Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Odds That End: Stephen Meyer’s Rebuttal Of The Chance Hypothesis

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Andes mountains opened up on both sides of us as we drove on one July afternoon along a highway that links Quito, the capital of Ecuador, with the smaller town of Ambato almost three hours further south. The setting sun shone head-on upon two volcanic giants- Tungurahua and Cotopaxi with its snow covered peak just visible through the cordillera. I had traveled along this road many times in previous years and had been repeatedly awe-struck by the sheer beauty of the surrounding land. Today fields extend as far as the eye can see, with the lights of small communities and villages illuminating the mountain slopes.

Volcanoes that periodically eject dangerous lava flows are a rich source of soil nutrients for Ecuadorian farmers. Still, in the eyes of organic chemists such as Claudia Huber and Guenter Wachtershauser there exists a more pressing reason for studying the world’s ‘lava spewers’- one that has everything to do with the unguided manufacture of prebiotic compounds (1). Huber and Wachtershauser’s 2006 Science write-up on the synthesis of amino acids using potassium cyanide and carbon monoxide mixtures was heralded as groundbreaking primarily because of the ‘multiplicity of pathways’ through which biotic components could be made using these simple volcanic compounds (1).

Others have similarly weighed in with their own thoughts on volcanic origins (2-6). In the words of one notable Russian research team “the opportunity to define the pressure and temperature limits of [volcanic] microbiological activity as well as constrain its rate of evolution in a primordial environment is an exciting one, with implications for the origin of life on earth and existence of life elsewhere in the solar system” (3).

Whether it be Darwin’s warm little pond or contemporary speculations over life-seeding environments we see in both a search for continuity from the non-living to the living- a search that was exemplified in Walt Disney’s color and sound extravaganza Fantasia almost seventy years ago. Disney popularized origin of life theories by artistically proclaiming that volcanoes exploding and comets colliding were all that were needed to get life under way. According to such a portrayal the evolution of more complex multi-cellular forms would then naturally follow (7). Disney enthusiasts will no doubt find comfort in the decade-old New York Times prescription for a life-yielding brew:

“Drop a handful of fool’s gold (the mineral iron pyrites) and a sprinkle of nickel into water, stir in a strong whiff of rotten eggs (caused by the gas hydrogen sulfide) and carbon monoxide, heat mixture near the crackle and hiss of a volcano and let simmer for an eon.” (8)

Along a similar thread, journalist Tony Fitzpatrick cavalierly asserted that “conditions favorable for hydrocarbon synthesis also could be favorable for other life ingredients and complex organic polymers, leading…eventually to all sorts of cells and diverse organisms” (9). Of course skeptics of such depictions have their own armory of scientifically-valid reasons for denying that naturalistic earth models could have given us anything more than a geothermal sludge.

Perhaps the most persuasive of these comes from philosopher Stephen Meyer who in his most recent book Signature In The Cell supplied a mathematical treatise on the synthesis of bio-molecules (10). Following in the footsteps of fellow ID advocate William Dembski, Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang) (10). In other words, we are stopped dead in our tracks by a probabilistic impasse of the highest order before we have even begun assessing the geological plausibility of competing origin of life scenarios.

The scientific method commits us to finding the best explanation for the phenomena we observe. Drawing from the opinions of NIH biologist Peter Mora, Meyer shows us how the chance hypothesis- that purports to explain how life arose without recourse to design or necessity- has been found wanting particularly in light of the ever-growing picture of the complexity of the cell (10). But the debate-clincher in Meyer’s expose comes from his comprehensive summarization of the bellyaches associated with chemist Stanley Miller’s controversial spark discharge apparatus (10).

Former colleagues of Miller concede that the highly reducing conditions he used in his experiments could not have been the mainstay of prebiotic earth (4). Nevertheless they further posit that localized atmospheric conditions around volcanic plums may have been reducing after all and that these could have given rise to life-seeding compounds (4). In their assessment:

“Even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective. Reduced gases and lightning associated with volcanic eruptions in hot spots or island arc-type systems could have been prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. In these volcanic plumes, HCN, aldehydes, and ketones may have been produced, which, after washing out of the atmosphere, could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules. Amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized by carbonyl sulfide, a simple volcanic gas that has been shown to form peptides under mild conditions.” (4)

Of course with so many ‘could-haves’ and ‘may-haves’ such a picture leaves us sitting on a vacuous flow of speculation rather than on a substantive bedrock of firm evidence. For seasoned biologist David Deamer the realization of implausibility, at least for a direct volcanic origin, comes from his own direct observations:

“Deamer carried with him a version of the “primordial soup”- a mixture of compounds like those a meteorite could have delivered to the early Earth, including a fatty acid, amino acids, phosphate, glycerol, and the building blocks of nucleic acids. Finding a promising-looking boiling pool on the flanks of an active volcano, he poured the mixture in and then took samples from the pool at various intervals for analysis back in the lab at UCSC. The results were strikingly negative: life did not emerge, no membranes assembled themselves, and no amino acids combined into proteins. Instead, the added chemicals quickly vanished, mostly absorbed by clay particles in the pool. Instead of supporting life, the bubbling pool had snuffed it out before it began.” (6)

Not only has Meyer’s probabilistic analysis supplied us with the odds that end the discussion for ‘chance-philes’, but contemporary extravagations over prebiotic earth have done nothing to bolster their credibility. We are left with little choice but to discard chance as a serious contender in the ‘life origins’ debate.

Literature Cited
1. Claudia Huber and Guenter Wachtersheuser (2006) a-Hydroxy and a-Amino Acids Under Possible Hadean, Volcanic Origin-of-Life Conditions, Science, Vol 314, pp. 630-632

2. A.J Teague, T.M Seward, A.P Gize, T. Hall (2005) The Organic Chemistry of Volcanoes: Case Studies at Cerro Negro, Nicaragua and Oldoinyo Lengai, Tanzania, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #B23D-04

3.John Eichelberger, Alexey Kiryukhin, and Adam Simon (2009) The Magma-Hydrothermal System at Mutnovsky Volcano, Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, Scientific Drilling, No. 7, March , 2009, pp. 54-59

4. Adam Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason Dworkin, Daniel Glavin, Antonio Lazcano, Jeffrey L. Bada (2008) The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment. Science 17 October 2008: Vol. 322, p. 404

5. David Grinspoon (2009) This Volcano Loves You, Denver Museum Of Nature & Science, COMMunity Blogs, See http://community.dmns.org/blogs/planetwaves/archive/2009/03/19/this-volcano-loves-you.aspx

6.Chandra Shekhar (2006) Chemist explores the membranous origins of the first living cell, UC Santa Cruz, Currents Online, See http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/04-03/deamer.asp

7.Fantasia, Walt Disney Home Video, Copyright by the Walt Disney Company, 1940

8. Nicholas Wade (1999) Evidence Backs Theory Linking Origins of Life to Volcanoes, New York Times, Friday, April 11, 1997

9.Tony Fitzpatrick (2000) Life’s origins: Researchers find intriguing possibility in volcanic gases, http://record.wustl.edu/archive/2000/04-20-00/articles/origins.html

10. Stephen Meyer (2009) Signature In The Cell: DNA And The Evidence For Intelligent Design, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, pp. 215-228

Comments
vjtorley:
1. Re the definition of information: surely the most logical thing to do would be to look at the definition employed in the most recent online articles defending ID. I would try the papers by Dembski and Marks at this address, as they are very recent (2009): http://www.evoinfo.org/Publications.html
Okay. In those papers, information is defined as a property of searches, rather than of events or objects. Since DNA is not a search, it is incoherent to say that DNA contains information, according to Marks and Dembski's definitions. Is everybody on board with this?
Merry Christmas to all, whatever your faith may be.
And Merry Christmas to you, vjtorley. Thank you for the kind spirit that you bring to these discussions.R0b
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
#271 "No. I don’t mean those “things.” I mean the foundational assumptions concerning ontology and epistemology that you hold." tg: I do not wish to offend our naturalist critics but honestly I think they actually think they do not hold unprovable foundational assumptions. That is first principle and presuppositions that cannot be empircally verified. A little shocking for those who are so intelligent and seemingly highly educated. If I am mistaken on this I apologize in advance. Vividvividbleau
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
jerry:
“I’m thoroughly confused.” That is nothing new. Why don’t you try to figure it out.
Hint taken. I still don't understand how you can talk about "the way ID uses the term information" as if there's only one way, and yet acknowledge that different ID proponents use the term in different ways. But I won't pursue the issue any more.R0b
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Jerry #270 ” It may be obvious to you but for the sake of us poor confused bystanders – just say.” I have already said it many, many times. The one the biology departments across the universe are using. It appears that is all you are ever going to offer in the way of a definition. I will stop asking.Mark Frank
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
R0b, Osteonectin, Mark Frank, Zachriel, Voice Coil and Seversky: Good heavens, is this discussion still going on? Anyway, I just thought I'd drop by and make a few quick comments. 1. Re the definition of information: surely the most logical thing to do would be to look at the definition employed in the most recent online articles defending ID. I would try the papers by Dembski and Marks at this address, as they are very recent (2009): http://www.evoinfo.org/Publications.html 2. Re the points of resemblance between DNA and language: ID doesn't need to establish that DNA is just like human language. It's enough to show that DNA has generic features which (a) are very unlikely to have been produced by undirected processes, but which (b) we might reasonably expect an intelligent agent to produce, in the absence of any ad hoc constraints on its capacities or its actions. 3. Zachriel, you asked:
A lump of radium. An atom decays. What caused the decay of that atom rather than its neighbor?
OK. What's wrong with saying: God? And that doesn't mean He has to personally split each radium atom that decays, either. He could easily use a celestial pseudo-random number generator, for instance, to decide which atoms decay, and which ones don't. Also, God isn't a local hidden variable. God is everywhere. As far as I can tell, nothing in physics rules out a theistic explanation of probabilistic events. By the way, Zachriel, there are at least 17 interpretations of quantum mechanics. You can read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics Which one's yours? 4. Seversky, you wrote:
This means that we have two choices: either God created us out of part of Himself – in other words, we are made of God-’stuff’ and are, literally, a part of Him – or He created something out of nothing, which you argue is irrational.
You're equivocating here. God did not "make-the-world-out-of-nothing" (as if "nothing" was the stuff God used to make the world); rather, He did not make the world out of anything. There was no raw material. How could that be, you ask? Think of Harry Potter. Who made him? J. K. Rowling. What did she make him out of? She didn't make him out of anything. And before you all rush in and say, "We're real, and Harry's not," let me ask you: real on what level? J. K. Rowling is on the next level up from Harry. Presumably we're on the same level of reality as she is. Why couldn't God be on the level above us? Does that mean we don't possess libertarian freedom? I don't see why it should. The idea I'm defending here (and it is a very old one) is that we are characters in a story created by God, but that we are characters who can do our own bit of story-writing - subject to the constraints of God, the Master story-teller. And what's to stop God from interacting with the characters in His own story? Nothing. Which is why prayer is reasonable. 5. Seversky, you also write:
As Dawkins is pointing out in that quote, what we see is what we would expect the Universe to look like if there is no God.
I have to disagree. If there were no God, I wouldn't expect a universe with laws that are invariant over space and time. I wouldn't expect laws that are mathematically elegant, either. I wouldn't expect life, I wouldn't expect consciousness, I wouldn't expect science, metaphysics, art or religion, and I certainly wouldn't expect libertarian freedom. (And if you don't believe you really possess libertarian freedom, you will at least have to admit that you all do a pretty good imitation of it, in your daily lives.) Above all, I wouldn't expect me. It takes a lifetime of "education" for us to cease being amazed at these unexpected features of the universe, and at the fact of our own existence. Education? I'd call it desensitization. 6. In response to Seversky's remarks about the unfairness of Adam's temptation in Eden, let me briefly remark that: (a) contrary to what Seversky asserts, Adam was given a reason to obey the Divine command (namely, that death would be the consequence of disobedience); (b) Seversky's statement that "Nothing, but nothing, happens except by His will and that must include the serpent" fails to distinguish between the active and permissive will of God; (c) God did not lie when He said that "Adam was told he would die on the day he ate the fruit" unless the word "day" in the Bible always means 24 hours - but if that were the case, then we would expect Jewish rabbis who wrote about the book of Genesis (and who presumably knew ancient Hebrew far better than you do) to freely acknowledge the fact that God lied - yet in fact, none of them do; (d) the book of Genesis is likely to be a very incomplete account of what actually happened at the Fall. It probably omits many significant details which God has not deigned to tell us about (for reasons best known to Himself); (e) if you really want a good, thought-provoking theodicy, try reading Dr. William Dembski's The End of Christianity (available at Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/End-Christianity-Finding-Good-World/dp/0805427430/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261671513&sr=8-1 ). It will blow your mind - but I suggest you read and re-read it. Merry Christmas to all, whatever your faith may be.vjtorley
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
untermenschentgpeeler
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Seversky @ 268 "Where do you get the idea that physics has anything to say about the existence of God or the problem of evil?" This would be funny as hell if it weren't so exasperating. THAT'S MY FREAKING POINT. Physics has NOTHING TO SAY about God or evil. Yet, if you are a naturalist (must we do this again?) that's all you have to explain anything and everything. So if that's all you have, and what you have can't explain something, the only thing left for you to do is deny the existence of that something. Thus Dawkins with his "illusion of design" and "apparently designed" nonsense. These things don't exist in his ontology, yet they clearly are real. (We have EVIDENCE of them. That's how we know.) So what's a naturalist to do? Well, that's pretty easy. Deny it. Naturalism is repellent to me because it is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Always has been and always will be. Now I'll wait for the charges of "naturalists can be good people too." How ridiculous is that? The ontology of naturalism denies the existence of morality but now you'll want to claim that you are a "good person too"? Well, you may well be, but you have no intellectual foundation for making the claim or caring about it in the first place. YOU DENY THE EXISTENCE OF MORALITY. So the Nazis? No problem. Just carrying out the will of the people. Survival of the fittest and all that. Only the strong survive. So what's your problem with the extermination of 6 million Jews and another 3 million or so untermenshcen?? Explain to me why that is wrong. Really wrong. If you think it is, that is. More to follow...tgpeeler
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Z @ 260 "A lump of radium. An atoms decays. What caused the decay of that atom rather than its neighbor?" Z @ 267 "Quantum Theory makes highly reliable and accurate predictions of a wide range of phenomena. All the available evidence strongly supports quantum randomness." So what is the problem, exactly, then?tgpeeler
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
oops. Mark @ 265tgpeeler
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
re Mark @ 269 "You mean things we assert to be true and will not listen to any argument or evidence to the contrary? Sorry – I don’t have any of those." No. I don't mean those "things." I mean the foundational assumptions concerning ontology and epistemology that you hold. Except I don't think you, or any one who espouses a naturalist point of view, have any. As I've said repeatedly. But, deflection seems to be a decent strategy. Eventually people get tired of the BS and forget that you never established a foundation for your positions in the first place. They just hang out there in mid-air. Like Dennett's sky hooks. He's particularly fond of those even as he asserts that it is people like me who eschew them.tgpeeler
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
" It may be obvious to you but for the sake of us poor confused bystanders – just say." I have already said it many, many times. The one the biology departments across the universe are using. Still waiting for the connection to Andromeda to start working to see if they have a different point of view. I once suggested you study grammar to learn about that information process and you took it as an insult but I meant it in seriousness so that you could understand how another information system worked. Now I think you should study it to understand what people are communicating as you admit you are confused but yet insist on commenting on these topics. We all know that you are confused and challenged but now that it out in the open we can be more forthright with help and solutions since you have admitted your problem. You are not the only ones challenged. We often admit our limitations here and ask for help. We do not understand how naturalistic evolution can explain the appearance of all the new species over time. And so far no one has come forward to help us. Even those cruel evolutionary biologists are keeping their secret from us. So now that your secret is out in the open, there may be some hope for change to quote a great man of our times.jerry
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 238
To say that God brought the universe into existence is not the same thing as saying that the universe came from nothing. God is not nothing.
Exactly. In fact, as far as we know, before our Universe was created, there was only God, nothing more. This means that we have two choices: either God created us out of part of Himself - in other words, we are made of God-'stuff' and are, literally, a part of Him - or He created something out of nothing, which you argue is irrational.Seversky
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
tgpeeler @ 232
It has always amazed me that people blame all kinds of things on God as they are rejecting the idea of real good and evil (how DO you get that out of physics?) and God himself.
Where do you get the idea that physics has anything to say about the existence of God or the problem of evil? What atheists and agnostics argue is that the nature of the Universe we observe around us gives no reason at all to assume the existence of a deity such as the Christian God. As Dawkins is pointing out in that quote, what we see is what we would expect the Universe to look like if there is no God. For atheists and agnostics, the question is why people who espouse an intellectual commitment to reason hold a belief in a deity for which there is no empirical justification. Even worse, for those that have that intellectual commitment to reason is that they believe in a deity that, according to their own Scriptures, apparently would deny them the use of that reason even after having endowed them with that ability. For example, right at the beginning of the Bible, in Genesis, God creates the Garden of Eden and then creates a man and a woman, Adam and Eve, to tend it. In this garden He plants the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He tells Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit thereof but a talking serpent persuades Eve to eat the fruit and she the persuades Adam to do likewise. When God learns of this, He curses the humans and the serpent and condemns their species to suffer in various ways for ever more as punishment and casts them out of the Garden to fend for themselves. And, as someone with a self-proclaimed intellectual commitment to reason, you have no problem with that? Because I do. First, God plants this tree in the Garden and commands Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit but gives no reason why not. Absolutely none. If a child asks its parents why it shouldn't do something, the parents, if they are good responsible parents, will try to explain why. They will exercise your intellectual commitment to reason and try to make the child understand there are good reasons why people should or should not behave in certain ways. Yet God the Loving Father gives no reasons for His command. It is a brute order and to be obeyed without question. Then He sets a trap for the unsuspecting humans in the form of the talking serpent. Remember, everything was created by God. Nothing, but nothing, happens except by His will and that must include the serpent. This serpent persuades the humans to indulge their, presumably God-given, curiosity and eat the fruit. When God is told of this He pretends like He didn't know and is outraged. Really? He didn't know? An all-knowing, all-seeing God did not know? Are you kidding me? He then punishes the three miscreants as mentioned before. This also means He lied to Adam. Adam was told he would die on the day he ate the fruit. No ifs ands or buts, no "what I really mean is spiritual death, of course", he would die on the day he ate the fruit. But, as we know, life must have been pretty good outside the Garden because Adam lived to be around 900. So we have this perfect, truth-loving God, the ultimate source of morality, lying to His only child. He then punishes the three desperadoes. That is just about acceptable since they did disobey a strict order. What is not acceptable and is that all their descendants would suffer the same punishment in perpetuity. Since when is it just and reasonable to punish people for an offense that they did not commit, over which they had no possible influence and which happened long before they were born? And all this is just at the very beginning of the Bible. Don't get me started on all the other unpleasantness in the Old Testament. Having said all that, let me emphasize that it was not intended as a blanket attack on all religion and all believers. I have known good, decent Christians who did their best to live their lives by all that is finest in their faith and I have no doubt that the same can be said about adherents of other faiths as well. Just don't try to pretend that belief in a god is the inevitable conclusion of this vaunted intellectual commitment to reason. It is not. My belief is that the reason religion has proven to be so durable is because it meets deep-seated human emotional needs. But there is too much that is irrational and unreasonable about all faiths for it to be a rational position to take.Seversky
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
tgpeeler: Here’s a hint, random does not equal uncaused. Not in this universe, anyway.
Quantum Theory makes highly reliable and accurate predictions of a wide range of phenomena. All the available evidence strongly supports quantum randomness. It's not a matter of ignorance of possible causes: Empirical tests of Bell's Inequality support the assertion that there are no local hidden variables. Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Physical Review 1935. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics 1964. Gröblacher et al., An experimental test of non-local realism, Nature 2007.Zachriel
December 24, 2009
December
12
Dec
24
24
2009
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
#258 Jerry A fine line in sarcasm but I would still be intrigued to know which of the many definitions of information in the Stanford article you consider to be relevant one for ID. It may be obvious to you but for the sake of us poor confused bystanders - just say.Mark Frank
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
#263 tgpeeler Still waiting on those intellectual commitments. The ones I said eons ago (well it seems like eons) that none of “you” had. You mean things we assert to be true and will not listen to any argument or evidence to the contrary? Sorry - I don't have any of those.Mark Frank
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
261 R0b 12/23/2009 8:56 pm jerry, I’m thoroughly confused. The information-based arguments for ID that I’m familiar with are Dembski’s, Marks’, Meyer’s, and Durston’s. These use various definitions of information, and the authors don’t switch to a common definition when they’re talking about DNA. So when you talk about the way that ID uses the term, who are you talking about?
Unfortunately, Marks, Meyer and Durston don't post here and seemingly Dr. Dembski doesn't want to discuss Jerry's contributions. I actually get the impression that only those guys who come over from AtBc answer Jerry's comments.osteonectin
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
re Z @ 260 "A lump of radium. An atoms decays. What caused the decay of that atom rather than its neighbor?" You don't know what it is so that means it doesn't exist. Hmmm. Here's a hint, random does not equal uncaused. Not in this universe, anyway. And for Iryna (this is so cute, having to define cause on this forum) here's a definition of cause from M-W online: "something that brings about an effect or a result" There is more, but this pertains to the discussion. Does this help? Here's the link. You can see for yourself. And for other words, like information, you can just type them in the search box and voila!!! An answer. It's amazing, really. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cause p.s. Still waiting on those intellectual commitments. The ones I said eons ago (well it seems like eons) that none of "you" had.tgpeeler
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
"I’m thoroughly confused." That is nothing new. Why don't you try to figure it out.jerry
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
jerry, I'm thoroughly confused. The information-based arguments for ID that I'm familiar with are Dembski's, Marks', Meyer's, and Durston's. These use various definitions of information, and the authors don't switch to a common definition when they're talking about DNA. So when you talk about the way that ID uses the term, who are you talking about?R0b
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
StephenB: I would rather not focus on the point that you have offered yourself up as an example as one who denies this principle.
Indeed, I said when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, classical causation is sufficient.
StephenB: If anything at all could come into existence without a cause, then there could be no science.
A lump of radium. An atoms decays. What caused the decay of that atom rather than its neighbor?Zachriel
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
inunison, I can't speak to the biological realism of ev (can you?), but it certainly achieves the modest goal of showing that evolutionary mechanisms can generate information, as Mustela said. There may be some confusion as to what Schneider and Mustela mean when they say "generate information". You need to read Schneider's paper, and understand it, in order to respond to the claim. If you don't understand it, you're not in a position to judge the accuracy and efficacy of the responses that you cite. Let's look at EV Ware page to which you refer. In the very first sentence we find a quote by Leon Brillouin that is repeated throughout the Evo Info Lab papers. The quote seems relevant to the EIL's conservation of information claims, but if you read the chapter from which it's taken, you'll see that it's talking about something completely different. The EV Ware page says that Schneider's claims are contrary to Brillouin's insight, but in fact, the two are not related. Moving on, we find this claim: "The ability of ev to find its target in much less that twelve and a half quintillion years is not due the evolutionary program." And this: "We will show that the ability of ev to find its target is not due to the evolutionary algorithm used, but is rather due to the active information residing in the digital organism." These statements are not true, and Marks and Dembski have been informed for over two years that they're not true. No matter how you apply the EIL model to ev, the problem is intractable if you take away the evolutionary algorithm. There are other problems, but I'll cut to the main one, namely that the critique never counters Schneider's claims. ev generates a sequence that results in the specified binding sites, just as a GA can generate an antenna shape that results in a specified SNR. When the EIL says that ev contains active info, that simply means that it performs better than random sampling, and that is exactly Schneider's point. I'll pause here and wait for you to respond to the above points.R0b
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
"just confirm that you mean information in the sense defined in Godfrey-Smith (2000a) and Griffiths (2001)." I'm shocked, shocked to find that information is going on in here. ID will have to close down. "But don’t pretend it is obvious or universally accepted within biology." Of all the bioinformatic departments in all the planets in all the universe Shannon information walked into some. Well, we will always have Paris. PS - I forgot to check for some bioinformatics departments in the Andromeda Galaxy to see which ones are not talking about DNA and the transcription/translation process for gene creation. The intergalactic hypernet connection has been down the last few days.jerry
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
StephenB:
Without the right conditions, quantum events do not occur. The conditions are the causes. If anything at all could come into existence without a cause, then there could be no science.
That's an interesting assertion, but you offer no proof. How would science change if particle X could come into existence without a cause? How do you define cause anyway?
If you find numerous scientists that disagree with that principle, and they are easy to find, it simply means that they labor under the burden of a one-sided education and have been insulated from the metaphysica principles that underlie all science. These people are dangerous and destructive because they don’t know what they don’t know.
Again no actual arguments. Just assertions and insults.IrynaB
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
---Zackriel: "You are assuming here that rationality requires the acceptance of cause-and-effect, but that depend on your definition of rationality. If by rationality you mean deductive reasoning from stated premises, then that would not encompass cause-and-effect, which is an experiential finding." Experience can only be rationally interpreted in light of the principle of non contradiction and the law of causality. I would rather not focus on the point that you have offered yourself up as an example as one who denies this principle. ---"If your use of terminology is unclear or simply different from how others use the term (or worse, if you slide between meanings unconsciously), then the argument will be frustrated." Not many misunderstand me when I state categorically that anyone who thinks that something can come into existence without a cause is not a rational person. Even fewer would claim not to know what rationality means. With respect to most Darwinists and their compromised mental state, it is less about their intellectual capacity and more about their built in bias against reason, its demands, and the destination at which they will arrive if they conform to its principles. Since they prefer not to arrive at the destination, they abandon the vehicle which would take them there, namely reason. ---"As for quantum phenomena, there is no particular reason that a particular lepton spontaneously pops into existence. If we have a lump of radium, there is no particular reason why this atom rather than that atom should decay at a particular time. In this sense, quantum events are contrary to naïve notions of cause-and-effect." Quantum events are not uncaused. ---"Apparently material objects do just pop into existence, just like they appear to tunnel across impenetrable barriers. That doesn’t make quantum mechanics irrational. It just follows different rules than common sense would dictate." Without the right conditions, quantum events do not occur. The conditions are the causes. If anything at all could come into existence without a cause, then there could be no science. The study of quantum mechanics depends on and was established as a result of the law of causality. If you find numerous scientists that disagree with that principle, and they are easy to find, it simply means that they labor under the burden of a one-sided education and have been insulated from the metaphysica principles that underlie all science. These people are dangerous and destructive because they don't know what they don't know.StephenB
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
I see my links are not working @ 253 I was referring to two articles: 1. William A. Dembski & Robert J. Marks II, "EV Ware: Dissection of a Digital Organism" and 2. Royal Truman, "The Problem Of Information For The Theory Of Evolution"inunison
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Jerry You wrote: We mean the same thing that all the biology departments in the universe mean Your quote is writing about: Both Godfrey-Smith (2000a) and Griffiths (2001) have argued that there is one highly restricted use of a fairly rich semantic language within genetics that is justified. This is clearly not something that is accepted by all the biology departments in the Universe. It is a contentious definition which they are arguing for. If this is the sense of information that you mean - then fine - just confirm that you mean information in the sense defined in Godfrey-Smith (2000a) and Griffiths (2001). But don't pretend it is obvious or universally accepted within biology.Mark Frank
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Mustela Novalis @ 247 So whoever does not agree with your own conclusions gets a sticker "One should read the material before making claims about it." It should be obvious to anyone with rudimentary knowledge of computer programing that Dr. Schneider's simulator is bogus, in a sense that it does not relate to any realistic biological scenario. Therefore it validates nothing found in his own thesis. Dissection and deconstruction of Dr. Schneider simulator can be found here and here. Fact that you take this bogus simulator as evidence is telling.inunison
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
I do not believe what I just read. I suggest all interested go to the Stanford article and go to the section on the genetic code. It says "Both Godfrey-Smith (2000a) and Griffiths (2001) have argued that there is one highly restricted use of a fairly rich semantic language within genetics that is justified. This is the idea that genes “code for” the amino acid sequence of protein molecules, in virtue of the peculiar features of the “transcription and translation” mechanisms found within cells. Genes specify amino acid sequence via a templating process that involves a regular mapping rule between two quite different kinds of molecules (nucleic acid bases and amino acids). This mapping rule is combinatorial, and apparently arbitrary (in a sense that is hard to make precise. This very narrow understanding of the informational properties of genes is basically in accordance with the influential early proposal of Francis Crick (1958). The argument is that these low-level mechanistic features make gene expression into a causal process that has significant analogies to paradigmatic symbolic phenomena. Some have argued that this analogy becomes questionable once we move from the genetics of simple prokaryotic organisms (bacteria), to those in eukaryotic cells. This has been a theme of Sarkar's work (1996). Mainstream biology tends to regard the complications that arise in the case of eukaryotes as mere details that do not compromise the basic picture we have of how gene expression works. An example is the editing and “splicing” of mRNA transcripts. The initial stage in gene expression is the use of DNA in a template process to construct an intermediate molecule, mRNA or “messenger RNA,” that is then used as a template in the manufacture of a protein. The protein is made by stringing a number of amino acid molecules together. In organisms other than bacteria, the mRNA is often extensively modified (“edited”) prior to its use. This process makes eukaryotic DNA a much less straightforward predictor of the protein's amino acid sequence than it is in bacteria, but it can be argued that this does not much affect the crucial features of gene expression mechanisms that motivate the introduction of a symbolic or semantic mode of description. So the argument in Godfrey-Smith (2000a) and Griffiths (2001) is that there is one kind of informational or semantic property that genes and only genes have: coding for the amino acid sequences of protein molecules. But this relation “reaches” only as far as the amino acid sequence. It does not vindicate the idea that genes code for whole-organism phenotypes, let alone provide a basis for the wholesale use of informational or semantic language in biology. Genes can have a reliable causal role in the production of a whole-organism phenotype, of course. But if this causal relation is to be described in informational terms, then it is a matter of ordinary Shannon information, which applies to environmental factors as well." Then ask yourself how Mark Frank could write his comment with a straight face. But it is what we expect around here from anti ID people. Did he really think we would not read on?jerry
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Jerry #249 Shannon information can have some applicability but what I mean and ID means is something else. We mean the same thing that all the biology departments in the universe mean and they do not mean it in the same sense as Shannon information. The Stanford article indicates how the biological community uses the term and that is how ID uses it when it refers to DNA From the Stanford article: Current applications of informational concepts in biology include: There is no consensus about the status of these ideas, and the result has been a growing foundational discussion within biology and the philosophy of biology. Some have hailed the employment of informational concepts as a crucial advance (Williams 1992). Others have seen almost every biological application of informational concepts as a serious error, one that distorts our understanding and contributes to lingering genetic determinism (Francis 2003). Most of the possible options between these extreme views have also been defended. Perhaps most commentators within philosophy have seen the project of sorting through the various kinds of informational description that have become current as valuable, distinguishing legitimate ones from illegitimate ones (Sterelny, Smith, and Dickison 1996, Godfrey-Smith 2000, Griffiths 2001). Philosophers have also tried to give a reductive or naturalistic explanation for the legitimate ones. A smaller (and perhaps shrinking) group of commentators have claimed that the whole issue is a storm in a teacup; they do not think that the development of an informational language for describing genes makes much of a difference to anything, as it is loose metaphorical talk that carries no theoretical weight (Kitcher 2001). This entry proceeds as follows. In the next section we discuss the most unproblematic technical use of information in biology, which draws on Shannon and the mathematical theory of information. Against that background, some of the more contentious uses are both motivated and introduced. The article could hardly be clearer. The only use of "information" that all the biology departments in the universe mean is Shannon information. All the many other uses are contentious. Given this, is it unreasonable to push for a precise definition?Mark Frank
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 14

Leave a Reply