Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Andy McIntosh’s Peer-Reviewed ID Paper–Note the Editor’s Note!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Prof. Andy McIntoshProfessor Andy McIntosh, an ID proponent in the UK, has a peer-reviewed paper on the thermodynamic barriers to Darwinian evolution:

A. C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy—Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics 4(4) (2009): 351-385

The Editor appends the following note:

Editor’s Note: This paper presents a different paradigm than the traditional view. It is, in the view of the Journal, an exploratory paper that does not give a complete justification for the alternative view. The reader should not assume that the Journal or the reviewers agree with the conclusions of the paper.  It is a valuable contribution that challenges the conventional vision that systems can design and organise themselves.  The Journal hopes that the paper will promote the exchange of ideas in this important topic.  Comments are invited in the form of ‘Letters to the Editor’.

Here is the abstract: 

Abstract: This paper deals with the fundamental and challenging question of the ultimate origin of genetic information from a thermodynamic perspective. The theory of evolution postulates that random mutations and natural selection can increase genetic information over successive generations. It is often argued from an evolutionary perspective that this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because it is proposed that the entropy of a non-isolated system could reduce due to energy input from an outside source, especially the sun when considering the earth as a biotic system. By this it is proposed that a particular system can become organised at the expense of an increase in entropy elsewhere. However, whilst this argument works for structures such as snowflakes that are formed by natural forces, it does not work for genetic information because the information system is composed of machinery which requires precise and non-spontaneous raised free energy levels – and crystals like snowflakes have zero free energy as the phase transition occurs. The functional machinery of biological systems such as DNA, RNA and proteins requires that precise, non-spontaneous raised free energies be formed in the molecular bonds which are maintained in a far from equilibrium state. Furthermore, biological structures contain coded instructions which, as is shown in this paper, are not defined by the matter and energy of the molecules carrying this information. Thus, the specified complexity cannot be created by natural forces even in conditions far from equilibrium. The genetic information needed to code for complex structures like proteins actually requires information which organises the natural forces surrounding it and not the other way around – the information is crucially not defined by the material on which it sits. The information system locally requires the free energies of the molecular machinery to be raised in order for the information to be stored. Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics show that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficient argument to explain the origin of either biological machinery or genetic information that is inextricably intertwined with it. This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.

Comments
“It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.” - Bill Watterson, Creator of Calvin and Hobbes. The Matrix: Neo Meets Morpheus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VFDIKgm_QIbornagain77
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
I think if you are going to publish a quasi-mathematical concept like genetic entropy, you need to have some generally accepted measure of entropy, or at least a measure of fitness. If a putative change in fitness for a population doesn't result in population decline, I fail to see how it can have any objective validity. And if it doesn't affect the fastest reproducers and the populations that accumulate mutations the fastest, I wonder how it can be considered to be a valuable idea.Petrushka
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Mutations happen all the time. You probably carry several. And yet populations don't seem to decline due to infertility. Hundreds of species are known to have gone extinct, but I can't think of one that did so due to a population wide decline in fertility. Species, of course, don't reproduce at the same rates. If genomes drifted inevitably toward decay, it would seem that those organisms that reproduce the fastest would be most affected. It's something of a wonder that there are any bacteria at all.Petrushka
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to the DNA of humans which would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although a materialist may try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a "truly" beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders. Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens." I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found: HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone! http://www.biobase-international.com/pages/index.php?id=hgmddatabase I really question their use of the word "celebrating". (Of Note: The number for Mendelian Genetic Disorders is quoted to be over 6000 by geneticist John Sanford in 2010) "No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests." Leonardo Da Vinci Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086 Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances. Using realistic estimates for the relevant biological parameters, we investigate the rate of mutation accumulation, the distribution of the fitness effects of the accumulating mutations, and the overall effect on mean genotypic fitness. Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net http://www.scpe.org/vols/vol08/no2/SCPE_8_2_02.pdfbornagain77
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
It seems somehow wrong to evoke the term entropy evolution to denote something that cannot be quantified. And it seems doubly wrong to do so before there is any broadly accepted units of measurement and a large base of published measurements.bornagain77
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
Ultimately, if it remains impossible to quantify meaning… It should not be a surprise because it could just as well mean that information or the product of intelligence does not have a mechanistic origin.
Entropy is a generalization based on many decades of observation and measurement. It becomes a law not because it satisfies some axiom or principle, but because countless measurements confirm the math. It seems somehow wrong to evoke the term entropy to denote something that cannot be quantified. And it seems doubly wrong to do so before there is any broadly accepted units of measurement and a large base of published measurements.Petrushka
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Mullepr @ 10 you say "The only presupposition of ID, that I know of, is that ID does not a priory disregard causes not yet defined by science as being physical." Of course ID won't "disregard" causes not defined by science as being physical. Why is that? Because ID has no personally motivated, philosophically constrained boundary called "materialism" that prevents it from going where the evidence best points. And your use of the phrase "not yet defined by science as being physical" seems a bit loaded, front loaded. Why is it necessary for anything that science defines, to be physical? There may be a cause that is not physical, that is just as scientifically valid as any materialistic presupposition. Should not science be just as interested in an accurate representation of any possible state of affairs, not just physical ones? Your statement seems to reflect some forlorn hope that that science will define all things as physical. When considering the preponderance of evidence in recent years that strongly supports a design paradigm, I think the implications for science are very exciting. Just think....Someday in the future, long after we and our grandchildren have come and gone, the scientific paradigm may be so "non-materialist" based, that people will look back on 19th, 20th and 21st century "science" as being as archaic as many now consider Darwinism to be. In this future non-materialist paradigm, strict materialism will be considered by many to be a religious faith. In fact, strict materialism seems to exist today not on the basis of any positive, good science but because of negative, emotionally charged, anti-religious arguments against non-materialist causation. In our non-materialist-based future world of science, we may look back on the rants of Dawkins and Hitchens & Co, with sympathy.Bantay
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Hi alan, The "false dilemma of the supernatural" elude to the fact that so many anti-ID proponents claim that ID presuppose the supernatural, which is a false dilemma. A non-material origin of information is not a presupposition for ID, as far as I can see. The only presupposition of ID, that I know of, is that ID does not a priory disregard causes not yet defined by science as being physical. At this stage all evidence points to the fact that life is/was caused by such a non-material cause.mullerpr
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Petrushka, Information theory can only help to compare the patterns of the initial state with that of the changed state. Information theory is actually the science of patterns, pattern theory would have been far less confusing. However it is very helpful in communications and information technology. Personally I think "pattern theory" should also be a starting point for quantifying semantic information, like Shakespeare's works. Something else that might be useful is the techniques that are used to decipher "scrambled" messages, by intelligence agencies. I don't know what these techniques are, but actively studying messages to extract meaning is not an unknown effort of the human mind. Ultimately, if it remains impossible to quantify meaning... It should not be a surprise because it could just as well mean that information or the product of intelligence does not have a mechanistic origin.mullerpr
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
I don't think it's straining at gnats to ask how information is measured, assuming it's quantity is important. How else could you make claims about entropy?Petrushka
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Petrushka - would you be straining at gnats and swallowing camles if I misspelled a word or two here so that you would apply your free will to ignore any part of or all of this information and to what degree would or could it affect your entire life? (hope I made sense) mullerpr - please for me - elaborate on " false dilemma of the supernatural" thanksalan
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Petrushka- Adding a meaningful word would increase information would it not? Of course, that's not enough. The new word would have to make sense within the sentence and within context.Phaedros
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
I'm always confused about how information is quantified. For example, if you ran Shakespeare's works through a spell checker and regularized the spelling, would the amount of information change? What if a typographical error in preparing a manuscript changed the spelling of a word to another variant used by the same author? Along those lines, under what circumstances would a copy error in biological reproduction change the quantity of information?Petrushka
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 1, If your description of non-material cause of information does not convince that ID has no reliance on, or relationship to, the supernatural then we have to conclude that ID-opponents probably has nothing but the false dilemma of the supernatural to present. I so wish this debate to be over and we can start doing science without wasting intellectual and monetary resources on anti-scientific ideologies like Darwinism. In the mean time we should honor the editor of this publication for promoting constructive dialogue.mullerpr
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Granville, you were the first person I thought of when I saw the article.Atom
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics show that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficient argument to explain the origin of either biological machinery or genetic information that is inextricably intertwined with it.
Can't resist the opportunity to plug my book and video "Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System?" , where I have come to very similar conclusions.Granville Sewell
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Of interest to this concluding statement of McIntosh:
"It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate."
It is now shown in Quantum teleportation, and entanglement, experiments, especially with the refutation of the "hidden variable" argument, that "transcendent information" is its own unique, and independent, entity completely separate from matter and energy. A entity which clearly exercises dominion of matter and energy at this most base level of reality. As well "transcendent information" is also shown to occupy the primary framework of reality (highest dimension), as far as space and time are concerned, that can be ascertained.bornagain77
June 4, 2010
June
06
Jun
4
04
2010
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply