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

And Felsenstein notes:
which seems not to be saying that the evolution of a DNA genome is impossible. Instead it seems to be saying that DNA itself is impossible.
Bingo! Given materialism, DNA itself is impossible. IOW given only blind and undirected processes, DNA would not be here.
I guess the only reason we would see DNA is that leprechauns are constantly holding each DNA molecule together, because otherwise (according to UD) DNA molecules are impossible.
Nope. I guess you had too many donuts today, Felsy. Do you think that leprechauns are holding computers and computer programs together?Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Great, another moron chimed in:
If it’s not random, and it’s not “fixed by internal forces” when did your designer do it and how Upright? KF?
We can only answer those questions by studying the design and all relevant evidence- ie via science. We sure as heck don't have to know those answers to determine design is present and to study it, which is what ID is about.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

How can you summarize what doesn’t exist?
Out of the mouths of babes…
From the mouth of an imbecile... ======== Joe, please watch terms: im·be·cile (mb-sl, -sl) n. 1. A stupid or silly person; a dolt. 2. A person whose mental acumen is well below par. 3. A person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Box: Self ordering/organising -- the last is probably not apt -- systems have internal structures and forces that under certain circumstances will give rise to ordered structures, like condensation, crystallisation, convection loops, vortices and the like. Normally, this implies a symmetry that leads to things fitting together like the tumbling parts with magnetic couplers that can form a ball. The difference from organisation as Wicken and others have used it, is that the latter speaks to an aperiodic pattern that specifies a wiring diagram that then has to be effected in a fairly precise way for the composite entity to work. Much like an electronic circuit. Assembly per instructions is a paradigm for effecting such, from a factory building cars to a cell building proteins. KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox, choker:
I summarized my own understanding of evolutionary theory. This is an explanation for the diversity of life found on Earth, not its origin..
LoL! Unfortunately what you summarized doesn't explain the diversity of anything. Let alone life. Diffeential reproduction within a population cannot explain the diversity of life. [SNIP -- language deteriorating, Joe].Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

AF: It so happens that the ROOT of the darwinist tree[s] of life is necessary for there to be a tree. This brings up front centre, the hypotesised common, unicellular ancestor sitting at OOL, which has to explain a metabolising automaton with an integral self replicating facility, which per the onward observations and the von Neumann analysis, will require codes and systems for reading and processing same to effect replication. For argument, to preserve a stable internal environment, encapsulation and selective gating as well as disposal of wastes, should probably be present but are not as pivotal. This is not the strawman you erected to dismiss, a demand to explain everything. It is saying that until the root -- which happens to be BEFORE variation and differential reproductive success can properly be appealed to -- is cogently addressed on evidence, there is a root-level begged question. It so happens that such an entity will involve codes and communication and info processing systems, functionally specific complex organisation and information well beyond the solar system and observed cosmos thresholds. For instance, on simplest observed forms, the stored information is credibly of order 100 k - 1 mn bits. As you know but will not acknowledge, the only, routinely observed source of FSCO/I is design. (onlookers, cf. here on for a 101. AF dismisses such, but you may find there something that he is brushing aside unexamined.) Which also blows up your whole cascade. And, as an attempted turnabout is likely, let me save the onlooker a loop of further strawmen. I do not need to do more than show that per induction on widespread experience and the implications of blind chance + necessity search of huge config spaces, that FSCO/I is a credible, reliable sign of design. So, in cases where we have not had opportunity to see the actual origin but notice FSCO/I, that is itself evidence that points to design. Whether or not we have historical or scientific observations that allow us to identify the designers. That I may not know whodunit does not mean that I cannot credibly know that Fire X was arson, on signs. KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Mr. Fox, It might surprise you to know that Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism works from another angle. Let's suppose that naturalism were able to supply trustworthy cognitive faculties through evolutionary processes (instead of undermining them). Is we were to presuppose that then the argument would work this way:
Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661 This preceding video, at the 6:49 mark, has a very interesting quote: "So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they're atheists basically, there's no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That's what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler's solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves." - Michael Strauss PhD. - Particle Physics
i.e. if evolutionary Naturalism were able to supply trustworthy cognitive faculties (instead of undermining them) then there is no parameter within evolutionary naturalism for Darwinists to appeal to prevent some creature to evolve to the point of being a godlike being with practically infinite heights of knowledge and power. Moreover the multiverse conjecture only compounds this problem for Darwinists like you Mr. Fox. If an infinite number of other possible universes must exist in order to explain the fine tuning of this one, then why is it not also infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator to exist? Using the materialist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses to 'explain away' the extreme fine-tuning of this one we can thusly surmise; If it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes, and since He certainly must exist in some possible world then he must exist in all possible worlds since all possibilities in all universes automatically become subject to Him since He is, by definition, transcendent and infinitely Powerful.,,, i.e. The materialistic conjecture of an infinity of universes (the multiverse) to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning of this universe also insures, through the ontological argument, the 100% probability of the existence of God:
God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4
But Mr. Fox there is a caveat, I did'nt tell you about, to this 'growing to infinite knowledge and power' conjecture I granted you if evolutionary naturalism were able to provide trustworthy cognitive faculties,
The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf ,,I hold 'growing large without measure' to be a lesser quality infinity than a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The reason why I hold it to be a 'lesser quality infinity' is stated at the 4:30 minute mark of the following video: Can A "Beginning-less Universe" Exist? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8YN0fwo5J4 As well, the reason why 'growing large without measure' would be a lesser quality infinity than 'a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero' can also be grasped in this following video: Georg Cantor – The Mathematics Of Infinity – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335
Music:
Steven Curtis Chapman - God is God (Original Version) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk
bornagain77_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

How can you summarize what doesn’t exist?
Out of the mouths of babes...Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

You are not given, you have to find at OOl, on blind chance and necessity, which has not been done.
I did not offer an explanation of life, the universe and everything. I summarized my own understanding of evolutionary theory. This is an explanation for the diversity of life found on Earth, not its origin. You know, or should know, this. It has been pointed out enough times.
Next, you have to similarly account for increments of FSCO/I, again not done.
Of course I don't. I don't need to account for invisible pink unicorns, either. You come up with a credible definition of FSC whatever and then it may need considering.Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

WJM "One might posit there is “a priori bias” that blinds them to the obvious"
This is exactly what I suspect. I have often been amazed at the conceptual blindness at these folks. C.S. Lewis was too and wrote about it. There is obviously something different about them.CentralScrutinizer_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox links to a blog of clueless individuals and thinks he has refuted Eric. Priceless.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
I’ll summarize it in my own words.
How can you summarize what doesn't exist?
Given a population of self-sustaining self-replicators, where where the the replication process is not perfect and where there is competition for resources, differential survival may lead to change over time in that population.
LoL! Sounds like baraminology. Nice job Alan. And no one can say why Eric is wrong.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

AF 1: Given a population of self-sustaining self-replicators, where where the the replication process is not perfect and where there is competition for resources, differential survival may lead to change over time in that population. You are not given, you have to find at OOl, on blind chance and necessity, which has not been done. Next, you have to similarly account for increments of FSCO/I, again not done. 2: I’m not the only one to think you are incorrect in your assertion, Eric It's very simple, something that has a fixed structure and internal state set by internal forces cannot serve as an effective storage medium or unit. Now, where you have a set of internal states and triggers that can change state, that is a very different story. Basic digital electronics, think about flip flops. But then, DNA is much like ROM. It is not meant to be variable from moment to moment. The processing of templated mRNA with extrons and introns offers possibilities, that are exploited to give another level of FSCO/I: interwoven codes. That is very high art for digital design I can tell you, I just gave thanks for enough memory and never even tried. KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Box (24): Thanks Eric Anderson (20) & Kairosfocus (23) for clarifying. I am also grateful to Eric and Kairos, but like Box I'm still unclear about the meaning of the term self-ordering. I also wonder, Do we need to distinguish between multiple kinds of self-ordering? Eric, your clarification was most helpful. You are applying the term self-ordering to a constraint on the freedom of a chain of molecules or of symbols to vary. I see that such a constraint is an example of order, and that a perfectly orderly system can't be varied to convey different messages, and that DNA is not similarly constrained. But why call that situation self-ordering? Where does the self come in? Was your claim (and the focus on DNA) relevant to the kinds of self-ordering to which Kantian Naturalist was referring? He didn't say so, but I assume that he was referring to such things as the self-assembly of proteins into complex machines like microtubules or viruses, or the spontaneous folding of a variety of proteins. I think you need to address those kinds of self-ordering.Daniel King_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

…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.Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

...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.
Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

What evolutionary theory? Can you please link to it.
I'll summarize it in my own words. Given a population of self-sustaining self-replicators, where where the the replication process is not perfect and where there is competition for resources, differential survival may lead to change over time in that population. I like to think of it as a process of environmental design. Now show me yours, Joe! :)Alan Fox_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Allan Miller continues his strawman spewage:
The physicochemical thinking at UD is typically limited to short chains of cause-and-effect. Water flows downhill, that’s ‘natural law’. So when they think of a chemical system, they tend to think simply of one molecular configuration turning into another. Since the codon does not turn into the amino acid, they somehow think this is not governed by physical law – ‘necessity’. In order to get such a more complicated interaction, it must have been designed, because ‘everybody knows’ that the acids are ‘materially arbitrary’. 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.
As I keep saying Allan, if you don't like ID then just start finding and presenting positive evidence for your position. The next time you do so will be the first. The point being is there isn't any physical law governing the genetic code. Just as there isn't any physical law governing a computer program.Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Which brings us to another point- why are these chumps, who are obvioulsy oblivious to ID claims, think they can rail against ID?
Programmed biological automatons cannot properly respond to concepts; they can only respond to words and phrases in accordance with their basic directives. What comes out of TSZ and most anti-ID advocates makes much more sense when examined in this light.
Yes I know they accuse of of doing the same to evolutionism, but they never provide any evidence to support that accusation.
Let's look at this from the perspective that the people at TMZ are what they claim to be - programmed biological automatons. Let's say that they are programmed to interpret all evidence and argument about evolution from a framework that materialism is true. Now, keep in mind that "materialism" isn't really even specifically termed in the coding; it's not a root folder full of materialist values and concepts that is protected; instead, materialism is just the assumption of the coding itself. Anti-ID advocates do no better a job at defending or arguing "materialism" than they do against ID, because they are not programmed to defend it. Their programming simply assumes it at a very fundamental level. So, when one of them reads any scientifically gathered biological or stratiographic data that has to do with evolutionary claims, they have no coding that questions whether or not materialism is a sufficient explanation; their coding assumes it. So, when we say "that is just an assumption", they point to the evidence as if it is evidence of what is being questioned. This is why no matter how many times you correct them that the "evidence" they point to has nothing whatsoever to do with what is being challenged, they simply don't get it and present the same irrelevant objections over and over. They are programmed to do so. No matter how many times Behe, Meyer, Dembski, etc. have said that ID makes no claim about any "god"; no matter how may sites explain that same thing; no matter that there is a FAQ here that explains it; the programmed automaton known as Elizabeth Liddle can still make a comment that "ID has failed to "prove" the existence of god." Here we have several perfectly understandable - even blatantly obvious - arguments about how materialism fails to account for the information in DNA, and perfectly understandable, obvious arguments why intelligence is the best explanation available, and yet they fail to understand such arguments even at their most basic level (under the charitable reading defense, and taking them at their word as to what they are). Why? Because they interpret all such arguments from the perspective that materialism is true; they do not know this is what they are doing because their conceptual framework, materialism, doesn't actually occupy specific code, it is the blind-spot assumption from which all their coding ensues. They are incapable of understanding concepts; they are self-proclaimed Turing machines. This is why they constantly take terms and phrases out of context and then reiterate already-addressed objections or invent new ones that have nothing to do with the concept that is being used. Under a charitable reading paradigm - assuming they aren't being deliberately evil - they obviously don't even understand the concepts they do employ or defend, because when they are shown the obvious failings, self-referential absurdity, or self-defeating consequences of those concepts, they are incapable of understanding it at the conceptual level - because they roll merrily along utilizing and defending the same concept - such as, the concept that the LNC is not necessarily binding, or the concept that materialism can produce a reliable mind. Since materialism is not a specifically coded concept, but rather the blind-spot source of programming, if they have a rational mind, then obviously - to them - materialism can produce it. If something exists, obviously materialism can produce it, even if they cannot rationally defend that notion, and even if they have no means of supporting that view, and even flying in the face of the obvious. This is how they can make the claim that "there is no evidence for design" even when everyone - including those testifying against personal interest - have admitted that it all looks precisely and overwhelmingly like it has been designed. How can any sane, intelligent entity with free will make such a series of inane statements? If we assume they are of good will and have the same free will faculty as we do to arbit true statements from an exterior perspective (true self-reflection at the conceptual level), there is no explanation for it. How is there a free will, sound mind explanation for anyone that disagrees with the LNC? One might posit there is "a priori bias" that blinds them to the obvious, but if they are incapable of overcoming bias that runs so counter to the obvious, so overpowering that it produces inane, self-defeating, self-denying, incomprehensible output as if they were making sense, is this not the same as, for all intents and purposes, being a Turing-machine automaton?William J Murray_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Joe (and ME): Kindly see the just above. KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Box: Something like a vortex is self-organising, so is a crystal. A snowflake -- esp star form -- is a crystal. In a case like this, the complex branches reflect rapid chance variations in local conditions as the crystal forms. The hex shape is necessity, the complex branches are highly contingent. That gives complexity but it is not specified functionally. Break a star snowflake and it is still a flake. Break a protein chain and it usually will not fold and work right. None of this is new, it is stuff that has been explained over and over, but the objectors are not attending to inconvenient facts. The slightly hexagonal cloud pattern at Saturn's north pole is an obviously fairly symmetrical vortex-linked feature. The red spot on Jupiter is apparently much the same and we are familiar with hurricanes and bathtub swirls. These do not have the highly contingent, information rich asymmetrical wiring diagram patterns associated with FSCO/I. Similarly, if you look at the movie, you will see little pairs of [obviously very strong) magnets and a specific curved tiling shape. That is, the system was intelligently designed and made to assemble on shaking in a tube. The smarts is in what gets you to that point. And in fact, this is yet another example of FSCO/I tracing to design. Unacknowledged, as usual. Observe the blurb:
This video shot in real time with no tricks shows the process of self-assembly driven by random motion [--> and, unacknowledged, by design of the component parts to fit in the right way and stick together when that happens, so that step by step the ball will be built] . It demonstrates how viruses and other complex biological organisms put themselves together without direction from the outside, except random motion from heat. [--> and dodges the highly information-driven organisation of the components to fit together.] Patent has been applied for. This model can now be purchased from sciencewithinreach.com .
See the trick in what has been left out of the narrative? See why FSCO/I is such a major blind spot? They are red herring and strawman arguments distractive from the inconvenient facts of a code based digital info storage and processing system in the heart of the living cell. And to store codes you need flexibility in the storage medium. KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson- Nice job. You have Lizzie and the septic zone ilk all in a tither. Mikey Elzinga "refutes" you by saying the hexagon we see on saturn is self-organising. Therefor living organisms! It's funny that they disagree with you yet cannot provide any evidence that refutes what you say. Neil Rickert is his usual clueless self. They don't undersatnd that DNA is not self-organising and if it were it wouldn't be good for storing information. And if it were self-organising then we wouldn't see the diversity in DNA that we observe. DNA does NOT have a fixed chain of A's, C's, G's and T's. Geez Meyer has gone over and over why this is important. Which brings us to another point- why are these chumps, who are obvioulsy oblivious to ID claims, think they can rail against ID? Yes I know they accuse of of doing the same to evolutionism, but they never provide any evidence to support that accusation. But anyway, nice job Eric and kairosfocus...Joe_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Thanks Eric Anderson (20) & Kairosfocus (23) for clarifying. Do we need to distinguish between multiple kinds of self-ordering? Are all kinds subject to E.A.'s law? This movie provides an example of self-ordering based on shape.Box_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

KF posted this:
Going beyond, you know protein chains then fold to form functional ones, which is yet another metastable state. Sometimes it has to be chaperoned, and as you know the existence of misfolded lower energy states — prions — is a notorious problem per Mad Cow disease and is suspected of involvement in Alzheimers.
Can you provide a citation showing that prions are at a lower energy state than a protein's "properly" folded form (presumably, you mean the form in which the protein does its "proper" job)?timothya_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Box: Let's start with click-together beads, similar to Lego bricks. Say, they come in four colours, R, Y, B, P -- red, yellow, blue, purple. Now, in the normal case we have a universal coupler, the click together so any colour can follow any. We could devise a code and freely store messages in this string of beads: R-R-Y-B-P . . . Now, let us change things up a bit, so that R must now be followed by Y and B by P (and Y and P must be preceded by R and B), i.e. there is a peculiarity in the couplers that forces a certain degree of internal organisation. We now have been reduced to two units, not four: -RY-, -BP- This means the code-carrying capacity has been significantly reduced, because the number of choices in each available position is now 2 not 4. That reduces the carrying capacity of the positions, here from 2 bits per position to 1. (The usual measure of info carrying capacity is a log measure of the number of choices and likelihood of the alternatives at each point in the message, cf here on for a 101. If the base of the logs is 2, the measure is in bits. A flatly distributed, 20-state per position system holds 4.32 bits per position. In praxis, there is some tendency of proteins to have certain AA's more common and certain ones less so, and this reduces the average info carrying capacity per AA. As a rule, even when there are no physical constraints like in our beads example, codes do not have an even distribution of the possible states, e.g. in English about 1/8 of text is the letter e, and x is rather rarer except in Algebra books or the like. Similarly, unless one is dealing with QANTAS or Iraq or the like, q is almost certain to be followed by u. So, if you saw the following text: "qween" you would most likely infer a typo for "queen," unless something odd was going on. This means that u provides some redundancy that helps us pick up errors, but it carries little additional info, as there is a self organising tendency in the code we call textual English.) Now, try some Lego bricks with a twist, they have four lock points, maybe we can imagine them as pointing at the 4 arms of a cross, like in a + sign. This would allow us to make up some pretty complicated 2-d structures. Especially if we can lock to tools or components, or have a sort of end cap. Now, switch to 3-d, by making the four arms point to the four vertices of a tetrahedron, a pyramid with a triangular base. With the +-block now in 3-d, we can see how we could organise some very complex structures, and by adding the right tool-tips and end caps, we can put together all sorts of things. I have just given you a rough, initial model of Carbon chemistry for organic molecules, the context of the chemistry of life. The issue is that this great flexibility allows for complex functionally specific organisation, which is information-rich. If we did not have that flexibility, we could not construct things so easily. Which is information-poor. Indeed, in the ultimate case, we have the sort of lock up that makes for crystal arrays that have a uniform composition, like say NaCl in a 3-d array. Does this help make matters clearer? KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

Groov: The two electrical states of a light switch are metastable (with the intermediate one being a higher energy state), so they latch. But, that is by no means a ground state, as can be seen by leaving a light switch be for long enough. Just so, the state of the chain in D/RNA or protein is metastable, but it is by no means a ground state. It is downhill from the higher state just before bonding, but it is by no means the only bonded state or even compositional state possible. That is why there is such an elaborate system to control and force the chemistry using Le Chetalier's principle. Going beyond, you know protein chains then fold to form functional ones, which is yet another metastable state. Sometimes it has to be chaperoned, and as you know the existence of misfolded lower energy states -- prions -- is a notorious problem per Mad Cow disease and is suspected of involvement in Alzheimers. Apparently the misfold propagates and the increased stability is such that that leads to accumulation and a fatal progression. So, we should focus the contingency and the way this can be used to load and store information. KFkairosfocus_{March 24, 2013
March
03
Mar
24
24
2013
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox @1: You probably know you are putting up a red herring, but in case you care to review the matter, here is a brief summary of the design position: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-on-earth-would-a-layman-accept-darwinistic-claims/#comment-450195Eric Anderson_{March 23, 2013
March
03
Mar
23
23
2013
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

Daniel King @11:
That’s an exciting concept. Is there any evidence for it?
Thanks, Daniel. Good question. Not only is there evidence for it, it is a fundamental aspect of information storage and transmission. Just a couple of quick examples: 1. Take the sequence of nucleotides in DNA. Let's assume that there is an absolute chemical affinity between, say, A and T, such that every time A shows up in a chain, T (by force of chemistry) always follows. This would be an example of a "self ordering tendency of the medium." This would mean that, in effect, there is no individual character 'A' available for use in the code. Instead, you would have AT, T, C and G. At first glance, this might not look like an issue, because you still have 4 "characters." But in fact, we have reduced the storage capacity of the medium. Note that AT actually occupies two positions ('AT') to convey the same thing that was initially conveyed by one position ('A'). As a result, every time we want to convey A: (i) we have to bring along a T even though its inclusion does not convey any additional information, and (ii) we have to increase the length of the string required to convey the same amount of information. If we had a further chemical affinity between, say T and G, such that G always followed T, the situation would be even worse. Or if G and C always came together, we have a similar problem. Indeed, when early efforts were underway to explain the DNA code, one of the very first things that was studied was whether there was any particular chemical affinity or chemical necessity that would cause one nucleotide base to follow another. It was discovered that there isn't (due to the overall structure of the DNA helix), and at the same time it was appreciated that if there were such a chemical affinity, it would reduce the information carrying capacity of DNA. The primary problem with self-organization theories as they relate to the origin of information-rich systems like DNA (or RNA or any other information-bearing system), is that the very process called upon to produce the system in question is anathema to that system's capacity to carry information. Self-organization of information-rich systems is therefore a dead end from the get-go. It is not simply a question of needing more time or needing to discover some as-yet-unknown law of chemistry or physics. The very process of self organization is a destroyer of information. 2. Imagine we want to store some information in a computer memory, using conventional 1's and 0's. But the memory we are using is a bit strange in that a 1 must always be followed by a 0. In this two-bit system it is obvious (perhaps even moreso than it is with a 4-bit DNA system) that this self-ordering tendency reduces information carrying capacity. Now every time I want a 1, I get a 1 followed by a 0. So, for example, a string that would be 10110101 becomes 1001010010010. We've gone from 8 positions to 13 positions in this example, and on average across the board we'll need to add about 50% more positions to convey the same amount of information. 3. At the most extreme end of the self-ordering spectrum (complete self-ordering) would be a situation in which, for example, 1 is always followed by 0 and 0 is always followed by 1 or 0 (or in DNA, if each nucleotide is always followed by a specific nucleotide). In such cases, the medium completely loses its ability to convey information. Occasionally naturalistic OOL proponents will speculate about the information for life starting out with some kind of self-ordering crystals. Here we see why that is simply unworkable. ----- Self-organization is a dead end for explaining the origin of information rich systems in biology. The only remaining games in town are (i) blind chance, or (ii) purposeful design. ----- Now two quick final thoughts: - Someone might be tempted to say, "Yes, but in these examples you have assumed complete affinity." True, for simplicity in these examples I have used complete affinity, but the same issue holds if there is a tendency without complete affinity -- for example, if T had a 50% likelihood of following A due to some chemical affinity. In some ways the problem becomes even messier with a stochastic tendency rather than an absolute tendency, but it is essentially the same problem: the information carrying capacity of the medium is lessened proportionally. - At the risk of derailing the discussion with a topic that many people sorely misunderstand (present company, I trust, excluded), I cautiously bring up the so-called Shannon Information. Shannon Information, as I've mentioned previously, is not really about measuring the information in a particular string, but rather about measuring the information carrying capacity of the string (or the particular medium in question). So in answer to the initial question, yes, there is evidence for my statement in the OP and it can be empirically measured under Shannon's approach. Indeed, that is really what Shannon's measurement is all about: measuring the information carrying capacity of a medium, and it very much depends on the self-ordering tendency (rather, the lack thereof) of the medium in question. ------ Well, that is longer than I intended to take tonight. I hope that helps lay it out in a bit more detail.Eric Anderson_{March 23, 2013
March
03
Mar
23
23
2013
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

kf: Thanks for the kind post. This issue is critical to understand, particularly as it relates to any "natural law" or "self-organization" type of origins theories that are sometimes put forward. I've only got a few minutes tonight, but hopefully can respond to some of the comments in more detail tomorrow evening.Eric Anderson_{March 23, 2013
March
03
Mar
23
23
2013
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon, Thank You for your kind thoughts. You say: "I have to figure out how “assumes its lowest potential energy state,” relates to it all. I’ll have to think it all over a bit more." Any material object (including any material medium) must adhere to a one of the fundamental principles of physics, often referred to as the Minimum Total Potential Energy Principle. This principle states that any physical structure (of any size, shape, or make-up) will distort and twist, and naturally orient itself to seek its lowest potential energy state. You might think of it in general terms as an object seeking a balance of all the physical forces acting upon it. See here - - - - - - - - - - - groovamos, You say "As for information storage: A wall light switch for example has a spring which, in either position stores a lower potential energy than it does at the peak of the energy “hill” which must be traversed to change state." I have no idea how the spring in a light switch relates to the topic of information storage or lowest potential energy state of an information-bearing medium.Upright BiPed_{March 23, 2013
March
03
Mar
23
23
2013
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply