Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

An Eye Into The Materialist Assault On Life’s Origins

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
Nakashima, Meyer's Ph.D. at Cambridge was on the history of the Origin of Life debate so he had access to nearly everything at a primary source level. The relevant source for Huxley according to Meyer is On the Physical Basis of Life1 (1868) and can be found at http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE1/PhysB.htmljerry
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Dbt, yes you ar exactly right: It has nothing to do with us. But we know about how rust happens. The question then becomes how does it mean "stop"?Upright BiPed
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
"You seem to think the Watson/Crick formulation of ‘biological information’ is relying on the everyday sense of the word." Yes, I do and all your machinations are just reinforcing what I have been saying. You seem to think that because a word has more than one meaning that you have a gotcha. But all you are doing is making my point as I said when after reading the long article that "I rest my case." Because the word "information" has many connotations you think that somehow it makes one wrong when one uses it in one of its every day uses. We use the term information here all the time and it is consistent with what Watson and Crick meant, it is consistent with how a major part of the Stanford Encyclopedia discusses it and it is consistent with an every day use of the word which is why Watson and Crick used it immediately in 1953 even before they had any comprehension of the mechanism for which it might be valid. Your behavior in this is just a typical anti ID way of trying to impugn someone with anything one can possibly conjure up. Instead of having a positive conversation, the anti ID MO is to see how one can prove someone else wrong or try to make them look foolish. It is not even subtle any more and it gets tiresome dealing with such childish manners. It also reinforces that the pro ID people have legitimate things or else the argument would be about that instead of inconsequential minutiae. Keep up the irrelevant sniping. It makes our case easier for those who are trying to learn.jerry
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
PPPS: those who want a good overview on the protein synthesis algorithm could look here. Wiki -- on the theory of a picture being worth 1,000 words -- has two good diagrams here and here. Notice the advance "tape", read-express [append to aa chain] cycle the latter illustrates. Cf the diagram with animation here on magnetic tape action. [Magnetic tape and heads do not "understand" meanings either, indeed they just carry out electromagnetic interactions. In an irreducibly complex organised framework that physically implements information transfer.]kairosfocus
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
PPS: DBT re:
TAG doesn’t mean ’stop’ at all. We say ’stop codon’ because it describes its function. It simply doesn’t match any tRNAs, but does react with proteins called release factors, and so translation stops. The ribosome doesn’t need to ‘know’ its ‘meaning’
And so, TAG under normal circumstances is a halting instruction, like a NO-OP loop can function as a part of a halting phase in a machine language program. The transistors and associated components in an MPU do not "understand" machine code either, they just implement it according to a built in algorithm [these days, through a lower level program, microcode]. That does not prevent machine code from being code in an algorithmically oriented language. Last, NO OP can also be used for other purposes. In short, you are straining at gnats while swallowing camels here.kairosfocus
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT
Footnote: "Jus a pass thru" . . . and took a look at DBT's linked from Stanford Enc of Phil on bio-information. Here's the intro section: ______________ >> Biological Information First published Thu Oct 4, 2007 During the last sixty years, the concept of information has acquired a strikingly prominent role in many parts of biology. This enthusiasm extends far beyond domains where the concept might seem to have an obvious application, such as the biological study of perception, cognition, and language, and now reaches into the most basic parts of biological theory. Descriptions of how genes play their causal role in metabolic processes and development are routinely given in terms of “transcription,” “translation,” and “editing.” The most general term used for the processes by which genes exert their effects is “gene expression.” Many biologists think of the developmental processes by which organisms progress from egg to adult in terms of the execution of a “developmental program.” Other biologists have argued for a pivotal role for information in evolution rather than development: John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary (for example) suggest that major transitions in evolution depend on expansions in the amount and accuracy with which information is transmitted across the generations. And some have argued that we can only understand the evolutionary role of genes by recognizing an informational “domain” that exists alongside the domain of matter and energy. Both philosophers and biologists have contributed to an ongoing foundational discussion of the status of this mode of description in biology. It is generally agreed that the sense of information isolated by Claude Shannon and used in mathematical information theory is legitimate, useful, and relevant in many parts of biology. In this sense, anything is a source of information if it has a range of possible states, and one variable carries information about another to the extent that their states are physically correlated. But it is also agreed that many uses of informational language in biology seem to make use of a richer and more problematic concept than Shannon's. [I add: That is, "information" here is about FUNCTION and complexity!] Some have drawn on the teleosemantic tradition in philosophy of mind to make sense of this richer concept. A minority tradition has argued that the enthusiasm for information in biology has been a serious theoretical wrong turn, and that it fosters naive genetic determinism, other distortions of our understanding of the roles of interacting causes, or an implicitly dualist ontology. [I comment: What about an implicit materialist ontology imposed by today's Magisteria as the "definition" of science?] Others take this critique seriously but try to distinguish legitimate appeals to information from misleading or erroneous ones. [I remark: And, how does one do that without begging questions, given that say DNA does use a discrete state string based code, which functions algorithmically in expressing proteins etc . . . ?] In recent years, the peculiarities of biological appeals to information have also been used by critics of evolutionary theory within the “intelligent design” movement. >> ______________ The last paragraph reveals a lot -- especially about the motives of the critics, and about the lack of substance of the criticism. (I find it also telling how ID criticisms of a priori materialist theories on evolution have been presented!) I also find the use of scare-quotes very revealing. After all it is not the mere chemistry of forming a D/RNA chain of monomers that has given rise to the contextually meaningful genetic code, including the significance of TAG. And TAG takes its significance in the context of an algorithm that uses a coded string in DNA and mRNA to sequence amino acids in a protein chain, TAG telling it when to quit adding to the chain. Finally, Shannon Information is really a metric of capacity to carry information, not of contextual functionality. But, when that capacity is put to work as just described, and we see that over 1,000 bits of capacity are used up in a code based algorithmic context, we can easily see that the number of possible configurations involved exceeds ten times the SQUARE of the number of states the 10^80 atoms of our observed cosmos could cycle through across its thermodynamically reasonable lifespan. 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. So, since there is no good evidence that life function can be packed into less than 1,000 bits [indeed the minimum observed for independently viable life forms is about 600 k bits] then we have only one good candidate for origin of bio-functional information: intelligence. As the just excerpted shows, the objection to this inference is not scientific but philosophical: a priori commitment to materialism, now often enforced by institutional power games that have provided tendentious redefinitions of science, a la Lewontin and his fellow members of the US national Academy of Sciences. These fail to tell us, that such redefinitions lack historical and philosophical warrant. So, as we look on, it is plain that much of the above is a matter of distractions and deflections. Which is sad, burt revelaing ont eh real balance ont eh merits. GEM of TKI PS: Mr Huxley of course was Darwin's Bulldog, and a champion of what he called "agnosticism," which boils down to a sophisticated, "softened" version of atheism. So, when Nakashima-San says above that "he was confident that science was the right method to cover that distance [from first life to its origins] . . . " we may properly challenge that "science" does not imply or entail "materialism," but can properly infer to the artificial (i.e. intelligent) as an empirically credible explanation where warranted. At least, if it is to be an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) pursuit of the truth about our world, in light of evidence and reasoned dialogue on the significance of such evidence.kairosfocus
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT
Upright @ 63
Would T-A-G still mean “stop” if we all died tomorrow?
TAG doesn't mean 'stop' at all. We say 'stop codon' because it describes its function. It simply doesn't match any tRNAs, but does react with proteins called release factors, and so translation stops. The ribosome doesn't need to 'know' its 'meaning'. TAG isn't even the only stop codon. There're also TGA and TAA. And, in some cases, these stop codons don't even stop translation at all, but instead cause non-standard amino acids to be added to the polypeptide chain. So, if we all died tomorrow, the canonical stop codons would still cause translation to stop (most of the time), and atoms with 26-proton nuclei would still form rust when combined with oxygen in the presence of sufficient moisture and participate in countless other reactions, just as they always have. The labels are for our convenience. The molecules and atoms don't care. They just react.
dbthomas
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
While I was unable to find a quote from Huxley to support the position of Dr Meyer (or is it Deyes'?) from the OP, I have found this from Haeckel. It derives from his History of Creation, 1876, translated into English here. Through the discovery of these organisms [Monera], which are of the utmost importance, the supposition of a spontaneous generation loses most of its difficulties. For as all trace of organization-all distinction of heterogeneous parts-is still wanting in them, and as all the vital phenomena are performed by one and the same homogeneous and formless matter, we can easily imagine their origin by spontaneous generation. The above refers to what Haeckel called plasmogeny, the creation of cells from a fluid mixture of organic material. This he considered no great leap, compared to autogeny, the creation of the organic materials necessary for plasmogeny from purely inorganic materials. (see p. 415-416) Having not read Signature of the Cell, I don't know if Dr Meyer actually references these or similar materials. Perhaps someone who is already reading the book (Mr Joseph?) can confirm for us.Nakashima
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
Mr BiPed, Naka, your comment seems to be lacking the all-so-evasive evidence for the spontaneous generation of Life. Indeed. We have made progress on understanding the problem since Huxley's day, but less progress on solving the problem. Still, we have made some progress, and by very crude methods. That is heartening. We also have other lines of reasoning which Huxley did not imagine. Cellular automata such as Evoloops show that life can arise spontaneously in a universe with different laws. Now the appropriate ID response to Evoloops would be to point out that the rules of that universe were intelligently designed. This is certainly true, and it would be an interesting piece of research to sample CA rulespace to see how common are universes that support life. This would be in line with what Wolfram called "A New Kind of Science".Nakashima
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
Rude-san, With respect to equating science and materialism, I was not trying to state my opinion, I was trying to convey the position of Huxley in his essay. As I said, the essay is quite short, and it is interesting to see the view of a Victorian scientist on the definition of science, and how it differs from the issues and vocabulary with which we have become familiar.Nakashima
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT
Barb-san, @42 you give some interesting quotes, but none of them support your original contention that OOL scientists looking into Oparin-style coacervates suffered criticism based on Pasteur's biogenesis theory.Nakashima
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
So, T-A-G is an acronym for thymine-adenine-guanine that means "stop". That is very interesting, don’t you think? But, I am worried about the permanence of your answer, that being: T-A-G is a name we give to these physical chemicals which means “stop”. For instance, we as humans call the chemical iron by the name “Fe” in the atomic table. And if we all died tomorrow - and no humans existed at all - then “Fe” wouldn’t have the slightest bit of meaning to it. After all, it’s only a name we gave it. Would T-A-G still mean “stop” if we all died tomorrow?Upright BiPed
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
Have a Tagamet…take a Calgon bath. I was asking a simple question composed of four words. I truly am sorry that you’ve been so moved.
Umm, moved? If by that you mean 'somewhat perplexed' then..OK. Also: Tagamet? Heartburn medication doesn't really make sense in that context. Valium or xanax would have been better. Tagamet does have T, A, and G in it though, so there's that I guess.
[L]ittle did I know that you would not know the context of the question I posed.
Which is why I asked what the hell you were talking about. BTW, I'm changing my wild guess: I'm going with 'Thymine Adenine Guanine', being as it is a stop codon and also because it seems like a pretty on-topic option. If that's so, then the answer you're looking to get is: "Stop." I still can't rule out the religion-related options though, as they are equally if not more on-topic for UD.dbthomas
July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
Goodness gracious dbt, Have a Tagamet…take a Calgon bath. I was asking a simple question composed of four words. I truly am sorry that you’ve been so moved. I asked the question because I was all caught up in the validity of arguments here at UD. With your pronounced list of 7, 8, 9 answers - little did I know that you would not know the context of the question I posed. I simply asked: “What does T-A-G mean?”Upright BiPed
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
Seversky, FYI, etching on the surface will not cause the disc to be lighter. The laser will slightly melt the plastic, meaning the density of the plastic around the etched area will change. There is no loss of atoms on the disc, just uneven density.
My understanding is that, on the master CD at least, information is etched into its surface by a laser beam as a series of microscopic “pits”. If that is true then the disc with information should actually be fractionally lighter than a blank by the amount of material burnt away.
In the below example, there would be an unperceptible weight change depending on the weight of the ink dyestuff and water. If lighter than the cellulose of the paper, then more difficult to detect. But this is still meaningless in terms of identifying information. Weighting paper could only establish that it was altered, not that it contains information. A coffee spill could also change the weight of the paper but would not contain any information, besides the fact that coffee was spilled on the paper.
Of course, a simple thought experiment shows it could go either way. If I were to write this post on a sheet of paper with a pen, the additional information would cause the paper to become marginally heavier by the amount of ink on its surface. On the other hand, if I were to use a knife to cut out from the paper the letters making up this post, the addition of the same information would have made the paper lighter by the amount of the paper removed.
Oramus
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
Lock: you're overfocusing on the 'material'. That's the classic way of defining materialism: it's all about matter, which people usually think of in terms of stuff they can pick up. No one really uses it that way anymore, though. How could they, given E=MC2? A more current and accurate term would be 'physicalism'. Thus, you can encode information on actual matter like a CD or DVD or Blu-Ray, but it can also be transmitted using a wifi link. In either case, you have to have some sort of physical medium, and the 'arrangement' of that medium corresponds to the original data, whatever that was. The machinery which encodes and decodes the data doesn't have to understand a thing about the content. It only has to encode and decode in a well-defined and consistent fashion.dbthomas
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
Seversky, you may be right about the disks. I don't know for sure. It was my understanding that CDs have the layer displaced but not removed in any way. But suppose there is a difference in mass, was it put there by a natural process or an intelligence? As another example, what is the difference in the mass of my monitor as a result of these letters you are reading, as oppossed to mere background? The argument I prefer is a newspaper (leaving aside the obvious intelligent origin). It isn't the ink, or paper that contain the information. It is the arrangement of them. Same with the CD whether the mass is the same or not. In principle, the material (as you said) can only be the medium. But in saying so, you have made the distinction. As for information requiring a material medium... how could I falsify your claim? Science has proven the existence of forces that cannot be directly observed (dark matter etc). Why is it assumed they are material? What is matter? You do not even know what matter is Seversky, and niether do I. Maybe matter requires an immaterial medium and you have it backwards. There is little more dangerous, than certainty amongst, men. On the DVD Meyer did not go into the different definitions of information. It is my assumption that the DVD was not produced in order to sell materialistic counterarguments. In the same way, I do not expect (nor do you) that documentaries on the Discovery Channel will give arguments for design in order to challenge the prevailing view of the producers. I discovered the definitions and arguments you elude to very quickly when deciding to share ID with others here in virtual land. I have done my share of head knocking over it all. Just not here. But I do like your spunk!Lock
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
Oh, looks like I was wrong. This is why you think you've made a point:
Why don’t you try something simple like the common use of the term in every day English.
You seem to think the Watson/Crick formulation of 'biological information' is relying on the everyday sense of the word. I don't see how. For one, a decent dictionary will show you that there are many non-technical senses of the word. For two, that's a fairly specific description of DNA coding:
So the argument in Godfrey-Smith (2000a) and Griffiths (2001) is that there is one kind of informational or semantic property that genes and only genes have: coding for the amino acid sequences of protein molecules. But this relation “reaches” only as far as the amino acid sequence. It does not vindicate the idea that genes code for whole-organism phenotypes, let alone provide a basis for the wholesale use of informational or semantic language in biology. Genes can have a reliable causal role in the production of a whole-organism phenotype, of course. But if this causal relation is to be described in informational terms, then it is a matter of ordinary Shannon information, which applies to environmental factors as well.
That's not what people usually mean by "information" in the everyday sense. It's much more restricted.dbthomas
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
"I find this very interesting. As it turns out, there is indeed an “immaterial vital force” that is unique in living systems, and found nowhere else in chemistry. It’s called information. Chemistry is the medium; information is the message." I don't see how this is concluded from the article necessarily, but I'd like to understand this viewpoint. This idea of information I thought I had a handle on because genes have information stored on them. Is this a broader and different definition of information than as it relates to genes? 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.lamarck
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
Jerry @ 48:
Thank you, I rest my case.
How so? You implied @ 37 that biology used the term uniformly:
It’s the same terminology that Watson and Crick used in 1953 and which is used in every biology departments all over the planet.
That's one definition, as the page I pointed you too shows, but it's not the only one. So as I see it, you're case isn't resting. It died. Oh, I know why you think you've made a point: because biologists as a whole haven't "nailed down their terminology". What matters, though, is whether particular biologists use their preferred definitions consistently, and whether or not the definitions themselves are clear and unambiguous.dbthomas
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
Upright, what the hell are you talking about? I can think of a number of possibilities: a. You're it b. Thymine Adenine Guanine c. The Almighty God d. Technical Advisory Group e. Talented And Gifted f. T=20, A=1, & G=7, and 20-1-7=12, therefore T-A-G means 'L' h. A small label I often find attached to my clothing j. Graffiti k. A brand of body spray l. Triglyceride m. A small tumor and lastly: n. Transcendental Argument for God As an utterly wild guess, I'll say that final one is what you've been fishing for.dbthomas
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT
"Excellent! Is Gil referring to probabilistic, algorithmic, or some other definition of information in #1? How far back do we have to regress conditions when we measure CSI? Bayesian or frequentist?" Why don't you try something simple like the common use of the term in every day English. I haven't got a clue what you are talking about but whatever it is, it is not necessary to understand the simple information concept used in biology. You would have no trouble explaining it to a 10 year old. Now, the article on biology and information from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses this very simple form of information as well as some more esoteric forms. But all you need is the extremely simple form.jerry
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
"Here, take a look at this, and you’ll see it’s hardly so cut and dried as you think:" Thank you, I rest my case.jerry
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
SOooOOooOoooo....what does T-A-G mean?Upright BiPed
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
A blank disk weighs the same as a full disk, says Stephen Meyer, so information is immaterial.
But what about punch cards? Do they contain information of negative weight? Or is the same amount of CSI stored with positve weight in the punched out pieces? Just wondering.sparc
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
Lock @ 3
I was already sitting down, tired from cheering and jumping up and down durring the video; but, when I got to the question and answer segment and heard Dr. Meyer explain his illustration about the lack of difference in mass between an empty CD and one containing information I was hooked. That is a powerful illustration.
My understanding is that, on the master CD at least, information is etched into its surface by a laser beam as a series of microscopic "pits". If that is true then the disc with information should actually be fractionally lighter than a blank by the amount of material burnt away. Of course, a simple thought experiment shows it could go either way. If I were to write this post on a sheet of paper with a pen, the additional information would cause the paper to become marginally heavier by the amount of ink on its surface. On the other hand, if I were to use a knife to cut out from the paper the letters making up this post, the addition of the same information would have made the paper lighter by the amount of the paper removed. Does this tell us anything other than information requires a physical medium in which to be stored? Out of interest, did Dr Meyer discuss the nature of information or explain the various ways in which it is defined?Seversky
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
Just a note on this analogy regarding empty vs. full CD's. Technically, there's no information on either. The information lives only in the mind of the programmer(s) and the end-users. When you physically take apart a CD which when viewed on your computer has pictures of the moon stored on it, you don't see the pictures. You don't really see anything at all. Instead you see *representative* bits, either ones or zeros. "Representative", because in actuality you would see electrons frozen in place on one side or another (assuming you looked REALLY closely). For a "one" is information that's not really there. And a "zero" is a different kind of information that isn't really there either. In the end, and again I'm being quite literal here, there's no *information* on the CD itself. Only a series of electrons, that when decoded by a *mind* (and only a mind) can be *assembled* into information. One might argue that it's a computer that decodes the bits, but this is only true on the surface. Because when reduced down, there was a programmer's mind responsible for the computer itself. So even here, it's the mind of the programmer that contains the *information*. Assume for a moment that there were never programmers and never computers but there were, by some freak cosmic accident, this same CD with electrons on either one or another side. In this case there would be no moons. There would be nothing on it. The electrons would be *literally* randomly dispersed on the CD. There would be *no* information on it. When considering the cell, I always wonder *how* in the world those little buggers process, decode, and then produce error-free output of the information hidden in DNA. They're like tiny computers reading, decoding, and producing output of DNA as if it were source code. So in the end, information comes from *minds* and only minds (as far as I know). DNA is information. It seems to me the most likely source of said information is a Mind. (Second post ever....see you again next year :-)shackleman
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
jerry:
Information is well defined.
Excellent! Is Gil referring to probabilistic, algorithmic, or some other definition of information in #1? How far back do we have to regress conditions when we measure CSI? Bayesian or frequentist?
Immaterial is immaterial to biology.
You responded to my comment about the terms information and immaterial. What terminology were you referring to when you said that it's used in every biology department?R0b
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Barb @ 42:
Many still hold that the Earth’s early atmosphere was reducing (containing little oxygen) because laboratory experiments showed that chemical evolution would be inhibited by oxygen.
Yeah, that's the ONLY reason anyone thinks Earth was oxygen-poor initially. Regardless of the exact details of composition, it is in fact quite well-known that oxygen was not common on the early Earth because there is evidence that such was the case. Ever heard of the Oxygen Catastrophe? You may want to look here as well: History of Earth and also here: Paleoclimatology After that, give Google Scholar a spin.dbthomas
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Nakashima-san: “Since this idea logically breaks down at any theory of biogenesis, whether natural or divine, I don’t know that scientists looking into OOL experiments, such as testing if Oparin’s coacervates could form in primitive conditions, really suffered any criticism from this direction. If you can quote an example, it would be helpful.” Let’s look at some criticisms on OOL projects, including the Miller-Urey experiment. “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” Stated in 1864 by Pasteur himself. He demonstrated unequivocally that even minute bacteria didn’t form in sterilized water protected from contamination. No experiment, to my knowledge anyway, has ever produced life from nonliving matter. Dr. Stanley Miller himself was quoted in the magazine Scientific American as stating: “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people envisioned.” Miller was straightforward in a paper published two years after his experiment: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed.” (Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955). Some 25 years post-experiment, Technology Review (April 1981) noted that: “Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.” Scientific American in 1991 noted that: “Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere.” Many still hold that the Earth’s early atmosphere was reducing (containing little oxygen) because laboratory experiments showed that chemical evolution would be inhibited by oxygen. So, despite the evidence to the contrary, the early atmosphere was reducing, scientists originally thought, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place. That is circular reasoning. My incredulity stems from watching intelligent scientists conclude, without evidence, that life just happened in an uncontrolled environment, by chance, when they cannot even create life under controlled conditions in a technologically advanced laboratory. It’s simple common sense. Also, consider the underlying import of such faulty reasoning. “Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.” Look, I don’t claim to be a philosopher, but I know a logical fallacy when I see one.Barb
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
1 10 11 12 13 14

Leave a Reply