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
Onlookers: The balance of this debate on its merits is quite evident, in particular the following: 1-> Despite numerous requests, a blanket refusal to demonstrate how FSCI can be calculated for a specific example. 2-> instead resorts to rhetorical claims and gestures towards products of human design with claims of 'Look, FCSI, its obvious onlookers.' 3-> this, coupled with a clearly demonstrated failure to understand computational models of biology and nature 4-> and inventions of islands of function as an evidence free rhetorical dismissive device ignoring established and emperically based concepts like neutrality 5-> all clearly illustrate the vacuity and lack of scientific rigour that underlies FCSI and the selective hyperskeptisism employed to avoid a discussion of the issues on their merits. In short: cut the flowery rhetoric KF, put your money where your mouth is and show us how to calculate the FSCI in a GA, in a pen, a rock or anything else for that matter.BillB
July 26, 2009
July
07
Jul
26
26
2009
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
Onlookers: The balance on the actual merits continues to be quite evident. Observe, especially, that objectors tot he inference from FSCI as a reliable sign of design are still unable to come up with a credible empirically observed counter-example. This is directly relevant to the point of the original post, that life reflects a distinct extra that is at least partly captured by functionally specific, complex information, which is inexplicable on undirected chance + necessity. Jerry: You have a point, i.e. the thread is plainly showing selective hyperskepticism at work on the objectors side, now coming up as endless distractive or dismissive objections. Re CH @ 269: Please first look up 177 above, or my always linked on metrics for FSCI. (In short, you have set up and hope to knock over a strawman that reflects at best lack of awareness of what is being discussed. For instance,t eh simple metric as I gave will never rule anything to be 1 bit of FSCI. the point of complexity is that beyond a certain threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits, functional target zones in the overall configuration space -- islands of relevant function -- are so isolated that the search resources of the cosmos are inadequate to credibly find such, apart form intelligent direction.) Nakashima-San, 270:
how should a Second Life avatar react to an earthquake around San Francisco (the location of Linden Labs’ servers)?
1 --> How is this even remotely relevant to the issues in this thread? (Scratching head . . . ) 2 --> I observe from Wiki: >> Second Life (SL) is a virtual world developed by Linden Lab that launched on June 23, 2003 and is accessible via the Internet. A free client program called the Second Life Viewer[1] enables its users, called Residents, to interact with each other through avatars. Residents can explore, meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade virtual property and services with one another, or travel throughout the world, which residents refer to as the grid . . . . Built into the software is a three dimensional modeling tool based around simple geometric shapes that allows a resident to build virtual objects. This can be used in combination with the Linden Scripting Language which can be used to add functionality to objects. More complex three dimensional Sculpted prims (colloquially known as sculpties), textures for clothing or other objects, and animations and gestures can be created using external software . . . >> 3 --> All of this is of course pretty explicitly functional, complex and specific software creating a model world that is of course the product of a network of intelligent designers. That is, it exemplifies that FSCI is observed to be the product of design. 4 --> If you mean that a sufficiently strong earthquake could directly or indirectly cause massive perturbation to the servers, well that would be plainly possible, and would on overwhelming probability result in not improvement but destruction of performance. G'day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 26, 2009
July
07
Jul
26
26
2009
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
I just noticed a post addressed to me several days ago that I missed. DK, I have never used or presented such logic on UD. If you say that I have, then provide a link...or, you could simply promise not to put words in my mouth in the future. :) - - - - - - - By the way, I can understand you wanting to push such logic. It would make the logic presented by the following idea much more easy to ignore: Chance and physical necessity cannot be rationally offered as the mechanisms that caused the organization of inanimate matter into living tissue. To do so would be a direct contradiction of what we empirically know to be true of each of these mechanism. Therefore, only chance and physical necessity may be used to explain the organization of inanimate matter into living tissue. Upright BiPed
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
BillB
algorithm: A finite set of unambiguous instructions performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a goal… …think about where you are likely to find naturally occurring things that are by definition products of human endeavor.
Only humans use algorithmic instructions? ...? ? “DNA contains the specific instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. To carry out these functions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.” –genome.gov ? ”The sequence of nucleotides in a gene gives it meaning by storing the instructions for building the other molecules necessary for life. –National Academy of Sciences ? “DNA's instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA. Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the "language" of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. –US National Library of Medicine - - - - - - - - If your comment was an attempt to dismiss the algorithmic nature of DNA, then it was factually silly on its face. And if it was an attempt to dismiss what we see because we are human and we give things human names, then your comment was then old and tired. If I remember correctly, it’s number six or seven on the All-Time Materialists Retorts list. As was already discussed on this thread, if every human on the planet died tomorrow, the symbol system instantiated inside DNA would keep right on acting as symbols for discreet physical substances and processes. Those symbols and the discreet physical substances and processes they represent would continue to have no physical connection to each other. The entire system has nothing whatsoever to do with humans observing it, nor giving it the name “algorithm”.
Perhaps you meant: “I was looking for naturally occurring complex processes”
Chemical processes seek stasis, BillB. DNA does precisely the opposite.Upright BiPed
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
Hoki,
The very sort of assmptions you are using when you say what you expect the designer to have (or not) done.
Yes, of course. However my point is that if the universe is designed for human life then I'm simply pointing out that if that's the case then it's a very roundabout way of making human beings - create a very very large universe and then put human beings only in a single place. Perhaps somebody can clarify why the entire universe is required to ensure human beings happen in just one tiny part of it. If we are special then it's because the universe is not designed to produce us inevitably. Humans are possible, here we are. But inevitable? No. If we were we'd know about it already, if only from the other human beings blowing up their own planets with nuclear bombs! We'd see and understand that!Mr Charrington
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Clive,
No.
Why?Mr Charrington
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Mr Charrington, ------"The more special we are, the less the universe was designed to produce us, no?" No.Clive Hayden
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Mr's Charrington and Hayden: Didn't you learn anything from Cornelius Hunter's posts about religious assumptions? The very sort of assmptions you are using when you say what you expect the designer to have (or not) done.Hoki
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Clive
That makes us, and life, all the more special.
The more special we are, the less the universe was designed to produce us, no?Mr Charrington
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Clive
The universe is not empty of life, maybe you don’t grasp that you’re alive, nor appreciate what it takes for your existence.
If the universe was the size of a pint glass would you say that the glass was "full of life"? Or would you on first glance simply see an empty (of life) glass?
If there be any room between the ground and the end of the universe, you have to have space.
True. True. But this much "space" between "the ground" and "the end of the universe"? As you happen to be sitting on "the ground" don't you think your viewpoint my be biased? Seems to me it's much more likely the purpose of the universe is to generate as much empty space as possible. That is what makes up the majority of the universe, after all. Life just seems to be an extra blip along for the ride. You say the universe is designed for life, I say it's designed for life in the same way that a 747 is designed for moving bacteria around the world, or casting plane shape shadows. And, Clive, do you think the "designer" could be an Alien or not? Could the designer of life be different to the "designer" of the universe? You seem to be avoiding this. How many designers do you think there were Clive?Mr Charrington
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Mr Charrington, -------"Then would it not be more reasonable still for the Designer to simply create life on Earth without the rest of the universe? What does it add? Why is anything outside of planet earth even there in that case? Just to give us something to look at in the night sky?" Are you serious? If there be any room between the ground and the end of the universe, you have to have space. The universe is not empty of life, maybe you don't grasp that you're alive, nor appreciate what it takes for your existence. The universe is full of life, the argument from size, that you're attempting to make, is very feeble. If we say that sizes determine value, then you're less valuable than the closest tree. "In popular thought, however, the origin of the universe has counted (I think) for less than its character - its immense size and its apparent indifference, if not hostility, to human life. And very often this impresses people all the more because it is supposed to be a modern discovery - an excellent example of those things which our ancestors did not know and which, if they had known them, would have prevented the very beginnings of Christianity. Here there is a simple historical falsehood. Ptolemy knew just as well as Eddington that the earth was infinitesimal in comparison with the whole content of space. There is no question here of knowledge having grown until the frame of archaic thought is no longer able to contain it. The real question is why the spatial insignificance of the Earth, after being known for centuries, should suddenly in the last century have become an argument against Christianity [or Design]. I do not know why this has happened; but I am sure it does not mark an increased clarity of thought, for the argument from size is in my opinion, very feeble. When the doctor at a post-mortem diagnoses poison, pointing to the state of the dead man’s organs, his argument is rational because he has a clear idea of that opposite state in which the organs would have been found if no poison were present. In the same way, if we use the vastness of space and the smallness of earth to disprove the existence of God [and Design], we ought to have a clear idea of the sort of universe we should expect if God [or the Designer] did exist. But have we? Whatever space may be in itself – and, of course, some moderns think it finite – we certainly perceive it as three-dimensional, and to three-dimensional space we can conceive no boundaries. By the very forms of our perceptions, therefore, we must feel as if we lived somewhere in infinite space. If we discovered no objects in this infinite space except those which are of use to man (our own sun and moon), then this vast emptiness would certainly be used as a strong argument against the existence of God [and the Designer]. If we discover other bodies, they must be habitable or uninhabitable: and the odd thing is that both these hypotheses are used as grounds for rejecting Christianity [and Design]. If the universe is teeming with life, this, we are told, reduces to absurdity the Christian [or Design] claim – or what is thought to be the Christian [or Design] claim – that man is unique, and the Christian doctrine that to this one planet God came down and was incarnate for us men and for our salvation. If on the other hand, the earth is really unique, then that proves that life is only an accidental by-product in the universe, and so again disproves [the] religion. Really, we are hard to please. We treat God as the police treat a man when he is arrested, whatever He does will be used in evidence against Him. I do not think this is due to…wickedness. I suspect that there is something in our very mode of thought which makes it inevitable that we should always be baffled by actual existence, whatever character actual existence may have. ~C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, "Dogma and the Universe" (1970)Clive Hayden
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Clive,
It is perfectly valid and reasonable that the Designer arranged the entire universe for life on Earth only.
Then would it not be more reasonable still for the Designer to simply create life on Earth without the rest of the universe? What does it add? Why is anything outside of planet earth even there in that case? Just to give us something to look at in the night sky?
What’s interesting to me, is that the possibility that aliens exist is trotted out as an argument against design, but so is the argument of the impossibility of aliens existing.
What's interesting to me is that if aliens exist they are material. If they are material they could not have created the universe, as they are in it too. So while Intelligent Design on the one hand pretends to accept Aliens as a viable mechanism for the origin of life in reality ID proponents also believe "the Designer" created the universe. You can't have it both ways.
Which do you think is the better argument? One thing is for sure, you can’t use both.
You tell me Clive. Do you honestly believe "the Designer" could be an alien? If so, do you accept then that there is more then one possible designer? The designer of life on earth and the creator of the universe?
It would be an unwarranted assumption to assume that we should see more life on the design hypothesis.
It could be if you could show how it's logical that the universe is both created for life and empty of life at the same time. If you could show not only that the entire universe is required for life but that's it has to be empty of other life for life on earth to happen then maybe it would be an unwarranted assumption. As long as those things are lacking, well, it's not that unwarrented.
Whether there “should” be more life on that assumption, has no purchase.
If the universe is created for life, then explain how it is not full of life. You have not done that. Just said it makes us more special. That's not an explanation.Mr Charrington
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Mr Charrington, ------"Then why do you suppose is is that in the entire observed universe we appear to be the only life form? That makes us, and life, all the more special. ------I mean, if the cosmos was “designed for that kind of life” would we not expect to see, er, more of it? In fact, not more, just “any other them ourselves” would help your case. In fact, we see none. Despite that you claim the cosmos was designed for life. Right… No, we wouldn't necessarily expect that. It is perfectly valid and reasonable that the Designer arranged the entire universe for life on Earth only. What's interesting to me, is that the possibility that aliens exist is trotted out as an argument against design, but so is the argument of the impossibility of aliens existing. Which do you think is the better argument? One thing is for sure, you can't use both. ------Why do you suppose that is KF, if the entire universe is designed for “this kind of life” that we see only a single example of it? Us?" Because we are special to the design. It would be an unwarranted assumption to assume that we should see more life on the design hypothesis. It is enough to determine that the finely tuned constant's likelihood being a result of blind caprice are vanishingly small for our own existence. Whether there "should" be more life on that assumption, has no purchase.Clive Hayden
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
"insistent sophomoric dismissal of my understanding of scientific theorising and modelling," kairosfocus, they are just playing games. Whatever you say, they will make up some strange comment such as "FSCI has not been demonstrated because the sky was grey yesterday and Uranus has 25 moons" You will reply that Uranus has 27 moons and then they will say see you are not sure because some of what are called moons are just large rocks temporarily caught in its orbit. And then the debate will go on about the length of the time of each moon in Uranus's orbit and because of the uncertainty, FSCI is uncertain at best as a concept. You will then argue that the number of moons on Uranus has nothing to do with FSCI and they will say prove it. And then they will declare victory and mock you for your lack of understanding of such basic concepts of science. And if you asked what has the sky being grey has to do with anything they will say your lack the basic understanding disqualifies you and FSCI as anything important because it is obviously FSCI. As I said answering their inane comments is just feeding their childish behavior. You are answering the spammers.jerry
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
KF-san, Declaring victory, Day 2. Here's another unanswered question - how should a Second Life avatar react to an earthquake around San Francisco (the location of Linden Labs' servers)?Nakashima
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus, Can you give me an example of something with 1 bit of FSCI? 499 bits of FSCI? 500 bits of FSCI? 501 bits of FSCI?
Similarly, the finely tuned balance of multiple factors that “sets” the observed cosmos to an operating point that is favourable to life points to design of the observed cosmos for that kind of life.
Then why do you suppose is is that in the entire observed universe we appear to be the only life form? I mean, if the cosmos was "designed for that kind of life" would we not expect to see, er, more of it? In fact, not more, just "any other them ourselves" would help your case. In fact, we see none. Despite that you claim the cosmos was designed for life. Right... Why do you suppose that is KF, if the entire universe is designed for "this kind of life" that we see only a single example of it? Us? Any thoughts on that? If the universe is designed for this kind of life then the designer could have done a better job. I can think of better designs for a universe if "this kind of life" was the target. Fill it with air for a start. Give everybody wings. Use all that empty space between the stars for something! So, KF, if the cosmos is designed for life what kind of life is it designed for? It's not humanity, that's for sure.Mr Charrington
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Onlookers: The onward remarks above show just why I have found it necessary to draw a bottom-line summary of the actual state of the case on the merits above, both for the challenged concept of FSCI, and the underlying question of the origins of life. (Notice, as the rhetorical dust settles, how to date a valid counter example to the inductive generalisation that FSCI -- among other similar signs -- is a RELIABLE sign of intelligence is still yet to be seen.) As for BB's insistent sophomoric dismissal of my understanding of scientific theorising and modelling, I suggest onlookers examine my first level remarks on epistemology here. [In a nutshell my personal philosophy of science (and thus of modelling) generally follows Charles Sanders Peirce: science uses abduction to infer to best current empirically warranted explanation, which is elaborated deductively and tested empirically, yielding a hopefully reliable -- but provisional -- inductive generalisation; i.e weak form knowledge: well warranted, credibly true belief held provisionally. In the case of models, usually, accuracy is sacrificed in favour of convenience [back of the envelope and all that], but with validation to assure empirical reliability.] Science at its best is an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) pursuit of the truth about our world, based on empirical evidence. In that context, the key problem with the current dominant evolutionary materialistic paradigm on origins studies is that it a priori forecloses other than materialistic explanation, as may be seen from US NAS member Lewontin's now well-known, ever so revealing remarks:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [NY Review of Books, 1997. RL is so convinced that materialism is true that he turns around and uses it as a criterion of truth, not realising that his locks out the possibility of correction.]
And, as I have shown here in my always linked, Lewontin's historically and philosophically ill-judged position is now being enforced by power centres of institutional science [acting as today's equivalent to the Magisterium of old . . . ] and are appearing in courtrooms, education policies and parliaments as well. So, returning to he main point: we have good reason to see that it is empirically relaible that FSCI is known to be produced by intelligence in aciton, and that we ONLY see it as being so produced, where we directly know its source. Similarly, on the search resource of the observable cosmos challenge, we cannot see how undirected chance + necessity can credibly produce such FSCI -- including the codes, algorithms, data structures, information and implementing machinery found in the cell, which on just DNA would need ~ 600 - 1,000 k bits (relative to observed minimally functional independent life). We have excellent empirically based warrant to conclude that life, from the outset, reveals that it is designed. Similarly, the finely tuned balance of multiple factors that "sets" the observed cosmos to an operating point that is favourable to life points to design of the observed cosmos for that kind of life. And, given the problem of the materialistic Magisterium, these two empirically grounded inferences is quite enough to trigger a scientific revolution; as is beginning to happen. That this revolution just happens to be more theism-friendly (and more John 1:1 and Rom 1:19 - 20, etc) than institutional science has been in recent decades is just a matter of how the cookie crumbles: atheism is no more priviliged a scientific outlook than the theism of the founders of science who sought to think God's thoughts after him. After all, the proper method of core philosophy -- here considered as comparative analysis of worldviews -- is comparative difficulties across all live options. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2009
July
07
Jul
25
25
2009
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
UB, I think it would be a good idea to have a page dedicated to Abel's work here at UD. It seems to be the best-kept secret in ID theory. It is fairly dense reading for us laypeople, however. Do you know of a gentler, more accessible inroduction to his work?herb
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
UB: I would start here:
algorithm: A finite set of unambiguous instructions performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a goal, especially a mathematical rule or procedure used to compute a desired result.
and think about where you are likely to find naturally occurring things that are by definition products of human endeavour. Perhaps you meant: "I was looking for naturally occurring complex processes" I would ask a chemist if I were you, I'm a computer scientist.BillB
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Mr BiPed, Sorry, I missed your comment 207! No, I don't know of any similar system.Nakashima
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
BillB, could you please step in and help Nakashima with comment 207? Thanks.Upright BiPed
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Does anyone know anything about the evolution of early life or proteins? How can we say what it is or isn’t consistent with?
I get the feeling KF thinks he does, but its a good question, which is why I really wish I could track down the paper to check on their methodology.BillB
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
BillB:
there is research indicating how early life and protein evolution is consistent with thermodynamics.
Does anyone know anything about the evolution of early life or proteins? How can we say what it is or isn't consistent with?ScottAndrews
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
KF, your comment at 257 makes it quite clear that you are still struggling with the basic concepts and methodologies behind scientific models of physical reality. Not to worry, these can be difficult concepts however I don't see much point in my trying to explain again so I'll give up now, particularly in light of your move towards rhetorical dismissal and insult in 256, your proclaimed victory in 259 and the tiresome appeals to onlookers. By the way, you said this:
Physics does not program ponds to make life molecules, at least if the thermodynamics numbers are to be believed.
Making blind assertions will not win arguments, unfortunately I haven't yet managed to track down the reference but there is research indicating how early life and protein evolution is consistent with thermodynamics. From what I gather some of those materialistic scientists you grumble about are actually doing the research rather than just making claims. Incidentally and as I've alluded to several times - I'm not a materialist, if you want to refer to me, even indirectly, as one then that's fine but don't complain if I start calling you a creationist.BillB
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
KF-san, Declaring victory does not actually answer my questions. With regard to OOL, do you agree that the "function" under discussion is "accumulates reaction products faster than they are broken down" or something similar?Nakashima
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
PS: I see some further remarks by Nakashima-san. Briefly, again: the photo of a face can be rendered into a conjunction of polygons with colour, shading etc, and encoded accordingly. The specification of Geo W's face is far more precise than that of a face-like object pattern as can be seen in the Man on the mountain (and I can see 2 - 3 other vaguely face like features in the latter). "Snow" in a picture only becomes specific if used as a reference, as I have already discussed this morning and before: random disturbances do not materially affect its snow-like distribution. Small changes destroy the resemblance in a portrait. the later sits in an island,t eh former is in the sea of non-function, until an intelligence selects the pattern to use as a base for a cipher or the like. G'day, again. Punto final.kairosfocus
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Onlookers: It seems to me tha ther eis now more than adequate evidence and interaction to see the true balance on the merits for this thread. Namely: 1 --> information that is functionally specific and existing as islands of function in a vast sea of possible (but overwhelmingly non-functional) configurations is a key component of observed life, and thus credibly needs to be explained as to its source. 2 --> FSCI, in EVERY case of known source, is the product of intelligence. 3 --> Not least this is becuse the search resources of the observed universe are simply vastly inadequate to search a significant part of the config space. So, it is beyond the reasonable reach of unaided trial and error. 4 --> In short FSCI is on the evidence in front of us, dirtect and indirect, positive ans negaticve, best explained by intelligence. 5 --> So, on seeing FSCI in DNA etc, this is a strong clue that life is rooted in intelligent design, and indeed,t he bio-information is as fundamental a component as the associated chemistry and physics. 6 --> But, since that is unacceptable to evolutionary materialists, it is being stoutly resisted, by all sorts of objections; all of which fail, and most of which are irrelevant. (Some even mange to provide inadvertent support to what they try to overthrow.) ___________ And, that's the bottomline. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
KF-san, In the case of Mt Rushmore in the first and second [digitised] photos, in both cases design would be resident in the nature and structural patterns of a photograph. A photo is a designed object. No false positive on “design” there. I'm not sure what you mean by the nature and structural pattersn of a photograph. Do you mean things like "the sky occupies the upper third of the image"? It seems that this argument can be applied to any data set chosen by a human experimenter - the act of choosing makes it FCSI. If I take a photo of the static on my TV and give you the raw bits, will you infer design because of the nature and structure of the photograph? As to specification by compressibility, this is of course an allusion to the fact that a specification is as a rule simply describable and as well to the Kolmogorov applications used by others in this general field. I don't really care what it is an allusion to, the Hope Diamond or last week's weather forecast for Pluto. Did I choose S = 1 correctly based on the low compressibility of the data, correctly following your procedure?Nakashima
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
PPS: BB, the computational substrate as you call it is materially different from the physical one. You have rhetorically dismissed the specific causal factor that makes the functional organisation of the GA not only possible but routinely actualised. The computer, repeat, simply mechanically executes instructions fed to the processor, whether or no they make sense: GIGO. It is the designer that makes the instructions do a specific job, here: executing a genetic algorithm program. Physics does not program ponds to make life molecules, at least if the thermodynamics numbers are to be believed. [Cf TMLO for its analysis.]kairosfocus
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
BB: You come across as having skimmed to make further "objections ad infinitum" rather than to understand what the subject is about and address it seriously on its merits. For instance, it should come as no surprise to you that the experimental method is in significant part about testing predictions of alternative hypotheses on actual independently known cases. FSCI, on that standard, is ever more plainly a reliable sign of intelligence. That is not a way to make either progress in your own understanding or to a reasonable discussion. But, you are inadvertently telling the intelligent onlooker just where the true balance is on the merits. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 24, 2009
July
07
Jul
24
24
2009
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 14

Leave a Reply