EA nails it in a response to an insightful remark by KN (and one by Box): “the ability of a medium to store information is inversely proportional to the self-ordering tendency of the medium”

_{kairosfocus

March 23, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

Here at UD, comment exchanges can be very enlightening. In this case, in the recent Quote of the Day thread, two of the best commenters at UD — and yes, I count KN as one of the best, never mind that we often differ — have gone at it (and, Box, your own thoughts — e.g. here — were quite good too 😀 ).

Let’s lead with Box:

Box, 49: [KN,] your deep and important question *how do parts become integrated wholes?* need to be answered. And when the parts are excluded from the answer, we are forced to except the reality of a ‘form’ that is not a part and that does account for the integration of the parts. And indeed, if DNA, proteins or any other part of the cell are excluded from the answer, than this phenomenon is non-material.

KN, 52: the right question to ask, in my estimation, is, “are there self-organizing processes in nature?” For if there aren’t, or if there are, but they can’t account for life, then design theory looks like the only game in town. But, if there are self-organizing processes that could (probably) account for life, then there’s a genuine tertium quid between the Epicurean conjunct of chance and necessity and the Platonic insistence on design-from-above.

EA, 61: . . . the evidence clearly shows that there are not self-organizing processes in nature that can account for life.

This is particularly evident when we look at an information-rich medium like DNA. As to self-organization of something like DNA, it is critical to keep in mind that the ability of a medium to store information is inversely proportional to the self-ordering tendency of the medium. By definition, therefore, you simply cannot have a self-ordering molecule like DNA that also stores large amounts of information.

The only game left, as you say, is design.

Unless, of course, we want to appeal to blind chance . . .

So — noting that self-ordering is a species of mechanical necessity and thus leads to low contingency — we see the significance of the trichotomy necessity, chance, design, and where it points in light of the evidence in hand regarding FSCO/I in DNA etc. END

Comments

Greetings, EA et al. This old ENV article from a few years back may prove helpful. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/peer-reviewed_pro-intelligent_042251.html Here's the link to the paper that's discussed http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Enjoying your comments as usual, EA!Optimus_{March 25, 2013
March
03
Mar
25
25
2013
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

Let me offer an olive branch in the hopes that it might help remove any possible confusion about what I stated, as quoted in the OP. In a discussion context about whether self-organizing processes in nature could account for complex biological systems, I wrote the following in a quick comment to KN:
. . . the evidence clearly shows that there are not self-organizing processes in nature that can account for life. This is particularly evident when we look at an information-rich medium like DNA. As to self-organization of something like DNA, it is critical to keep in mind that the ability of a medium to store information is inversely proportional to the self-ordering tendency of the medium. By definition, therefore, you simply cannot have a self-ordering molecule like DNA that also stores large amounts of information.
I think it is clear in this context that I am talking about an information-rich medium like DNA. I think it is also clear that we are talking about self-organization scenarios and whether such scenarios can produce something like DNA. I trust it is also clear to a reasonable reader that I am not questioning the existence of DNA. However, I realize that -- if taken out of context -- my last sentence might cause some confusion. I am obviously not trying to argue that DNA doesn't exist, but am arguing about the possible origin of an information-rich medium like DNA under self-organization scenarios. So let me restate my last sentence just so everyone is clear about the context and we are on the same page: "By definition, therefore, you simply cannot have a molecule like DNA arise through purely natural self-organization processes and also store large amounts of information." I apologize if there was any confusion and hope that this helps clarify things in case there was any doubt. Thanks again to everyone for a very interesting discussion.Eric Anderson_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

Lizzie via Alan Fox @98:
I think what Eric might mean is that if a system is highly deterministic (given state A, it must attain state B) it can’t store additional information, because A already contains all you need to get to B.
No. What I mean is that if a medium (nucleotides, amino acids, letters in a language, etc.) has a tendency to self order, then that tendency will proportionally reduce the information carrying capacity of the medium. What this means is that we cannot rely on self-ordering scenarios to produce the information, because the self-ordering process works against the medium's information carrying capacity, as I have described in detail earlier. This does not mean that a self-replicating system cannot carry information (obviously it can). This does not mean that reproducing organisms cannot carry information (obviously they do). This does not mean that a guided/designed process cannot counteract the self-ordering tendency of a medium and nevertheless store information in the medium; but if so, it will be in spite of, not because of, the self-ordering tendency. The takeaway is that self-ordering ideas (or self-organization scenarios, as they are often called) about the formation of information-rich molecules like DNA/RNA, the formation of life, and the formation of other information-rich systems are non-starters. Such law-like processes cannot produce the kinds of information-rich systems we see. This does not mean that it didn't happen by purely natural and material processes. Remember, we still have that all-important materialist explanation for the origin of biological information: chance. Or that third possibility: design. But some are loathe to consider that option.Eric Anderson_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

Here is what leaves me dumbfounded: AF@34
…the ability of a medium to store information is inversely proportional to the self-ordering tendency of the medium. By definition, therefore, you simply cannot have a self-ordering molecule like DNA that also stores large amounts of information.

I’m not the only one to think you are incorrect in your assertion, Eric.
You have to understand Alan that for you to say this sounds exactly like someone saying "I don't understand why you say 1 + 1 = 2, I have found a lot of people who don't believe that". If you can't get this from the very lucid explantation by EA and UpBd up above, then I begin to understand how you maintain your beliefs. You just really do not understand enough about probability, information theory, and/or signal processing to comprehend why your position is so unclear. Do you not understand the fact that a medium with only two states ( 1, 0 ), but with the additional self-orgnizing constraint that a '0' must follow a '1' and a '1' must follow a '0' carries exactly only twice as much information as a medium with only 1 character. Let's look at a practical example. If you wanted to craft a language with such a binary alphabet. The only thing you have available to you to carry information is length of string. So to create a vocabulary of 10000 unique words you need to allow for strings of 5000 characters. From each string you get only two types of information. ( 1. Which binary bir ('0' or '1') the string starts with ( after that the structure of the string is set ) 2. The the total number of characters in the string. ) So it takes strings of up to 5000 bits just to have a vocabulary of 10000 "words". OTOH - let's keep the same binary alphabet ( strings made of only '0' and '1' ) and take off the self-organizing constraint. To simplify the math ( for you ) let's add the constraint that all strings have the same length. To have a vocabulary of over 10000 words we only need strings of length 14 ( 2^14 = 16384 ). Do you not understand that removal of the self-organizing constraint allowed the information carried by 5000 bits to be carried by only 14. ( Even adding the constraint that all the strings in the second example were 14 bits long - which is only added to simplify the calculation. ) This is just not that difficult to explain. Stating that you found some people who don't believe it does not make it so. It just boggles my mind that you don't comrehend this.JDH_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

keiths has assured us that the existence of self-replicating molecules completely demolishes Upright BiPed's "Semiotic Argument."Mung_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle is allowed to lie all she wants to on her own blog.Mung_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Lizzie via Joe @61:
Thirdly, a self-replicating molecule is both self-organising, or part of a self-organising system, and information-rich, and when that information is duplicated, it is transferred. Therefore it is a dense information storage system. Therefore DNA itself violates Eric’s rule.
DNA is most certainly not self-organizing. (BTW, I'm still looking for someone to point me to that alleged "self-replicating molecule" people keep referring to :) ). Furthermore, the existence of biological systems, including DNA and the replication machinery, is the very issue in question. So one cannot point to its existence and say, in effect, "See. There it is. That proves it can come about." The whole question is how it could come about in the first place. The existence of a self-reproducing system or a self-reproducing organism (that itself operates on the basis of information) is a red herring and is most certainly not a violation of the rule I stated. Let me say this again to make sure everyone is on the same page: the principle I outlined relates to the self-ordering tendency of an information carrying medium. What is the self-ordering tendency of the DNA bases? That's right. In the way DNA is organized the bases don't have any significant self-ordering tendency, which makes them ideal for information storage. If they did have a self-ordering chemical tendency, the information carrying capacity would be reduced, as I have already explained in detail (as has kf). This is basic.Eric Anderson_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Anyone who thinks that DNA is a self-replicating molecule needs to get an education before they can join the discussion. Just sayin'Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
I guess you didn’t follow my link. Let me quote Elizabeth Liddle:
And we have been laughing at that ever since she posted it. What was your point, Alan? It sure as hell doesn't contain any specific examples that counter what Eric said.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

I am open to specific examples that would counter what I stated. But general complaints without addressing the issues don’t concern me too much.
I guess you didn't follow my link. Let me quote Elizabeth Liddle:
I think what Eric might mean is that if a system is highly deterministic (given state A, it must attain state B) it can’t store additional information, because A already contains all you need to get to B. Which seems to me to be wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, we can have self-organising systems that are highly non-deterministic – in which State A+1 depends not only on A but on other events. The result can be a highly “organised” State B, but now State B may well encode the events that resulted in State B, and not any other of the large numbers of states (also organised) that might have resulted had those events been different. Secondly, we can have self organising systems that result in highly ordered results, but which are non-reversable – A inevitably leads to B, but so do other initial states, and so A cannot be inferred from B – in which information is lost between A and B, but we can also have reversable systems in which A inevitably leads to B, but in which B is highly complex, and, while A can be inferred from it, can only be inferred from it by reversing the series of sequential steps that took it from A to B in the first place. Thus a simple pattern A could store a large amount of information, but that information is only revealed if A was allowed to “self-organise” itself into B. Thirdly, a self-replicating molecule is both self-organising, or part of a self-organising system, and information-rich, and when that information is duplicated, it is transferred. Therefore it is a dense information storage system. Therefore DNA itself violates Eric’s rule. Lastly, none of this tells you whether the thing was designed or not.>/blockquote>
Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Thanks everyone for the comments. I’ve got a window for a few minutes so I’ll try to respond to a couple of items now. Box @25:
Do we need to distinguish between multiple kinds of self-ordering?
That is an interesting question and one worth exploring. For now, though, I think it is sufficient to distinguish between (i) something that is self-ordering in a purely natural way (which is obviously what we are talking about) and (ii) something that is self-ordering pursuant to a set of procedures and processes that have been put in place beforehand (i.e., something that comes about through a set of protocols geared toward that end). We are interested in the former in terms of some kind of naturalistic or self-organization theories of origins. BTW, the movie you linked to is interesting, but perhaps not really germane. The parts of the “virus” are of course carefully designed to fit together in a particular pattern (I can’t tell from the video, but it even looks like the parts are interchangeable). They are neatly contained in a bottle, conveniently isolated from other parts or potential cross-interference from other structures. There is no evidence that the final structure performs any function and no information content is apparent in the structure or the sequential arrangement of parts. Looks like an interesting toy, but not much beyond that. ----- Joe @26:
Mikey Elzinga“refutes” you by saying the hexagon we see on saturn is self-organising.
That is pretty funny. I wonder what information he imagines he sees in Saturn’s hexagonal cloud structure? Is there a message conveyed in the hexagon that only he is privy to? :) Sounds like he may need to study up a bit on the concepts we’re discussing.
They don’t undersatnd that DNA is not self-organising and if it were it wouldn’t be good for storing information.
Oh boy. I hope no-one is suggesting that DNA is self organizing. ----- Joe @30:
Every step of the process flows downhill, entropically, but somehow the existence of multiple alternative possibilities, and modern complexity, means that someone must have chosen this one.
I hope he isn’t suggesting that every process in DNA transcription and translation is entropically downhill. That would surely show a misunderstanding of the biology involved. In addition to misunderstanding the broader point about the mapping of nucleotides to amino acids, which is not determined by simple chemical tendencies. ----- Alan Fox @33: I am open to specific examples that would counter what I stated. But general complaints without addressing the issues don’t concern me too much. ----- Daniel King @34: I think it does relate to complex machines. I focused on DNA because that is the most obvious and easy case for most people to understand. Also, because the principle I have stated is most clearly seen in the digital information context (as kf has also noted @23). In the context of physical machinery a similar principle holds, and I think we can still refer to the specific assembly of parts as the "information" that is used in constructing the system (think of any instruction manual you've seen to put together a piece of equipment). At a very basic, everyday, obvious level, we know that complex functional structure don’t just regularly come about through the natural processes of chemistry and physics. Of course this is the realm Behe has focused on – irreducible complexity. I view irreducible complexity as something of a subset of the broader concept of complex specified information. Incidentally, I don’t have an issue with the idea that some proteins might spontaneously fold into the right structure. The idea of spontaneous protein folding is a misunderstanding in most cases, because specific folding requirements exist and there is cellular machinery that helps to ensure the correct folding; but there might be cases in which spontaneous folding actually occurs. Regardless, the key point we need to focus on is the specific sequence arrangement of the amino acids – that is where the information lies, in this case being the result of a transcription and translation process from the information contained in the corresponding DNA sequence.Eric Anderson_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

OK DNA is NOT a self-replicator. It gets replicated, either as part of the cellular process or via human technology and human involvement. And there isn't any theory of evolution, just a bunch of people who say there is.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Evolutionary theory? Anyone?Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

ID theory? Anyone?Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
What the people of the US decide to do in their own backyard is up to them.
By teaching evolutionism, we are crapping all over it.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Am I?
Yup!
Wrong again. Have another drink and try again.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox
But baraminology? YOU summarized it Alan. YOU did.
I have to ask other commenters if they agree that baraminology is actually ID theory.
I never said it was. All I said was that YOU summarized baraminology. Why are you being such a dishonest [SNIP -- expulsion level word, warning! Time to get back up on the wagon] ?
Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Am I?
Yup!Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

...we should be able to teach baraminology in public schools...
Not my business, Joe. What the people of the US decide to do in their own backyard is up to them. But baraminology? I have to ask other commenters if they agree that baraminology is actually ID theory. I thought the current line is that ID is not creationism?Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Look in the same journal that published the alleged theory of evolution. Just a couple articles after it.
Apparently you are!
Am I?Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Alan While I have your attention, your summary is meaningless because you cannot link to the actual thing. IOW your summary could be totally contrived. Not only that it summarizes BARAMINOLOGY. YOU have COMPLETELY dodged the question. You whiffed. Try again or admit that you are just a poseur. That said, iIs there a theory of forensic science? Is there a theory of archaeology? ID can be tested and possibly falsified. Your position cannot say the same.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Look in the same journal that published the alleged theory of evolution. Just a couple articles after it.
Apparently you are!Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

By Alan's actions we can tell that there ain't no theory of evolution- one that is in a peer-reviewed journal anyway. And by the way he summarized his understanding of it, we should be able to teach baraminology in public schools as it is no diiferent from what Alan said.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Joe While I have your attention, I gave you my summary of evolutionary theory. Are you now going to provide your version of "ID" theory? Is there an ID theory? You're not dodging the question, are you?Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Presumably you mean by this there is a scientific theory of “Intelligent Design” So where is it, then?
Look in the same journal that published the alleged theory of evolution. Just a couple articles after it.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Dear kairosfocus, As you can see, the word "imbecile" applies. Either that or perhaps just pathological. Should we take a vote?Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

You now stand clearly revealed as willfully flying in the face of evident and accessible facts. KF
Presumably you mean by this there is a scientific theory of "Intelligent Design" So where is it, then?Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Geez Alan, that-> PCR, was pathetic, even for you.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Dear Alan, PCR is NOT an example of DNA self-replication. Why the dishonesty? Would DNA replicate without the technology? No. You lose, again, as usual.
“FSC-whatever” is your personal reification, G. Sorry that the Discovery Institute is not sponsoring you for further development of your “idea” but that’s life!
Dear Alan, We don't give a rat's butt what YOU call it. The fact is it exists as DEFINED. And it needs to be explained, again, regardless of what you call it. And guess what? Your position can't explain it, scientifically.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

...the underlying facts...
Hmm! Is someone doing field or lab work to get some underlying facts to support ID theory? But then one is driven to ask what is ID theory? I keep asking but... _______ You now stand clearly revealed as willfully flying in the face of evident and accessible facts. KFAlan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply