Brian Miller vs. Jeremy England, Round 2

_{News
May 20, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Origin Of Life}

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

Round 1 was at Inference Review: A Sizzling Exchange On The Origin Of Life

England rightly states that the fluctuation theorems allow for the possibility that some mechanism could drive matter to both lower entropy and higher energy (higher free energy), thus potentially solving the problem of the origin of life, at least in theory. In contrast, I addressed the likelihood that, given the practical constraints, realistic natural processes on the early earth could generate a minimally complex cell. In that context, England indirectly affirmed the main points of my argument and thus reinforced the conclusion that an undirected origin of life might be possible in principle, but it is completely implausible in practice.
Brian Miller, “On the Origin of Life, Here Is My Response to Jeremy England” at Evolution News and Science Today

Origin of life is more fun when it is a genuine discussion rather than a speculation based on a chance finding.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips – origin of life What we do and don’t know about the origin of life.

Comments

ET, I'm a Christian and I believe that life is reducible to physics and chemistry. Whether or not scientists can make life in a test tube is irrelevant in my opinion.FourFaces_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

If life was reducible to physics and chemistry, humans should have easily made life in a test tube. So either our scientists are a bunch of clueless rubes or life is not reducible to physics and chemistry.ET_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

==Nope. But that’s not evidence that this particular symbol system was designed. Remember how all swans were white until someone found a black one?== IMO, abductively, it points to design very strongly. It is a mystery to me why people like Pattee hold their evolutionist views. But in the actual fact, the beauty of science is that, if it is done properly, the cognitive bias of a researcher is very small. The funny thing is that irrespective of whether a naturalistic process or processes can be found in a test tube that lead to life, we can never know scientifically how it actually happened. Now let's suppose that they find such a naturalistic explanation. How will this change the abductive nature of inference with regard to the origin of life?EugeneS_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

The interesting thing here is the refusal to consider known precedent as working explanatory evidence to continue forward in research. More simply, if in every other case the phenomena "B" is either known or assumed to be caused by "A", why would any reasonable person insist that "A" should not be assumed as a valid theoretical model as the theoretical cause when an additional "B" phenomena is observed somewhere? It's not like every instance of "B" (in this case, a symbolic representational system) has an observed, known "A" cause (prehistoric markings on cave walls, for example); we assume "A" is the cause. Yet. when scientists directly observe "B" in biology, they insist "A" cannot be the cause. Why?William J Murray_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

JVL @118 said: "Nope. But that’s not evidence that this particular symbol system was designed. Remember how all swans were white until someone found a black one?" The problem with that analogy is that it doesn't address the theoretical cause of an observed phenomena, which is the essential root of the conversation here. BTW, I don't "want" you to say anything in particular. I don't know why you're asking me that. Let's look at another analogy. Let's say that in every prior observation, when we see extra-solar planetary systems following elliptical orbits, we find a solar body at roughly the center of those orbits that provides the gravity necessary for those orbits. Let's say that we then find an elliptical planetary system but cannot find a solar body at the center. In fact, we don't observe anything there at all. How should scientists proceed under the assumption that all they currently have to work with is the above observation and the prior precedent? Should they say, "there is no evidence that a central source of gravity is causing this system, so we need to find out some other process or model that explains this particular case of an elliptical, planetary system? Or, should scientists assume that a central gravity source also explains this system, but for some reason it is hidden from their observations? Should they proceed down the path of trying to find a new force, mechanism or law as a cause, or should they perhaps design equipment and experiments based on the assumption that there is a currently hidden or non-observable central source of gravity for that system?William J Murray_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

. So you agree that the cell requires a) an irreducibly symbol system, and b) and arbitrary language structure, in order to specify itself among alternatives. Additionally, you agree that this system must be semantically closed in order to begin to function, which entails a three-way simultaneous coordination between the sequences describing the system, and b) the sequences describing the interpretive constraints, and c) inexorable law. Additionally, you agree that the gene system and human language are the only two physical systems described by science that meet these unique criteria, and you further agree that a viewpoint such as "the gene system is just chemistry" enabling life on earth is false. And finally, you agree that there is no way to falsify the hypothesis that life came about by natural means, but you are both willing and able to minimize and wordsmith this glaring problem away, as a means to justify ignoring all prior facts, and you will do this openly on this forum, even as I successfully predict your actions right in front of you..Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

WilliamJMurray: Other than the example being debated, do you have ANY examples of symbol systems that were not intelligently designed, or a theory about how a symbol system could have been created and implemented by a non-intelligent process, other than “well …. it’s not impossible?” Nope. But that's not evidence that this particular symbol system was designed. Remember how all swans were white until someone found a black one? Just because no one has figured out if it's possible doesn't mean it's not possible and therefore designed. I really don't know what you want me to say. Origin of life research has been going on for a few decades now, new data, new procedures, new hypotheses and new techniques are turning up all the time. Maybe, someday, it'll turn out that it could not have happened (although I don't see how you can 'prove' a negative), maybe someday we'll end up admitting we'll never know for sure. I'm happy to let the work churn on and see what happens! It's not a matter of me having faith in something, it's a matter of letting the scientists get on with their work and seeing what they find.JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: you refuse to answer a simple question because answering means all your rhetoric and obfuscation comes tumbling down. I said I found everything Dr Pattee wrote was sensible and believable and he said it's a symbolic system so I agree with that. This is the hard distinction between the rational defensibility of our two positions. You attempt to defend your position based not on the content of the findings, but on the personal ideology of the scientist performing the measurement. I have no idea what Dr Pattee's ideology is which is why I was interested if you could point to some other piece or work where he agreed with you that his work implied biological systems were designed. All I have to go on as far as his opinion goes is this one paper where he clearly pointed out directions origin of life research could go. Whereas I defend my position based on the content of the measurement, not on the personal ideology of the scientist. You are doing it right now in plain sight. It is your defense. And my point is that the experienced, well-respected, expert in the field seems to NOT come to that conclusion. Maybe he has done privately but not in that paper. THAT is all I am saying. Let me ask you, does the proper practice of science and reason turn on ideology or measurement? Will this be another question you refuse to answer? Mostly measurement of course. Sometimes people are driven to look at certain topics based on their personal views. But, again, Dr Pattee makes that point but does NOT come to your conclusion in that paper. JVL, does the cell use a symbol system? I've already said I agree with Dr Pattee's view that it does. if the hypothesis is that the gene system came about by an unknown natural process, how can we test that proposition for its scientific validity? There is no test that it can fail and be ruled out, isn’t that correct? At the moment there is no single test (unless you could manage to rerun the whole shebang again!) but small steps can be tested. My impression is that the whole thing is very difficult and will take years and years even if it fails.JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

. JVL, also to WJM's point, if the hypothesis is that the gene system came about by an unknown natural process, how can we test that proposition for its scientific validity? There is no test that it can fail and be ruled out, isn't that correct?Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

. JVL, does the cell use a symbol system?Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

JVL @112: "Again, if you can find a piece of his work that has been published that takes that extra step to conclude that the symbol systems in the cell are designed then I’ll be happy to read it." Other than the example being debated, do you have ANY examples of symbol systems that were not intelligently designed, or a theory about how a symbol system could have been created and implemented by a non-intelligent process, other than "well .... it's not impossible?"William J Murray_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

. JVL, you refuse to answer a simple question because answering means all your rhetoric and obfuscation comes tumbling down. This is the hard distinction between the rational defensibility of our two positions. You attempt to defend your position based not on the content of the findings, but on the personal ideology of the scientist performing the measurement. Whereas I defend my position based on the content of the measurement, not on the personal ideology of the scientist. You are doing it right now in plain sight. It is your defense. Let me ask you, does the proper practice of science and reason turn on ideology or measurement? Will this be another question you refuse to answer?Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: what views of mine were supported? I reproduced some passages above I thought paralleled some of the statements you've made here. I'm not sure what you want me to say: Dr Pattee seems to agree with your version of some of the biological systems found in living cells but he does not mention or support the view that that means they were designed. And I think he knows a lot about such things; in fact he is clearly considered an expert in that field. I'm happy to agree with everything I've read of his so far and yes he does refer to a symbol system. "Again, if you can find a piece of his work that has been published that takes that extra step to conclude that the symbol systems in the cell are designed then I'll be happy to read it.JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

. You can answer the question JVL, does the cell use a symbol system?Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

. JVL, what views of mine were supported? That the cell uses a symbol system?Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

. Sev, just posted a foreword of Pattee's classic papers written by a professor of psychology attempting to understand the workings of symbol systems in the brain. Were you aiming for your foot Sev?Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: “oh yes yes, it is a demonstrated fact that the cell requires an irreducibly complex symbol system and an encoding structure that is physically measured to be exactly like the physical system required of language, which is a universal correlate of intelligence — BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN BIOLOGY” Look, you provided me with some research that helped support your views. I've looked at one paper and noted that that particular paper said nothing about design in biology AND, in my view, implied that fruitful work could be done teasing out the origin of life via unguided processes. That was made very clear. I found that interesting so I mentioned it. It seems to me that your interpretation of Dr Pattee's work is counter to his own. He has no fear of losing tenure or his position, he can say what he likes. Now, if he's said something about design in biology in some other piece of work then I'd be very interested to read it. Just looking over the abstract that Seversky kindly posted (yes, that's the Dr Pattee) it seems, in fact, that Dr Pattee's view is the opposite of yours. If you have other work of his that says something different then please, by all means, share it here.JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Is this the Pattee being cited?
Pattee, H. H., & R?czaszek-Leonardi, J. (2012). Biosemiotics: Vol. 7. Laws, language and life: Howard Pattee's classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary. Springer Science + Business Media. Abstract The present volume provides Pattee's in-depth treatment of the physical basis of symbolic functions. Understanding the physical preconditions for the origin of symbols is essential al all levels, from the origin of life to the measurement problem of physics. The entire field of biosemiotics depends on understanding the physical nature of structures that can have a symbolic function. The importance of Pattee's work lies not only in its clarification of biosemiotics' scientific bases. By relating symbols to dynamics it becomes relevant to cognitive science, which today acknowledges the importance of embodied cognition in a physical and social environment. Pattee's views forge links between dynamical, continuous processes and symbolic thought that create a basis for a viable third way-combining the purely symbolic, computational models of cognition and purely dynamic, non-representationalist models. It is a step toward showing that the unfeasibility of reductionism may have different reasons than proposing non-material entities. Howard Pattee is an active, publishing scientist; however his early fundamental, now classic, papers are difficult to access. They are not present in large databases, nor reprinted in other widely accessible journals or books. The book aims at making those papers available for a wider public with contemporary Introduction by the Author and Afterword by Joanna R?zaszek-Leonardi, which link the original papers to current discourse in biosemiotics and the cognitive sciences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
Seversky_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

. "oh yes yes, it is a demonstrated fact that the cell requires an irreducibly complex symbol system and an encoding structure that is physically measured to be exactly like the physical system required of language, which is a universal correlate of intelligence -- BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF DESIGN IN BIOLOGY" parUpright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Is this the extent of your critique? No, but since you seemed to want a reaction from me I thought I'd say something based on the conclusion. Can you tell me why you would expect HH Pattee, as a physicist, to add an unnecessary and non-falsifiable conclusion to his papers? I think he definitely left the door open for further research and even tried to point out a direction for it to go. I think he thought carefully about his conclusion and said what he wanted to. He doesn't seem like the type to care much what other people think! the unsupported and non-falsifiable proposition that it may have all fallen into place by an unknown natural mechanism remains, I would say it was not ruled out by Dr Pattee, not in that paper anyway. However, you now know, based on the science and history of science, that this is completely false. Dr Pattee makes no comments about design in biology in that paper. "Based on the physical nature of the gene system, there is clear evidence of design in biology," I would not make that statement and I don't think that particular paper makes that point or even tries to make that point. I'm happy to have another look though. "I personally believe that someday we may find that Life may have been organized by some unknown natural process." I don't know if the research will ever get that far but yeah, I think we MAY find that life MAY have come about via unguided processes.JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

WilliamJMurray: By the way, the link associated with your username is dead.JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

WilliamJMurray: “Well …. it’s not impossible!” … is that really where you’re going to plant your flag? I was merely pointing out something I gleaned from a paper that Upright BiPed suggested I look at in order to understand the underpinnings of his views. I'm not planting flags anywhere.JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

JVL @99: "I can see how Dr Pattee supports Upright Biped‘s views . . . .up to a point. But he doesn’t go so far as to say that a naturalistic orgin of life is impossible." JVL can see how UB's views are supported, but not to the point where another explanation is impossible. "Well .... it's not impossible!" ... is that really where you're going to plant your flag?William J Murray_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

.
he doesn’t go so far as to say that a naturalistic origin of life is impossible.
Is this the extent of your critique? Can you tell me why you would expect HH Pattee, as a physicist, to add an unnecessary and non-falsifiable conclusion to his papers? So let’s take stock: Pattee’s papers (along with von Neumann’s, and Peirce’s, and Turing’s, and Crick’s, and Nirenberg’s, and Zamecnik’s, and Hoagland’s, and Brenner’s, and Polanyi’s, etc) validates exactly what I have told you – BUT -- the unsupported and non-falsifiable proposition that it may have all fallen into place by an unknown natural mechanism remains, so… Does that sound familiar? Perhaps discussed in comment #90 or #94? Your position here, as stated, is that there is no evidence of design in biology. However, you now know, based on the science and history of science, that this is completely false. But can you retract your claim? Can you integrate the actual facts with your preferred beliefs? Allow me to show how it is done: ”Based on the physical nature of the gene system, there is clear evidence of design in biology, but I personally believe that someday we may find that Life may have been organized by some unknown natural process”. Good luck.Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

JVL @97 "does not mean that a materialistic approach is doomed to failure" I would point out that there is a huge distinction between "materialistic naturalism" and "methodological naturalism" which must not be confused. Materialistic naturalism runs into immense epistemological problems. Metholological naturalism is just a means of inquiry that may or may not be appropriate. In my opinion, it is not appropriate when dealing with the question of origins (the origin of life, the origin of matter, the origin of consciousness). However, irrespective of the success of OOL research, materialistic naturalism is an epistemological self-defeating failure.EugeneS_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

ET and UPright Biped: Except that we know, thanks to prions, chaperones and genetic engineering, that protein folding is NOT a purely chemical and physical reaction. I'll leave it up to you guys to sort this out. I'm just trying to understand Upright Biped's views. I can see how Dr Pattee supports Upright Biped's views . . . .up to a point. But he doesn't go so far as to say that a naturalistic orgin of life is impossible.JVL_{June 1, 2020
June
06
Jun
1
01
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Except that we know, thanks to prions, chaperones and genetic engineering, that protein folding is NOT a purely chemical and physical reaction.ET_{June 1, 2020
June
06
Jun
1
01
2020
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: I made a few quick, sardonic comments but nothing that took time or much thought. Whereas the Pattee paper deserves greater consideration. I did have a quick skim through earlier today and some passages caught my attention:
Similarly, but more objectively, some of the cell's behavior, like reading base sequences, is symbolic, but most of its behavior, like protein folding, is not. That is, DNA symbolically describes only the linear sequence of amino acids, while physical laws take care of folding, self-assembly, and catalysis.
So, some of the protein building is purely chemical and physical reactions.
The genetic code, natural language, logics, formal mathematics, and computer programming languages are the best known examples of such symbol systems. As I have emphasized, all symbol systems must have material embodiments that obey physical laws.

Because all organisms depend on intrinsic symbolic controls and the origin of life requires a symbolic genetic code as a crucial step, biologists should be much more interested in the matter-symbol problem. However this is not the case. Most biologists are material reductionists, and the discovery of the material structures that correlate with the symbolic activity and function is the only level of explanation they are looking for. Consequently, experimental or material discoveries, not theory, play the primary role in biology. For example, the biologist finds the chemical structure of DNA and the molecular basis of coding a satisfactory descrip¬tion and feels that this fully explains the gene's symbolic behavior. This material reductionism is even extended to cognitive activity where discovering the material neural correlates of thought would be considered by many as a satisfactory reduction of conscious behavior (e.g., Crick, 1993; Hopfield, 1994).

Knowing how protein synthesis works we might conclude that construction was the first function of symbols. However, construction requires the classification and control of parts. Also, construction would be of no evolutionary value unless there was hereditary transmission. This certainly requires communication. In other words, at the primitive levels none of these functions can be isolated as primary nor even objectively distinguished from each other. This is one reason that the origin of symbols and life is such a difficult problem.
Passages such as these are clearly parallel to some of your own statments.
However, this hereditary process does not have open-ended evolutionary potential, because first, all mutant parts must also have this intrinsic hereditary property. In other words, for this process to achieve open-ended evolution we must assume that the universal heredity property is a rather general intrinsic property of macromolecules. This is not the case.

I require that theories of life be epistemologically consistent not only with logic but with fundamental physical principles. The most fundamental epistemological classification is between things that do not change and things that change. In physics this principle is used to define laws and initial condi¬tions. This implies a self-referent impotency principle that unchanging events cannot com¬pletely describe changing events. That is, laws cannot complete¬ly describe measure-ments. More precise¬ly, the clas¬sifica¬tion function of measure¬ment cannot be derived from laws. Otherwise, the laws could derive their own initial condi¬tions by computation. The cor¬respond¬ing self-referent impotency in formal systems is that they cannot prove their own con¬sistency, let alone assign a truth value to their own axioms. This implies that formal symbol systems also cannot make measure¬ments. Symbolic computation can never realize measurement.
And finally:
Kauffman (1993) in his exploration of nonselective ordering processes points out that no established field of study incorporates the nonselective physical order into evolution theory. To some extent this may be another case of cultural bias in scientific models inherited from the classical physicist's categorical distinction of matter and symbol. Perhaps it is also because until recently there has been a lack of specific theories of physical self-organization that appeared to be relevant to biological organisms. This is no longer the case. As I mentioned in Sec. 8, there have been many recent dis¬coveries of complex physical systems that exhibit emergent order that to many appear lifelike. However, the matter-symbol distinction is rarely addressed in these studies. Only theories of the origin of the genetic code appear directly relevant to the matter-symbol distinction (e.g., Bedian, 1982). As in the case of artificial in¬telligence, computational models of emergent evolution while stimulating new interest in the classical mattersymbol problem, have rarely addressed the physical basis for the distinction or how matter and symbol are related by measurement. For all these reasons, I find that a productive approach to the theories of life, evolution, and cognition must focus on the complementary contributions of non-selective law-based material self-organization and natural selection-based symbolic organization. To some degree the nature of this complementary relation is an empirically decidable issue. However, it is also a foundational issue. The semantic closure of dynamical laws and symbolic constraints is a necessary epistemological condition for information, knowledge, models, and theories at all levels of evolution from the genes to the brain.
That last paragraph does not seem to imply a materialistic approach to the origin of life is not doomed to failure, just that it must include some of the more recent work examining self-organisational examples in non-living systems. Which is why, I suspect, some biologists have been looking at crystal formations under specific circumstances. Anyway, very interesting stuff. Every time I look it over pieces continue to connect together. As I said it takes time.JVL_{June 1, 2020
June
06
Jun
1
01
2020
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

. JVL, you've mistaken the territory. It was not your absence from the forum that prompted my comment in #94. It was your return to the forum over the weekend (with something like ten comments Sat/Sun) without addressing this conversation. It is therefore idle theater to tell me that you've been too busy to comment here, or that you'll try to do better in the future, (good grief). It is also nonsense to pretend that you don't yet understand the content of the conversation. There is no doubt that life must be specified among alternative in order to exist. There is also no doubt as to how that is accomplished in a physical system. That system is both measurable and identifiable, and has been thus identified. What is at issue now is how does one respond to undeniable evidence against a protected position, and that is on full display.Upright BiPed_{June 1, 2020
June
06
Jun
1
01
2020
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped: Five full days have now past, JVL. I believe your benefit of the doubt has run out. I do apologise; I've been rather busy this last week. I figure I need to spend a solid couple of hours concentrating to understand the paper and I haven't had that luxury. I will try and do so this week though. In my last comment to you I predicted (based on common history here) that you would seek an “undecidable” (or something non-falsifiable) as the basis of your response, or perhaps not respond at all. It appears we have our answer. I will try and do better but I have to give priority to my daily life.JVL_{May 31, 2020
May
05
May
31
31
2020
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply