Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

An Eye Into The Materialist Assault On Life’s Origins

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Synopsis Of The Second Chapter Of  Signature In The Cell by Stephen Meyer

ISBN: 9780061894206; ISBN10: 0061894206; HarperOne

When the 19th century chemist Friedrich Wohler synthesized urea in the lab using simple chemistry, he set in motion the ball that would ultimately knock down the then-pervasive ‘Vitalistic’ view of biology.  Life’s chemistry, rather than being bound by immaterial ‘vital forces’ could indeed by artificially made.  While Charles Darwin offered little insight on how life originated, several key scientists would later jump on Wohler’s ‘Eureka’-style discovery through public proclamations of their own ‘origin of life’ theories.  The ensuing materialist view was espoused by the likes of Ernst Haeckel and Rudolf Virchow who built their own theoretical suppositions on Wohler’s triumph.  Meyer summed up the logic of the day

“If organic matter could be formed in the laboratory by combining two inorganic chemical compounds then perhaps organic matter could have formed the same way in nature in the distant past” (p.40)

Darwin’s theory generated the much-needed fodder to ‘extend’ evolution backward’ to the origin of life.  It was believed that “chemicals could “morph” into cells, just as one species could “morph” into another “ (p.43).   Appealing to the apparent simplicity of the cell, late 19th century biologists assured the scientific establishment that they had a firm grasp of the ‘facts’- cells were, in their eyes, nothing more than balls of protoplasmic soup.   Haeckel and British scientist Thomas Huxley were the ones who set the protoplasmic theory in full swing.  While the details expounded by each man differed somewhat, the underlying tone was the same- the essence of life was simple and thereby easily attainable through a basic set of chemical reactions.

Things changed in the 1890s.  With the discovery of cellular enzymes the complexity of the cell’s inner workings became all too apparent and a new theory that no longer relied on an overly simplistic protoplasm-style foundation, albeit one still bounded by materialism, had to be devised.  Several decades later, finding himself in the throws of a Marxist socio-political upheaval within his own country, Russian biologist Aleksandr Oparin became the man for the task. 

Oparin developed a neat scheme of inter-related processes involving the extrusion of heavy metals from the earth’s core and the accumulation of atmospheric reactive gases all of which, he claimed, could eventually lead to the making of life’s building blocks- the amino acids.  He extended his scenario further, appealing to Darwinian natural selection as a way through which functional proteins could progressively come into existence.  But the ‘tour de force’ in Oparin’s outline came in the shape of coacervates- small, fat-containing spheroids which, Oparin proposed, might model the formation of the first ‘protocell’.

Oparin’s neat scheme would in the 1940s and 1950s provide the impetus for a host of prebiotic synthesis experiments, most famous of which was that of Harold Urey and Stanley Miller who used a spark discharge apparatus to make the three amino acids- glycine, alpha-alanine and beta-alanine.  With little more than a few gases (ammonia, methane and hydrogen), water, a closed container and an electrical spark Urey and Miller had seemingly provided the missing link for an evolutionary chain of events that now extended as far back as the dawn of life.  And yet as Meyer concludes, the information revolution that followed the elucidation of the structure of DNA would eventually shake the underlying materialistic bedrock.          

Meyer’s historical overview of the key events that shaped origin-of-life biology is extremely readable and well illustrated.  Both the style and the content of his discourse keep the reader focused on the ID thread of reasoning that he gradually develops throughout his book.

Comments
Mr Kairosfocus, the program and the machine on which it runs are storing and expressing the FSCI, which shows (per the lines of evidence on inference to best explanation as repeatedly outlined) that they are artifacts of intelligent design. As far as you have gone, I agree with you. But you have stopped short of claiming that the population members (either the first or last generation) are my creation, which is a good thing. Had you done so, you would have fallen into the same confusion that Mr Gil Dodgen has demonstrated. The program can explicitly construct the initial population from random bits taken from well known URLs. Further, (and I hope not to confuse the issue) the small GA program could allocate a million population members in each generation, each a million bits long. I didn't construct this terabit of FSCI.Nakashima
July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Nakashima-San:
So if I write a GA system . . .
the program and the machine on which it runs are storing and expressing the FSCI, which shows (per the lines of evidence on inference to best explanation as repeatedly outlined) that they are artifacts of intelligent design. In outright identifying the -- obviously, highly intelligent -- author of the relevant GA, you have thereby acknowledged that. GEM of TKI PS: I am very much open to the possibility of a created self conscious, reasoning and freely deciding -- thus morally bound as well -- intelligence, even to one that we can create [hopefully someday soon]; but GA's are not credible candidates for that.kairosfocus
July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Mr KairosFocus, For practical purposes, once an aspect of a system, process or object of interest has at least 500 – 1,000 bits or the equivalent of information storing capacity, and uses that capacity to specify a function that can be disrupted by moderate perturbations, then it manifests FSCI, thus CSI. So if I write a GA system where the population members are competitors in an iterated prisoners dilemma with competitions running up to 1000 iteratioins, then you are satisfied that FSCI is being created by the GA? Each member is 1000 bits long, each bit stands for the action to take (cooperate=1, defect=0) in the current iteration. Fitness is the score of the individual at the end of an iterated competition with another member of the population.Nakashima
July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
PPS: Sparc, it should be easily evident that the case where specification is by observed function is a subset of the general set of complex specified information. Similarly, many cases of irreducible complexity -- and BTW fine-tuned adjustment to operating point of a composite system -- are also addressing subsets of CSI. (It is possible for something to be IC without being otherwise complex enough to pass the thresholds for CSI or FSC or FSCI.)kairosfocus
July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
PS: the above set of corrective responses is not directly relevant to the original focus of the thread, but illustrate how the materialist frame of thought leads them to reason as they do on origin of life, which is a case of origin of bio-functional information well beyond the reasonable threshold of complexity.kairosfocus
July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
5] If we all know that humans generate FSCI, how did we go about determining that humans generate it as opposed to merely reshuffling it? Sure enough, the worldview level issue now emerges: are we just computers, mechanically playing out our own programming? [Genetic and/or environmental . . . cf here for the implications of answering that "yes."] The first level of answer is that we ourselves exhibit FSCI so are evidently designed. Second, in our experience, we are conscious, enconscienced, minded creatures, who find ourselves making choices and originating things with a breadth of range that transcends the credible reach of programming. Decision-making creatures, notoriously, are rational but are not predictable, nor reducible to outcomes scatterinfg along a mechnical probabilistic statistical distribution. So, if we are conscious of acting in ways of reason, value and decision, what worldview bests accounts for that? (And, neurological reductionism boils down t o self-referential incoherence and emergentism runs into the barrier that in effect it is argument by magical poofery: once matter and information reach a certain level of complexity, materialists ASSUME or ASSERT that conscious mindedness and morality etc "emerge." Real cases of emergence such as how Na and Cl form common salt, have dynamical processes that we can trace.) So, the real answer is that we should be at least open to the possibility t hat the apparent creative enconscienced reasoning and deciding consciousness that we experience and which is a premise of all intellectual activities such as science, is real. (And we should face the apparent self-referential incoherences of assuming reductionistic materialism, as well as demanding adequate dynamics from emergentists. noting as well that reductionism and emergentism are in reality flip sides of the same materialistic coin.) 6] regarding the Orgel quote, it’s interesting that ID proponents repeatedly use a quote that demonstrates Dembski’s equivocation. “Complexity” in Dembski’s “specified complexity” has nothing to do with uniformity or the lack thereof. On the contrary, Orgel showed and summarised that there is a characteristic of cell based life that is sharply distinct from the order of crystals or the haphazardness of a mass of organic tar. A distinction that cries out for adequate definition and explanation. Dembski provided one model, using the default case for probabilistic distributions per the Laplacian principle of indifference: save where we can identify a reason to bias an outcome across a contingent set, it is reasonable to assume that each possible configuration is a likely as any other. Such can be modified of course if such reason is presented. And, any mathematically sophisticated person should know that much. And, in fact, if we see for instance Bradley's presentation on Cytochrome C here, we will see that he and many others do reckon with non-uniform distribution cases, as has been long since published and presented; indeed, it has long been accessible two clicks away in my appendix 1, point 9, my always linked. (This raises an issue of responsible as opposed to misleading comment by informed commenters.) BOTTOMLINE: Such cases reduce the average information carrying capacity per physical bit-storing unit, but on the scope of the relevant cluster of information bearing entities in life [remember we start observed independent life forms at 300,000 4-state elements], it makes no material difference. In short the much touted objection on "uniformity" is a strawman argument. 7] 93, A screen of text is highly compressible. How did you know to base the calculation on uncompressed rather than compressed pixel data? A 800 x 600 pixel screen with 24 bits per pixel is not going to be compressed below 1,000 bits of information capacity. Redundancy does not undo the fundamental issue. Strawman of immateriality, again. 8] How did you know to use the storage size of the pixels rather than of the text itself? Both the pixels of the screen and the text on it exhibit FSCI (and it does not matter the precise underlying operating system or text encoding scheme or pixel encoding scheme -- though these days these are pretty much standardised), i.e this is a red herring. 9] What function did you choose as the basis of your calculation? Rob, you have a PC screen in front of you as you read this. ASK: What function is it carrying out right now? (In short, onlookers, this has now plainly deteriorated into selective hyperskepticism to the point of self referential absurdity. Sad to see. But, it tells us just how compelling the case that FSCI is a god sign of intelligence is on the merits.) 10] Why did you not include in your calculation all screens that serve the same [or any] function? Because we have a particular screen in front of us, and that screen uses digital strings of information to perform an observed function. In so doing, it uses in excess of 1,000 bits of information carrying capacity, and it is vulnerable to modest perturbation of said strings. In our observation -- despite tortured objections to deny the obvious and evident -- such entities are known to be designed. And, on the search space constraints, only design is a credible candidate for such an entity. So, it becomes an apt illustrative case of how FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligence. So apt, that you -- sadly -- have reduced yourself to self-referential absurdity in trying to deny its force. 11] How would you determine that a screen serves no function? Doesn’t even a blank screen or a screen full of noise serve the function of indicating that your monitor or video adapter is broken? We need not try to identify non-function: the question of FSCI arises when we identify a particular case of function that uses over 500 - 1,000 bits, and is vulnerable to modest perturbations. As has been plain from the outset. 12] I’ve never directly observed a human generating FSCI. Including yourself when you created the posts 92 - 93 etc? In short, you are now in self-referential absurdity. 13] 94, I have no idea how to calculate the FSCI that goes into the design process. 97, I never said, insinuated, or thought that you claimed documented evidence. The comment that you’re complaining about challenges any supposed evidence, including observational, of humans creating FSCI. That none is documented is a minor point. We can calculate, using several approaches -- of which the above is a simplest illustration -- the FSCI of entities that function based on information. Indeed, there is now at least one table of 35 values of such for proteins in the peer reviewed literature, by Durston et al, as is linked form weak argument corrective no 27 above on this page. In short, neither leg of your claim can stand up. (And, in the earlier comment you did make claims about "documented" evidence, which I corrected by pointing out that the given evidence that is relevant is the PC in front of you and the Internet full of cases of FSCI.) 14] I have no intention of arguing my interpretation of “we” in FAQ#28, which may be wrong but is in good faith. Onlookers, the reference of "we in weak argument corrective no 28 should be obvious ,as should the fact that a reasonable working definition 9complete with illustrative case) was presented ahead of the long string of objections answered above:
FSCI is actually a functionally specified subset of CSI, i.e. the relevant specification is connected to the presence of a contingent function due to interacting parts that work together in a specified context per requirements of a system, interface, object or process. For practical purposes, once an aspect of a system, process or object of interest has at least 500 – 1,000 bits or the equivalent of information storing capacity, and uses that capacity to specify a function that can be disrupted by moderate perturbations, then it manifests FSCI, thus CSI. This also leads to a simple metric for FSCI, the functionally specified bit; as with those that are used to display this text on your PC screen. (For instance, where such a screen has 800 x 600 pixels of 24 bits, that requires 11.52 million functionally specified bits. This is well above the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold.) On massive evidence, such cases are reliably the product of intelligent design, once we independently know the causal story. So, we are entitled to (provisionally of course; as per usual with scientific work) induce that FSCI is a reliable, empirically observable sign of design.
Ther meaning of "we" is plain and in a plain context. __________ Finally, observe onlookers: TO DATE, OBJECTORS TO THE FUNCTIONALLY SPECIFIED SUBSET OF COMPLEX, SPECIFIED INFORMATION ARE PATENTLY UNABLE TO GIVE US A CASE WHERE FSCI HAS BEEN CREDIBLY CREATED BY CHANCE + UNDIRECTED MECHANICAL NECESSITY. But, as we have highlighted, from the PCs in front of each of us, to the Internet we are all using, to the comments we are putting up in this thread, we exemplify just how FSCI in our observation is routinely the product of intelligent design. The very nature of the objections, as well as the resulting absurdities, tell us what the true balance of the case on the ever so plainly merits is: we are entitled to (provisionally of course; as per usual with scientific work) induce that FSCI is a reliable, empirically observable sign of design. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
Rob: Pardon an observation: I find your onward responses astonishing, as though we are inhabiting two different worlds. Knowing that you are a longstanding commenter at UD, I confess I am tempted to immediately infer to selective hyperskepticism or even willful obtuseness trying to shift a burden of proof beyond the limits of reasonable exchange. But, the principle of charity in communication forces me to instead first infer to fundamental gaps in communication; probably driven by the impact of worldview level commitments on your part that make ID concepts particularly hard to grasp, and even make it hard to see what should be obvious facts. (After all, Galileo's objectors sometimes refused to look through his telescope or in some cases seem to have objected to optical aberrations and used those to dismiss the reliability of the instrument, regardless of the demonstrated performance on ships coming into harbour.) I will comment on some key points, in the hope of clarifying some gaps in understanding on basic ID related empirical observations, descriptive concepts and inferences drawn therefrom: 1] 92: Do you or do you not claim that we observe humans finding sparse functional targets in vast seas of non-functionality? As we both know, humans are intelligent and undertake targetted foresighted searches. So it is not an "admission" to note that we are capable of finding targets in large config spaces. IT IS AN OBSERVED AND IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTIC OF US ACTING AS INTELLIGENT AGENTS. (Which is why for instance, the cited case of a screenful of functional information comprising 11 million bits or so, illustrates just how deeply isolated in configurations paces artifacts can be. 11 mn bits specifies 2^11 mn ~ 8.96 *10^3,311,329 possible configs.) The problem -- as I EXPLICITLY pointed out above -- is that chance and necessity under an evolutionary materialist paradigm cannot credibly undertake such foresighted searches, and indeed, that is precisely a point where Mr Dawkins, in discussing Weasel 1986, acknowledged that it was "misleading":
Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in each generation of selective 'breeding', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn't like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. [TBW, Ch 3, as cited by Wikipedia
In short, you are here plainly tilting at a strawman of your own manufacture. 2] The point of the hash challenge is to hopefully present a case in there is no previous FSCI to guide us to a solution. Again, the point of functionally specified complex information -- ever since Orgel introduced the concept -- is that first, function must be OBSERVED, which acts as the specification for the complex information. Absent identified function, the default assumption is that the string of bits is probably meaningless, i.e. unspecified and exhibiting random sequence complexity. (Show us that your hash function produces a performance that is vulnerable to modest disturbance, then show us wheter or no we are looking at more or less than 143 ASCII characters in the hash string. If the hash were specifically fucntional and longer than 143 ASCII characters, we could reliably infer formt hat specific strign that it is designed. the use of so strtingent a cioriterion for complexity is to make sure that chance on the gamut of our observed comsos could not reasobnably produce the effect.) Boiling down: sadly, strawman again. 3] I’m not disputing that humans write stuff on the Internet. I’m disputing that “we know that intelligence routinely generates such FSCI”. Back to 101: when we see a text string of 143 or more ASCII characters that functions as contextually responsive or appropriate text in English, we may draw out certain conclusions: a --> The string is highly specified, as it functions in ways that sharply constrain the alphanumeric values of digits in the string S1, S2, . . . S143, . . . Sn. (That is, it conforms with the rules of English text and is meaningful in the context, which locks it out of the vast majority of the configuration space of a string of length n of 128-state [= 7 bit] characters.) b --> Such strings are plainly informational in the Shannon sense of information carrying capacity, and onward in the sense of function in a context. (E.g. this post responds to your comments at 92 etc and provides corrective information, in English, up to the odd typo or two, etc. . . . i.e. we have a beach of function leading up to the peaks of optimal function in an island of functionality. Beyond a certain point, too many typos and other errors would destroy the function, i.e. the string is vulnerable to modest perturbation.) c --> Such a string is -- as a matter of easily observed fact -- routinely observed as produced by intelligent agents, e.g. comments in this thread; and indeed, there is an Internet full of cases in point. So, insofar as FSCI relates to such cases and other similar cases of identified function that is vulnerable to moderate perturbation and encompasses at least 500 - 1,000 bits of associated carrying capacity, it is well warranted to conclude that “we know that intelligence routinely generates such FSCI.” (We could revert to Durston's FSC metric or Dembski's CSI metric, but such sophisticated mathematics are not needed on so obvious a matter.) d --> Moreover, at the 1,000 bit threshold, we are discussing 2^1,000 possible configurations or about 10^301. This is ten times the SQUARE of the number of quantum states of the 10^80 atoms of the observed universe across a thermodynamically reasonable lifespan. That is, considering the observed cosmos as a whole as a search engine, it would not be credibly able to scan as much as 1 in 10^150 of the available configs, making this a "lottery" that is unwinnable on the cosmic scale. [Not even by buying up all tickets that our cosmic-scale resources allow us to.] e --> But, intelligent agents routinely use their imaginations and cognitive abilities to generate such text strings. f --> Extending to similar strings used for programs used for digital information processing systems, the same basic considerations apply.9Even, to long enough hash strings.) g --> And, it turns out that protein codes in DNA etc [in aggregate for any observed organism] are cases in point of such algorithmic, code-bearing functionality that is vulnerable to modest perturbation, so are also credibly designed. 4] Assuming that FSCI is well-defined, how do we know that the FSCI in the output of a process was generated by that process? Can we conclude that a web server generates FSCI because it outputs meaningful text? How about WEASEL, or ELIZA, or A.L.I.C.E.? FSCI is sufficiently well defined to be recognisable, indeed, we are dealing with a case of a descriptive term as used by Orgel, which has been somewhat elaborated and given criteria that allow us to analyse why functionally specific complex information bears a certain significance. This -- pace your clever word choice -- is not a mere ASSUMPTION, it is a fact -- whether or not it is a welcome one for those who argue that chance + necessity are sufficient to explain [away?] cases of "apparent" design.. In the case of software, the software is patently itself a case of FSCI, and is designed. We know that directly as well. We further know that a server is a programmed entity, which is not carrying out decisions of its own volition, but simply mechanically executes a program, through in the end switching logic states and assocated voltages in circuits. [This gets us into the issue that there may be onward worldview level IMPLICATIONS of observing the reality of FSCI as a credible sign of design. This has no relevance to whether or not that is a good empirical evidence of design, save to those who having already made up their minds that mind beyond matter is impossible, and will use that Lewontinian a priori materialistic criterion to reject evidence that does not fit it. We can only hope that such will be willing to face the implications of ending up in absurdities on their worldview's premises.) [ . . . ]kairosfocus
July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, with regards to the charge of context shifting that you've made over several comments in two threads: I never said, insinuated, or thought that you claimed documented evidence. The comment that you're complaining about challenges any supposed evidence, including observational, of humans creating FSCI. That none is documented is a minor point. If you agree with it, can we move on to the bulk of the argument in the subsequent paragraphs? I have no intention of arguing my interpretation of "we" in FAQ#28, which may be wrong but is in good faith. I'd like to resolve your grievances and move on to the challenges to your claims. If I have misrepresented your position in any way, please clearly state the false position that I attributed to you and I will retract it.R0b
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
Maybe I am completely wrong but I get the impression that Dr. Dembski never talked about FSCI`but rather sticks to the term CSI that he coined. Or did I miss something?sparc
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
That's OK ROb: no one knows how you create it either, so that probably technically correct.dbthomas
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Correction in the last sentence above: I have no idea how to calculate the FSCI that goes into the design process.R0b
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
For instance, where such a screen has 800 x 600 pixels of 24 bits, that requires 11.52 million functionally specified bits. This is well above the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold.
Since you've repeated this, I'll bring up some obvious questions regarding your calculation. 1) A screen of text is highly compressible. How did you know to base the calculation on uncompressed rather than compressed pixel data? 2) How did you know to use the storage size of the pixels rather than of the text itself? If you were to choose the latter, how would you know what encoding to assume? 3) What function did you choose as the basis of your calculation? 4) Why did you not include in your calculation all screens that serve the same function? 5) Why did you not include in your calculation all screens that serve any function? 6) How would you determine that a screen serves no function? Doesn't even a blank screen or a screen full of noise serve the function of indicating that your monitor or video adapter is broken?
For, it would be plain from the context, that I am speaking of directly observable cases, not today’s peer reviewed literature and the power games connected thereto.
I've never directly observed a human generating FSCI. That kind of event seems, at best, something we would infer by calculating the amount of FSCI before and after, and comparing the two. Do you think most people have done that? I know I haven't, especially since I have no idea how to create the FSCI that goes into the design process.R0b
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
In short, designed systems are developed based on intelligently directed, targetted search that can recognise fractional success and identify bugs then remove them. This is a commonplace of engineering work.
So now I'm confused. Do you or do you not claim that we observe humans finding sparse functional targets in vast seas of non-functionality?
Design theory does not posit to have created a one size fits all super decoding algorithm.
The point of the hash challenge is to hopefully present a case in there is no previous FSCI to guide us to a solution. I chose a cryptographic hash so there wouldn't be an algorithm to reverse it. If there were such an algorithm, then would applying it to the hash constitute the creation of FSCI from scratch (assuming that the output is meaningful text)?
kairosfocus: [By contrast we know that intelligence routinely generates such FSCI.] [Rob:] Who is “we”? It certainly doesn’t include me. In the UD FAQ, you refer to “massive evidence” of this, but I see none. It certainly isn’t documented anywhere . . .
Rob, one type of function happens to be contextually responsive English text using ASCII code. The whole Internet stands in demonstration that it is documented that text strings meeting that criterion of function of more than 143 characters on our observation are invariably products of intelligent design.
I'm not disputing that humans write stuff on the internet. I'm disputing that "we know that intelligence routinely generates such FSCI". I stated my reasons already, but I'll repeat them. Assuming that FSCI is well-defined, how do we know that the FSCI in the output of a process was generated by that process? Can we conclude that a web server generates FSCI because it outputs meaningful text? How about WEASEL, or ELIZA, or A.L.I.C.E.? If we all know that humans generate FSCI, how did we go about determining that humans generate it as opposed to merely reshuffling it? (As an aside regarding the Orgel quote, it's interesting that ID proponents repeatedly use a quote that demonstrates Dembski's equivocation. "Complexity" in Dembski's "specified complexity" has nothing to do with uniformity or the lack thereof.)R0b
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Upright @ 86:
Still waiting…on the question of how does T-A-G physically mean “stop”.
I already mentioned the basic mechanism: tRNAs don't bind to the stop codons, but release factors do. Thus, translation stops. Maybe you just forgot about that what with all the hundreds of words of intervening KF material. Anyway, if you want more detail (and not superficial analogies to silicon microprocessors), it's not particularly hard to find. Google's pretty useful for that sort of thing, I hear.dbthomas
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
"That’s what materialists are in denial over, especially as we have a dominant industry full of empirical evidence to see that such entities are only observed to be created by intelligent designers." A new Darwinist mantra "It would appear that the appearance of design is more apparent than ever, but a real designer wouldn't design like that."CannuckianYankee
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Nice post at 87 KF.Frost122585
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
"That grinding noise you hear is the sound of materialistic cognitive dissonance in the morning." We do get a lot of that around here as they go over everything with a fine tooth comb to see what they can snipe at each day. What goes through such minds. Whatever it is, it is not pretty.jerry
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
UB: Here's a little 101 level thought or two on processors, courtesy NWE's rewrite and completion on the Wiki article:
A central processing unit (CPU), or sometimes simply processor, is the component in a digital computer that interprets computer program instructions and processes data. CPUs provide the fundamental digital computer trait of programmability, and are among the essential components in computers of any era, along with primary storage and input/output capabilities . . . . The fundamental operation of most CPUs, regardless of the physical form they take, is to execute a sequence of stored instructions called a program . . . There are four steps that nearly all von Neumann CPUs [the common stored instruction, sequential execution type] use in their operation: fetch, decode, execute, and writeback.
This implies that we need an algorithm, a data structure for string instructions (and operational data), machines to fetch, decode and execute. And, such must be in an integrated irreducible complex -- for a given architecture -- that will start, cycle and terminate appropriately (with the additional requirement that o/ps must be appropriately dispatched to where hey are needed). Now, let's see:
data & instruction storage -- DNA code -- genetic code (for protein assembly) fetch -- messenger RNA (and the associated algorithm for that!) decode and execute -- ribosomes and transfer RNA dispatch -- endoplasmic dispatch systems, with "headers" that instruct for given AA strings, etc etc.
In that context TAG usually means: terminate chaining, initiate folding and dispatch. So, it's just about as physical as a microprocessor that does similar things with silicon circuits and electrical signals. And the physical is just as incidental to the underlying issue: we are dealing with information processing, not physics and chemistry primarily, save as the "physical layer." (Resemblance to layer-cake information and communication models is NOT coincidental.) That's what materialists are in denial over, especially as we have a dominant industry full of empirical evidence to see that such entities are only observed to be created by intelligent designers. That grinding noise you hear is the sound of materialistic cognitive dissonance in the morning. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Still waiting...on the question of how does T-A-G physically mean "stop".Upright BiPed
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
PPPS: I should clarify -- Rob cited me from 104 in the other thread, and referred to the weak argument corrective no 28 by implication.kairosfocus
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT
PPS: The weak argument corrective no 28 responds to the challenge: What about FSCI [Functionally Specific, Complex Information] ? Isn’t it just a “pet idea” of some dubious commenters at UD? In so doing, it provides a sufficiently adequate and exemplified description of what functionally specific complex information is, that on fair comment, it is quite evident that Rob's remarks to Jerry at 80 above are also ill-founded, dismissive, and improperly unresponsive to easily accessible information.kairosfocus
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
PS: It will help to document what is going on rhetorically, to cite the weak argument corrective no 28, on FSCI:
. . . FSCI is actually a functionally specified subset of CSI, i.e. the relevant specification is connected to the presence of a contingent function due to interacting parts that work together in a specified context per requirements of a system, interface, object or process. For practical purposes, once an aspect of a system, process or object of interest has at least 500 – 1,000 bits or the equivalent of information storing capacity, and uses that capacity to specify a function that can be disrupted by moderate perturbations, then it manifests FSCI, thus CSI. This also leads to a simple metric for FSCI, the functionally specified bit; as with those that are used to display this text on your PC screen. (For instance, where such a screen has 800 x 600 pixels of 24 bits, that requires 11.52 million functionally specified bits. This is well above the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold.) On massive evidence, such cases are reliably the product of intelligent design, once we independently know the causal story. So, we are entitled to (provisionally of course; as per usual with scientific work) induce that FSCI is a reliable, empirically observable sign of design.
Observe from the highlights, what was cited by Rob, and what was omitted that would have given a highly material context. For, it would be plain from the context, that I am speaking of directly observable cases, not today's peer reviewed literature and the power games connected thereto.kairosfocus
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Footnote: (Pardon a response on a specific challenge, this is not intended to allow the thread to be side tracked through distractive objections.) Re Rob @ 79:
In cases where the vast spaces between targets are demonstrably functionless (and that means no information that aids in finding the target, since such guidance would constitute function), we humans consistently fail.
Rob, you here misrepresent the issue; perhaps because there is a fundamental divergence of perspective. In fact functionality in an "island "may vary from minimal to maximal, including a "mountain range" so to speak. Using our intellect and imagination, we routinely create systems that exhibit "likely to succeed patterns", up to a neighbourhood of complete success. We THEN do trial and error tests to get more and more function until we get satisfactory results, through debugging and development. To see what I am talking about, consider a microcontroller development or more generic program writing exercise. We do not start with random code and configurations, then arbitrarily change to see what happens. We DESIGN, we initially implement, we test from modules out to systems, and when we are in development, with a multi-fault environment, we see a cluster of difficulties that challenge us due to that multiplicity. In short, designed systems are developed based on intelligently directed, targetted search that can recognise fractional success and identify bugs then remove them. This is a commonplace of engineering work. But, in the evolutionary materialist model of the biological and pre-biological worlds, we do not have the luxury of playing with partial [module level] functionality and logical structure based testing to then adjust towards a predefined target. Functionality has to emerge on its own, without "clues" that move us from non-function to initial function. No multi-part, organised function all at once, no "fitness" to reward. And, to suggest that there is a smooth string of easily accessed neighbouring functions that takes us indirectly from basic chemicals in credible prebiotic soups to integrated life forms, or that between major body plans there is a similar path, is an assertion without empirical warrant on observations in the real world. In that context your hash function challenge is irrelevant. (Design theory does not posit to have created a one size fits all super decoding algorithm. As my note long since says in the first section: FIRST identify a function, which specifies the complex data, then check the required storage capacity. In effect if the function is such that we are looking at 1 k bits plus, on inference to best explanation in light of experience, it is designed.) Now, too, in your onward linked, you make an unsupportable assertion:
kairosfocus: [By contrast we know that intelligence routinely generates such FSCI.] [Rob:] Who is “we”? It certainly doesn’t include me. In the UD FAQ, you refer to “massive evidence” of this, but I see none. It certainly isn’t documented anywhere . . .
Rob, one type of function happens to be contextually responsive English text using ASCII code. The whole Internet stands in demonstration that it is documented that text strings meeting that criterion of function of more than 143 characters on our observation are invariably products of intelligent design. Similarly, source code for a real world program will illustrate the same pattern, i.e we also have a major industry worth of documentation. So, to disestablish the claim, all you need to do is to provide a credible case of 143 or more ASCII characters comprising function information along lines such as above, and which credibly came about by lucky noise and/or forces of mechanical necessity. that such counter-examples are persistently missing underscores the force of the original point. (And BTW, that is the point I made at my single comment in the relevant thread at 104.) Most likely, by "documentation" you mean stuff published in the current peer reviewed literature and passing the vetting and censorship of the Lewontinian materialist establishment. That is immediately the fallacy Galileo exposed 400 years ago: appeal to Magisterium, rather than to objective real world evidence, on a matter that can be settled directly by observation. But, even so, the recent work of Abel, Trevors et al, as well as a fairly lengthy list of other publications document the underlying point. Especially, once we recognise that "FSCI" is a DESCRIPTIVE TERM, not a "suspect" novel terminology. Namely, we do have such things as functionally specific, complex information bearing or expressing entities, which are fairly easy to observe: your posts and mine are cases in point. And, in the qualitative sense, these have long been identified as relevant to OOL. For instance, here is Orgel in 1973 on the distinguishing mark of cell based life:
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 which 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. [L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189.]
What design theorists such as Dembski have done is to in one direction, generalise: (i) specified complexity, not just bio-functional complexity, and in another direction, per Able, Trevors et al, (ii) to have defined dimensions in which such can be evaluated: orderly, random and [algorithmically] functional sequence complexity. And so, this is also actually somewhat relevant to the point of this thread. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Lamark writes: "To me the laws of the universe aren’t information. Information would have to include having the fingerprints of intelligence, evidenced by breaking the physical universes laws, as regards natural processes acting on their own." When I read your remarks, it reminded me that C.S. Lewis pointed out that a person interfering with the trajectory of a cue ball would not break the laws of physics. And studying the laws would not help us understand why the cue ball moved apart from our predictions. The point is that the physical laws were not broken, and that nature readily accomodated the supernatural (as opposed to unnatural) event. One cannot even call the interference logical or lawful. It is just will. As for information, it may be a simple way of showing oneself and giving the strong impression that there is more going on than just cause and effect explicable by natural causation. In a way, that is information too. It would be like getting someones attention by throwing pebbles from the sidelines. Pebbles don't fly on their own. But admittedly, it is not the type of information being discussed with regard to DNA. Seems to me that God covers all the bases. He provides digital information in the DNA as a clue, and also makes nature absurd enough as to not be intuitable by the assumption that it can ultimately explain itself. As far as evidence (or information) of a designer, it's not that it is unreasonable to conclude that some entity threw the pebbles to alert you of their presense, it's that we may not want to believe there is some unseen personality watching our every move. It is preferable for many to make absolute, the relative fact that nature can explain 'some' phenomenon. Makes one wonder... is God hiding or us? Does God put on fig leaves or us? Hope that is somewhat related to the topic...Lock
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
jerry, appealing to the everyday usage of the term "information" seems a poor way to support for your claim that "information is well defined". If the everyday usage is well-defined, what is the definition? Is it well enough defined to base a scientific argument for design on the existence of information? Regardless, ID theorists like Dembski and Durston do not use the term in the everyday sense, at least not consistently. For instance, Dembski uses it often in the Shannon sense: "Thus we define the measure of information in an event of probability p as -log2p". According to Dembski, the randomness of a coffee spill endows it with information. (Dembski's typical example is an ink spill.) Other ID proponents say the opposite. Shannon information is certainly more well-defined than the everyday usage of the term, but Dembski leaves crucial assumptions unresolved, without which even Shannon information is ambiguous. For instance, who or what is the receiver whose uncertainty is reduced by the message? Shannon information is explicitly subjective -- that is, the probability is Bayesian. ID arguments sometimes treat probability as subjective (as in the spilled ink), but then inconsistently posit conclusions that are supposedly objective (as in design inferences). This is just a long restatement of the points I made above, which, in all of your scoffing, you haven't addressed.R0b
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
On search space reasons, that leads to such isolation of islands of function that random walks and associated blind mechanical forces are simply not cr5edible explanations of origin of function. But, routinely, we know that intelligent agents produce such strings, e.g. every contextually meaningful English text string on the Internet of more than 143 characters of ASCII code is beyond the threshold.
I'll challenge this claim every time I see you make it, which is often. In cases where the vast spaces between targets are demonstrably functionless (and that means no information that aids in finding the target, since such guidance would constitute function), we humans consistently fail. For anyone who disagrees, the challenge is still open to find a 32 character sentence (capital letters and spaces only) whose MD5 hash is cb6ba5a8daf75b7d50fef95cecae78d7.R0b
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
"BTW, where does Dr Meyer say that is the appropriate source? In Signaure of the Cell?" Yes.jerry
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Mr Jerry, BTW, where does Dr Meyer say that is the appropriate source? In Signaure of the Cell?Nakashima
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Mr Jerry, Thank you for that source on Huxley. It appears to be the text of a talk he gave in Scotland, perhaps later published. In any case, it makes two points of note. One is that Huxley thought protoplasm to be complex, and expressed a sense of wonder at the complexity he saw under a microscope. The second is that he saw the ability of plants to metabolize raw materials as a proof that life is built from these same materials. However, this essay does not contain the idea, referred to in the OP, that Huxley thought the protoplasmic cell to be so simple that its origin was a simple matter.Nakashima
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Actually, the Huxley source was published in 1869 in something called the Fortnightly Review. From Wikipedia Fortnightly Review was one of the most important and influential magazines in nineteenth-century England. It was founded in 1865 by Anthony Trollope, Frederic Harrison, Edward Spencer Beesly, and six others with an investment of ?9,000; the first edition appeared on 15 May 1865.[1] George Henry Lewes, the partner of George Eliot, was its first editor, followed by John Morley.jerry
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14