we want to detect if a string, of which we known nothing about, is designed or not. If, after applying our procedure, it falls in the "gpuccio" set, we assume it is designed. Does that method work? Yes, it does. We have empirical proof that it works perfectly for human strings. All the strings which fall in the "gpuccio" group, without exception, are found to be designed any time that an independent verification is possible. The opposite is not true. Many simple designed strings fall in the "markf" set. Those are the false negatives. Please, explain where is there any circularity in all that. There isn't. The next step is the inference. The other class of objects falling in the "gpuccio" set is biological strings. Let's say protein sequences. Let's say 2000 basic protein superfamilies. We in ID infer, by analogy, that those strings are designed too. That inference can be right or wrong: only the accumulation of empirical data will ultimately solve the question even for the most reticent darwinists. But it is not circular. In no way it is.gpuccio_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

Ella, You asked some questions earlier about front-loading. I think you might find the following article by Dr. Robert Sheldon to be of interest: The Front-Loading Fiction . Enjoy!vjtorley_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

#152 Collin - "meaning" can fall into two important types as described by PH Grice. He distinguishes between "natural meaning" for example clouds mean rain and "unnatural meaning" - I draw a picture of your spouse having an affair and you deduce what I mean! There are any number of cases of information with natural meaning arising out of chance and necessity - the clouds are one example - they are packed with information about the weather. More likely you mean unnatural meaning. This always arises out of design because that is how it works. There are no examples of unnatural meaning in biology either. DNA and proteins do not have unnatural meaning (with the exception of those very examples which have been created by human design). Unnatural meaning only arises from human design.markf_{September 29, 2010
September
09
Sep
29
29
2010
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

#155 To have CSI you need the part that is specified to also be complex Uhm. First I heard of this. The specification also has to be unlikely to arise through chance or necessity?markf_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

gpuccio and UB; Sorry to butt in. I have been criticized before for asking questions and not following up on the answers. Problem is I am in a different time zone and taking that into account and the fact that I am moderated, things often move away from me. However, I wanted to ask in light of your incredulity regarding the possibility of a replicating molecule spontaneously arising. UP, you mentioned it is contrary to the actual evidence. Well what is the actual evidence? You don't have any either. You cannot explain how the first replicating molecule, or the first cell, arose, apart from saying something designed it, which doesn't add anything to our sum of knowledge. At least the biologists are trying to come up with theories that include mechanisms. You look at nature and say things are very complicated, and given that the only other very complicated things we know of are the things we designed, therefore these things in nature must be designed too. Aside from the fact that just amounts to a pointless conjecture that doesn't get us anywhere, there is absolutely no evidence for it! We have no experience of anything other than humans creating this level of complexity. And we know we didn't do it. That's as far as you can go.zeroseven_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Markf:
Find a large magnet. Scatter a large number of iron filings over it. They will form a well specified pattern. Applying Bernouilli’s principle of indifference (which I don’t hold with – but is essential to the calculation of CSI and the LCI) the probability of them falling at any angle is the same. So the probability of them all falling into the pattern is very small and can be made as small as you like simply by increasing the number of iron filings. So you have a specified outcome the probability of which as low you as you like generated by a natural process.
I am going back to the original. The part that is specified is not complex. That is the shape of the magnetic field, specified by a simple, closed mathematical expression relating the radius r and angle phi with respect to the dipole axis to the angle at which the filing will align themselves. Any complexity arises from the random distribution of filings due to their location as they fall upon the field, and there is no specification in that. To have CSI you need the part that is specified to also be complex. You are conjoining two phenomena, one complex and unspecified, with one that is simple and specified. Your example fails at the start. It is not CSI.SCheesman_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Hi UB, my appologies for put in your mouth something you has not said, but I see that even so, I've appointed in the right place, that is, that we are here speaking of faith, but nobody seems to have this faith. Well, I think this is a question we all, ellazim also, can see better. You stablish correctly: "information is the product of perception", and that is a irrefutable truth. But here it is important to know what is perception, that is, matter perceives? And I can say you: "Yes, matter perceives" we all see it with gravity and with magneto-electric interactions phenomena. A material object and another material object perceive each other and this change their behavior. We cannot understand why (the nature of gravity and electro-magnetic, it is, we only can understood how, nor why), but they ever and ever do so. Well, I think that you can prefer name perception as a mental activity, but mental activity is not present in matter, then is not possible this perception to be "mental". Then what? Can matter had only faith?, that is, a single question: to had faith or to had no faith. Any people is free to think as he wants, but who believe in Christ, has ever a guide where to find light, that is The Gospel. And can Gospel help us in that point? I think Yes, and a resounding YES. What says us Jesus? (Luke 17:6) "If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you!" You and everybody can see here three times applied the faith reality to three different ones: The first us, the man, that are recriminated because we have no faith, but He compares our faith with...a mustard seed. Well, you could want to say that He spoke of quantity, of more or less, but faith only IS or NOT, you cannot have 79.37567864% of FAITH. You only HAS or HAS NOT. Then, He says us that mustard seed HAS faith. One point. But He, if we dont understand well his Words, says more, that is, says that a mulberry tree perceive our faith and obey us, that is, mulberry tree has also faith, but now in us, only and exclusively because we have faith. I can explain you more which can be understood from this Phrase, but here we are speakig of Science, and in the aspect of Science, the point is that I can see the matter only as a fool thing that is not able of faith and of nothing, and fool, as intended by us, yes, it is, but faith, I assure you that faith is just what makes that matter to be where it is. I appreciate you very much UBP, then take all I said you as a motive to self-reflection. If any question I try to answer you. By for now.Obriton_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Hello Obriton, I think in your third paragraph you were assigning to me a comment that Ella actually had made. However, I do get your point and the answer is "No" I have no faith. My lack of faith stems from a couple of points. 1) There is a category error being made. This error stems from the observation that a system of symbolic mapping is in place between the chemical structures in DNA and other chemical structures within proteins and other bio-compounds. (One thing means another, but is discreet from it). Yet, physics cannot explain the instantiation of meaning, no matter how long one wants to wait. Physics cannot explain it, but that is exactly what must be explained. 2) There is a second category error being made. This error stems from the observation that there is an abstraction of the organism recorded within its DNA in a semiotic state. This abstraction requires symbols and rules in order for it to be recorded, and also to be decoded. Yet, physics cannot explain semiosis, no matter how long one wishes to wait. Physics cannot establish the symbols by which to encode the information, nor can it established the rules by which to decode it. 3) There is a third category error being made. This error stems from the observation that it is information, not mere chemistry, which drives Life. Information is the single observable component which provides a distinction between inanimate matter and living things. Yet information is not a material phenomenon. (There is no information in matter; otherwise it would appear on the periodic table along with the other material elements which make up the cosmos). This suggests that something (here and now) must cause information to come into existence. That something is a simple observation which cannot be denied; information is the product of perception. There is no information in the cosmos that comes into existence by any means other than a living agent’s ability to first perceive it. Suggesting that matter can perceive itself (creating immaterial information) is a category error of the highest order. 4) There is also a logic error being made. I am asked to place my faith in evolution as a viable answer to the problem of bio-complexity. Yet, for this explanation to have any explanatory power at all, the above mentioned system would already need to be in place. It is patently illogical to believe that as soon as a complex system of evolution evolves, then evolution can begin evolving complex systems. It is no answer at all. The complexity is in the system itself – not merely in the effects to follow. 5) There is an ideological error being made. Materialists don’t want to talk about the known origin of information, or the various facets of semiosis, or symbols, or rules, or meaning – the core observations made in understanding how this all came to be. Instead, they want to comfort themselves in musings about crystals scaffolds, magic RNAs, zinc origins, and the ever-so-special emergent properties from the remote past (as if those properties are not in effect today). They want to synthesize the various components of the system, as if doing so could explain the system itself. While there is certainly nothing wrong in pursuing these research goals, the simple fact is that there is not one single materialist on the surface of the planet who can back up his/her materialism with even a single empirical evidence. Not one. Look at it this way. Consider yourself observing a remote lifeless planet. While there is no life at all, there are certainly chemical reactions which are taking place; there is the movement of an atmosphere; there is radiation from a sun, and the rotation of the planet is causing temperature differentials over cycles of time. There may even be rain of sorts, and weather, or perhaps vulcanization under the rocks that make up the planet’s surface. But, there is no life. There is no semiotic content being activated within the cells of living things. There are no feedback loops, or molecular second messengers. And without Life there is nothing to perceive its surroundings. No information is being exchanged. There are no rules which exist to decode the mappings between one thing and another. Nothing stands for anything else. If iron, hydrogen and oxygen molecules are available under the right circumstances, then rust will turn the rocks reddish in color, but there is nothing that means anything. From this state we are told that meaning can emerge into existence from non-meaning. So too can symbols. So too can rules, not laws, but rules. From this, matter can create an abstraction of itself in the form of chemical representations. This is why Ellazimm side-steps the conversation. It is why markf must dogmatically twist the living shit out of every word spoken. It is also why they both withhold even the slightest concession contrary to their beliefs. They are obliged to do so; they haven’t a thing to say about what is observably true.Upright BiPed_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Markf, I challenge you to find any meaningful information that arose via chance or necessity.Collin_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

ellazimm,
I think a simple self-replicating molecule can spontaneously arise and once that happened then the whole cascade begins. We may never know if that’s what happened but I think it’s plausible.
Why do you think that a simple self-replicating molecule can just spontaneously "arise"? I do hope you realize that in all of the simple little molecules we, as human investigators, have found, no one has actually found this phantom molecule. It strikes me as pure fancy, like aether, phlogiston and gemmules. Secondly, I don't see how finding this magical molecule would begin a "cascade" of anything. It doesn't matter that a crystal produces more crystal, crystals do not become an engine by virtue of being many or much. I don't think it's in the least bit plausible, because it is so unlike anything we actually observe as humans. I would say it's a fairy tale, but I happen to think there is at least some truth in fairy tales, whereas there is none in this belief.Clive Hayden_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

#149 Collin - there are two different things going on in the discussion above. One is the confusion arising from contradictory definitions from CSI. The other is the problem of circularity. The problem of circularity applies to any definition which includes as part of it - "was not the product of necessity or chance" - which as far as I can see is all of them.markf_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Markf, Don't refute a weak definition of CSI. Go for the most robust. Who cares if there have been different definitions of CSI? If only one of them is a challenge to evolution, then it should be addressed headon instead of being attacked from behind by taking down a weaker cousin.Collin_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Gpuccio Here is where the circle arises in your argument: We have necessity and chance as possible causes. Then we have design. Human beings design things. Those things are different from those we usually see as the product of necessity and chance. Then we, being curious intelligent beings, ask ourselves: in what are they different? After some analysis, we dosciver at least one property which allows us to distunguish the two categories: CSI. But what is the definition of CSI - part of it at least is: "not the product of necessity or chance". So the property that allows us to distinguish between "necessity or chance" and "design" is "not necessity or chance".markf_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Hi all, a pleasure for me toread anyone. I feel that waters are now very leisure and is a good moment to make some comments. Ell @(132) and UBP "Perhaps we should just drop it then? I think a simple self-replicating molecule can spontaneously arise and once that happened then the whole cascade begins. We may never know if that’s what happened but I think it’s plausible" (bolds are mine) UBP, I think that you are no faith enough in that as possible, because you use the "We" and nor the "I", as it must be. I say you that if you could have a single plus faith, that will be possible. Ell, you say: "I think that a basic self-replicating molecule is enough to start life going. And that slowly over millennia modifications create new and more complicated structures. " Why do you think slowly (what for you is slowly?)and why do you think over millenia modifications? Dou you think that is needed millenia modifications to make a single change? (Imagine you if you were to change money at Bank and the banker says you "I need millenia modifications to make you the change of pounds for dollars". Dont you think the Banker is out of reason?) Thats all for now. I think now is a good moment for well self-refletions". Be happy, ObritonObriton_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Collin: I think it's very interesting and that it would provide much research options for ID supporters to pursue. That's why I was wondering if anything had been done. I hope some work is done. I think it's a much bigger threat, if worked out, than irreducible complexity or specified complex information. AND . . . it's something new to look into! Anyway, off to take care of my family. Left over lasagna or . . . .ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm, I don't know if I can answer your questions about front-loading, but I hope you don't mind my making a few comments. I think that front-loading is one of the most interesting hypotheses in ID. I have heard it said that some very simple organisms have way more genes than one would expect. Could it be that those simpler organisms are "programmed" to evolve into other organisms upon an environmental trigger?Collin_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: I think I'd best not get involved in a OOL discussion; my knowledge is pretty minimal and I'm not aware of all the current research. I think it is possible that we will never be sure if life arose on earth spontaneously or was seeded via panspermia . . . say a molecule that got introduced via a meteorite or perhaps even intentionally. If intentionally lots more questions arise so spontaneous or accidental sounds more parsimonious to me. Sometimes you just never find out. That's the way it goes.ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

UBP: Well, a lot of research is being done on the possibility so . . . . But if my argument is not well founded . . . I never claimed to be an expert or even that knowledgeable, especially about OOL. Mostly I've just focused on what happens once life gets started. And whether there was any interventions along the way. I guess you're not going to address my questions about a front-loading with frequent interventions scheme. Ah well, I was hoping for some feedback. Do you know of some work that has been done on that?ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

ellazimm: I think a simple self-replicating molecule can spontaneously arise and once that happened then the whole cascade begins. We may never know if that’s what happened but I think it’s plausible. Plausible? Are you really convinced of that? I believe darwinian propaganda must be stronger than I suspected :) I will not ask you for some more detail about your supposed scenario. I am afraid I already know what you would answer. But in case you want to go a little bit more in depth, on any of the points, I would certainly like it. Some suggestions: we can start at OOL (difficult) or at LUCA (easier), or at what follows. One curiosity. Why "we may never know if that’s what happened"? I am sure we will know, sooner or later. Maybe I have more faith in science than most darwinists...gpuccio_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Ella, Oh and might I also add, when you say:
I think a simple self-replicating molecule can spontaneously arise
Not only is that belief not supported, it runs headlong in direct opposition to the actual evidence on the matter. So much for enlightenment.Upright BiPed_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Ella,
Just drop it?
LOL.
I think a simple self-replicating molecule can spontaneously arise
That belief is not based upon any emperically supportive evidence whatsoever...and once again it simply ignores what has to be in effect for the mechanism of descent with modification to even exist. Without that, your explanation falls apart. I am fairly certain that is the core reason you wish to "drop it". Fine. Conside it dropped (but not forgotten).Upright BiPed_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Mark: excuse me, but I continue not to understand your point about the supposed circularity. Let's state it this way. We have necessity and chance as possible causes. Then we have design. Human beings design things. Those things are different from those we usually see as the product of necessity and chance. Then we, being curious intelligent beings, ask ourselves: in what are they different? After some analysis, we dosciver at least one property which allows us to distunguish the two categories: CSI. Indeed, human design seems capable to generate outputs which have no evident necessity mechanism at their base, and whose complexity is not in the reach of chance alone. So, we give an explicit definition of CSI, to be able to use it as a tool to detect design where it is not known from the beginning (IOWs, when we don't already known that the output was designed. We defone the specification, include the non necessity requirement, and fix the threshols high enough, so that we will have certainly false negatives, but hopefully no false positive. Then we use the tool to detect design in possible human artifacts, such as software strings, or possible ancient artifacts, or language, and so on. Do you follow me? What is circular in all that? We start form observation. It is true that we define CSI so that it can detect design: that is exactly its purpose. But still, if for instance design did not exist, CSI would yield all negatives. Because necessity mechanisms and chance cannot generate it. And so? If that were the case, we should conclude that what we have called design does not exists, or that we were wrong in thinking that design could generate CSI. But that is not the case, In all our observations of reality, out tool works fine. Very fine. If we apply it, it gives positives only for designed objects, and never for apparent design. All apparent design (objects which can be described as funcionally specified, but are indeed the output of necessity or chance) is a negative for CSI. So are, anyway, some truly designed objects (the false negatives) which are too simple to classify as positive. If it were not for the problem of biological information, no people with sense would doubt of the utility and appropriateness of CSI. None at all. But. There is a but. Not only human artifacts exhibit CSI. There is another class of things. Biological strings. Proteins and genomes. So, how is that? The ID answer is simple. They are designed, exactly as human artifacts. But that answer is not admitted by most intelligent people. They have their faith to defend. So, they try to demonstrate impossible things: that the CSI in biological information can be generated by necesiity or chance, or alternatively that the concept of CSI is wrong, or circular, or I don't know what else. All that is wrong. You are wronlg. If you can't see it, I don't know how to explain it more clearly than so.gpuccio_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

UBP: Perhaps we should just drop it then? I think a simple self-replicating molecule can spontaneously arise and once that happened then the whole cascade begins. We may never know if that's what happened but I think it's plausible. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about some of questions I raised in posts 85-87 about a self-loading paradigm.ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Collin: self-replicating robots would be an interesting situation . . . . I suppose it depends on how they 'reproduced'. If old robots built the new ones then it's clearly a case of intelligent design including the start assuming some non-robot got the system started. I'm not sure how mechanical 'beings' could reproduce non-intelligently . . . there would have to be some way that the robots' 'blueprints' were being modified without intelligent input . . . interesting thought. DNA isn't really a blueprint actually. There is no one-to-one correspondence between body 'parts' and DNA sequences as in a blueprint for a machine or structure. DNA is more like a recipe but one where various 'commands' are activated by changing chemical signals. Anyway, an interesting question for sure.ellazimm_{September 28, 2010
September
09
Sep
28
28
2010
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply