Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig Falsifies Darwinism

_{Granville Sewell

September 12, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, who studied mutations for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Koln, Germany, is now retired but still writes often on the topic of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. He is one of those old-school scientists who believes evidence matters even when it comes to questions of biological origins.

Charles Darwin famously offered the following suggestion as to how his theory could be falsified:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Dr. Loennig has repeatedly offered examples which defy a gradualist explanation, for example, listen to this
interview where he discusses carnivorous plants, whose complicated traps were clearly useless until almost perfect. (I have written on this topic myself, here. )

But Darwin offered other suggestions as to how his theory could be falsified, one of which was as follows: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Loennig has recently written an article which falsifies Darwinism on this criterion also, Plant Galls and Evolution.

The new paper is typical of Loennig’s writings, with abundance of details and references. As you listen to his Podcast on carnivorous plants, or read his new article on Plant Galls, I suggest the following exercise: try to imagine hypothetical species which would falsify Darwin, using his own criteria, in a more spectacular way.

If you want to see more of Loennig’s works, including his writings on the long-neck giraffe, go here .

Comments

Allan Keith: Without having a reasonable idea of the mechanisms available to the designer, his capabilities and limitations, inferring design in biology is a weak inference at best.
Allan offers a very weak criticism of ID, since it is based on an erroneous understanding of what ID is. ID is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Contrary to what Allan believes ID is not about the identity of the designer.
The evidence of intelligent design in biology does not prove that God exists (or that a being with all of the attributes of a transcendent God exists), since it is at least logically possible that an immanent (within the universe) intelligence rather than a transcendent intelligence might have designed life. [Stephen Meyer]
Eric Anderson puts it like this:
ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself.
Origenes_{May 2, 2018
May
05
May
2
02
2018
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

@UB Are claiming those three things cannot be expressed in a more fundamental way as part of a network of possible tasks with subtasks, etc. as described in section 3.1 in this paper?critical rationalist_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

To use an analogy, it's like you're arguing for Newton's laws of motion.... UB: What does it take to launch rocket (Newton's laws of motion)? You're denying established knowledge! CR: Newton's laws are an approximation that doesn't hold at very high velocities. As such, you can't use it to build, say, a global positioning system. Furthermore, Einstein's explanation, the curvature of space time, is more fundamental. It assumes something completely different is happening, in reality, yet doesn't require rebuilding bridges and buildings. UB: What does it take to launch rocket (Newton's laws of motion)? You're denying established knowledge! [repeat] Even then, Newton's laws unified the motion of the planets and falling apples. That's one of the goals in constructor theory, including and expressing certain apparently anthropocentric attributes such as knowledge in physical terms. From your website....
The Information Tetrahedron is a visual aid for understanding translation. It is a model of the material conditions required to translate any form of recorded information, including the information recorded in DNA. The translation of an informational medium enables the production of effects that are not determined by the material properties of the medium being translated. Instead, those effects are determined elsewhere within the system of translation. This relational architecture – with one arrangement of matter evoking an effect, while another arrangement of matter determines what the effect will be – establishes a physical discontinuity in the system. This discontinuity enables prescriptive control of effects that are not limited by local dynamics. Such effects can only be derived from the contingent organization of the individual systems that translate information.
Except, "any form of recorded information" would include quantum information mediums and this simply doesn't apply. Is this not "accepted knowledge"? How can your argument hold when it only applies to classical information mediums? Or are you claiming it does apply beyond classical mediums to quantum mediums as well? Furthermore, those three things can be expressed as part of a network of tasks and subtasks in constructor theory. They represent knowledge. Apparently, you disagree with this despite having no concrete criticism of it. What gives?critical rationalist_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

How many objects does it take to specify something from a medium of information?Mung_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

In #201 I asked a purposely simple question about established biological knowledge. My purpose was just to see if you had the capacity to acknowledge observed scientific facts:
Just one last question for you, CR, before I deplane. At this point you may consider it a sort of test; a personal curiosity on my part: I’ve already told you the rather obvious premise that in order to organize a heterogeneous living cell, there must first be the capacity to specify an object, and encode that specification in a heritable medium of information. I assume we agree on that premise. Nature is entirely unambiguous about how this is accomplished. For each object to be specified, the system uses one arrangement of matter to serve as a representation within the medium, and a second arrangement of matter as a constraint to establish what is being specified. These two objects are well documented inside the cell; the codon in DNA and the aaRS in the translation machinery. How many objects does it take to specify something from a medium of information? . . .
Your response in #202:
I’m referring to constructor theory, which is a new mode of explanation... (1106 words of avoidance)
My return at #203:
How many?
Your response in #204:
How many of what UB?
My response in #205:
Of course, you know exactly what question I asked in my last post. Pretending otherwise is just more of the same.
Your third try in #206:
I do? You’re pretending there is only one way of looking at it... (1174 more words of tortured obfuscation)
Nice job. I have my answer. No need to ask again.Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

I do? You're pretending there is only one way of looking at it. And one of those ways doesn't handle quantum information. This is a parochial argument, in that is unnecessarily narrow in scope. Again, why should I use the current conception of physics when it fails in this sense? What about copying information? How does your theory explain it? Where is your argument for using it in this case? From this paper...
Constructor theory seeks to express all fundamental scientific theories in terms of a dichotomy between possible and impossible physical transformations–those that can be caused to happen and those that cannot. This is a departure from the prevailing conception of fundamental physics which is to predict what will happen from initial conditions and laws of motion. Several converging motivations for expecting constructor theory to be a fundamental branch of physics are discussed. Some principles of the theory are suggested and its potential for solving various problems and achieving various unifications is explored. These include providing a theory of information underlying classical and quantum information; generalising the theory of computation to include all physical transformations; unifying formal statements of conservation laws with the stronger operational ones (such as the ruling-out of perpetual motion machines); expressing the principles of testability and of the computability of nature (currently deemed methodological and metaphysical respectively) as laws of physics; allowing exact statements of emergent laws (such as the second law of thermodynamics); and expressing certain apparently anthropocentric attributes such as knowledge in physical terms.
I should point out that Deutsch literally founded the field quantum computation, including developing the first quantum algorithm, etc. So, if anyone is avoiding what we know, in that there actually is such a thing as quantum information medium, that cannot rely on spontaneous equilibrium, that seems to be you, not me. Or are you saying there is no such thing as quantum information? IOW, it seems that you need to deny one of these things as they are mutually exclusive to your "theory".
2. Motivations 2.1 Catalysis A catalyst is a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without undergoing any net chemical change itself. Chemical equations describing catalysis are written like this: (1) (2) C (1) (2) n1R +n2R +...???m1P +m2P +..., (3) which conforms to the pattern (1) with the catalyst C as the constructor. Since a catalyst changes only the rate of a reaction, not the position of equilibrium, it is sometimes deemed a mistake to regard catalysts as causing reactions. However, that argument would deny that anything causes anything. Even without a factory, the components of a car do spontaneously assemble themselves at a very low rate, due to Brownian motion, but this happens along with countless other competing processes, some of them (such as rusting away) much faster than that self-assembly, and all of them much slower than the assembly effected by the factory. Hence a car is overwhelmingly unlikely to appear unless a suitable constructor is present. So if causation is meaningful at all, catalysts and other constructors do indeed cause their characteristic constructions. When one is not specifically discussing the catalyst, one usually omits it, describing the reaction as a construction task instead: n1 R(1)+n2 R(2)+... ? m1 P(1)+m2 P(2)+.... (4) This is convenient because most laws of chemistry are only about the reagents; that is to say, they hold regardless of what the catalyst may be, and hence assert nothing about the catalyst. For example, the law of definite proportions requires the coefficients n1,n2... and m1,m2... in (3) or (4) to be integers, depending only on the chemical identities of the reagents and products. It says that any catalyst capable of catalysing (4) can do so only for integer values of the coefficients. Similarly, (4) has to balance (expressing the fact that chemical processes cannot create or destroy atoms); it has to scale (be the same whether the terms refer to molecules, moles or any other measure proportional to those); the free energy of the products must not exceed that of the reagents; and so on. All these laws hold whatever causes the reaction while remaining unchanged in its ability to do so. Imposing the prevailing conception of fundamental physics on chemistry would entail treating the catalyst as another reagent. One would rewrite (3) as kC+n1 R(1)+n2 R(2)+... ? kC+m1 P(1)+m2 P(2)+... (5) for some k. But then the catalyst violates the law of definite proportions: since each catalyst molecule may be re-used, (5) can proceed for a huge range of values of k. Nor does (5) scale: the minimum number of catalyst molecules for which it outpaces competing reactions is some k0 , but for x times the number of reagent molecules, the minimum number may be much lower than xk0 , and will depend on non-chemical factors such as the size of the container, again contrary to the law of definite proportions. The customary distinction between catalysts and other reagents therefore correctly reflects the fact that they are treated differently by laws of nature – in this case, laws of chemistry. But there is no significant distinction between catalysts and other constructors. For example, the synthesis of ammonia, 3 H + 2 N ??? 2 NH , will not 223 happen in empty space, because at near-zero pressure the process of diffusing away is much faster than the chemical reaction. Hence a container or equivalent constructor is among the conditions required in addition to the catalyst. Indeed, some catalysts work by being microscopic containers for the reagents. Chemical catalysis has natural generalisations. Carbon nuclei are catalysts for nuclear reactions in stars. A living organism is both a constructor and a product of the construction that is its life-cycle which, for single-celled photosynthesising organisms, is simply: cell small molecules+light _____ cell+waste products . (6) Inside cells, proteins are manufactured by ribosomes, which are constructors consisting of several large molecules. They function with the help of smaller catalysts (enzymes) and water, using ATP as fuel: RNA+ribosome+enzymes+H O 2 aminoacids+ATP ________________protein+AMP+wasteproducts. (7) I mention this reaction in particular because the RNA plays a different role from the other catalysts. It specifies, in a code, which protein shall be the product on a given occasion. Thus, the catalysts excluding the RNA constitute a programmable constructor. The general pattern is: program programmable constructor input state of substrates ________________ output state of substrates. (8) Constructor theory is the ultimate generalisation of the idea of catalysis.
critical rationalist_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Of course, you know exactly what question I asked in my last post. Pretending otherwise is just more of the same.Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

How many of what, UB?critical rationalist_{October 12, 2017
October
10
Oct
12
12
2017
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

How many?Upright BiPed_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

All I’ve done in this (months-long) conversation is give CR the already-known physical details of the translation apparatus, and I’ve basically asked him to relate these observed physical facts to his theory. Rate-independence is an observed fact of the system.
In the current conception of physics? Yes. I'm referring to constructor theory, which is a new mode of explanation. In this months long conversation, have you made an argument for sticking with the current conception of physics? Why should I? On the other hand, I've made at least three arguments based on several motivations. One of which includes quantum information, which you continue to ignore. How does your "theory of information" take quantum information into account? (it doesn't) How is thermodynamics scale independent in the current conception of physics? (it's not) I would again point out tasks with subtasks, etc. that end up with elementary tasks that are not design specific is how what you're describing is reformulated in constructor theory. Specifically..
3.1 An accurate constructor must contain a replicator A task T being possible means that for any given accuracy (short of per- fection) the laws of physics permit an approximate constructor capable of performing the task to that accuracy. Consider a possible, non elementary task T and an object F that can perform T to a high accuracy (8) ?. For instance, T could be the task of constructing a car from generic substrates and F a generalised car factory, including all the processes converting raw materials such as iron, etc., into a car. The approximate constructor F executes a procedure - a recipe - to perform the task T to accuracy ?. I will show that F must include a replicator and a programmable constructor; and that the recipe must have a hierarchical structure and be instantiated in the replicator. No-design laws contain no good constructor for T, such as F - neither in the elementary interactions, nor in the generic resources. Hence the recipe used by F to perform T must be decomposable into steps (not necessarily sequential) that are allowed by no-design laws. That is to say, sub-recipes - procedures to perform sub-tasks that are executed by sub-constructors con- tained in F. To avoid infinite regress, two conditions must be fulfilled. (8)It is the subsidiary theory that provides specific measures of accuracy. 12 One is that the subtasks be non-specific to T. For instance, when T is the task of constructing a car, the subtasks are those of constructing sub-parts of the car - e.g., door handles, windows, etc. Hence, the constructor F must include two parts: One – which I call V – performs T blindly, i.e., subtask by subtask, and it is non-specific to T, because so are the subtasks. The rest of F – which I call P – is specific to T and instantiates the recipe for T: it specifies the sequence of the subtasks, thus controlling V. Hence F can be described as a programmable constructor, V , programmed with a program P having the same logic as the recipe: it has a modular structure P = (p1, p2, · · · , pN ) where each instruction pi takes values in an information variable and tells V which sub-task to perform, when, on the substrates(9). V is non-specific to T because it must also be capable of executing other programs - different combinations of the elementary units pi. For example, a car factory contains robots executing sub-recipes to construct the car’s doors. These robots contain sub-robots to construct handles, windows, etc., which could be used to construct other objects than cars. The other condition is obtained by applying the same reasoning recursively to the subtasks. If they, too, are non-elementary, they require a recipe that is decomposable into non-specific sub-recipes. The base for the recursion - for T to be performable to that particular accuracy - is provided by the elementary sub-recipes of the recipe for T being elementary tasks - which can be performed by (approximations to) constructors that are available in nature, as generic resources. Note that these elementary sub-tasks need not be specified in the recipe: they are implicit in the laws of physics. For instance, the elementary steps in the car recipe are tasks like, say, “oxidise the aluminium coating”, and occur simply by leaving the substrate exposed to air. Under no-design laws, any (approximation to a) constructor wears out after a finite time. Therefore F, to perform the task T to the accuracy ?, must undergo a process of maintenance, defined as one whereby a new instance of F - i.e., of P and V - is brought about, from generic materials, before the former one stops working. In the case of the car factory, this is achieved by replacing old subparts of the robots, assembly lines, etc. and by preserving the programs they run. To avoid an infinite regress, implementing the maintenance must not in turn require the recipe P for T. Also, the design of the recipe P cannot be in the laws of physics. Thus, the only other possibility is that the new instance of P is brought about by blind replication of the recipe P contained in the former instance - i.e., by replicating its subunits pi (that are non-specific to T). We conclude that, under no-design laws, the substrate instantiating the recipe is necessarily a modular replicator: a physical object that can be copied blindly, an elementary subunit at a time. In contrast, V - the non-specific component of F - is constructed anew from generic resources. Moreover, under no-design laws errors can occur: thus, to achieve high and improvable accuracy, the recipe must include error-correction. In the car factory, this includes, say, controlling the functionalities of the subcompo- nents (e.g., fine checks on the position of doors, wheels, etc.). Hence the recipe P must contain information about the task T, informing the criterion for error detection and correction. The information in the recipe is an abstract constructor that I shall call knowledge (without a knowing subject [26]). Knowledge has an exact characterization in constructor theory: it is information that can act as a con- structor and cause itself to remain instantiated in physical substrates. Crucially, error-correcting the replication is necessary. Hence the subunits pi must assume values in a discrete (digital) information variable: one whose attributes are separated by non-allowed attributes. For, if all values in a continuum were allowed, error-correction would be logically impossible.
Note that error correction is part of the subtasks, which contains information about what checks to make. In constructor theory, this is just more knowledge. It seems that the one with prior assumptions is actually you, as you seem stuck in the current conception of physics.critical rationalist_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

In my last comment I posted the old quote, “Who needs facts when you have all the theories” CR came back with his typical tone-deaf response; one that I could not even make up. All I’ve done in this (months-long) conversation is give CR the already-known physical details of the translation apparatus, and I've basically asked him to relate these observed physical facts to his theory. Rate-independence is an observed fact of the system. If it is a fact there is only one moon orbiting the earth, then it is also a fact the sequence of DNA is rate-independent. Discontinuous association within the gene system is also an observed fact. The association of anti-codon-to-amino acid (establishing the genetic code) is temporally and spatially isolated from the codon-to-anticodon association (establishing the form of a protein). If water boils at 100c sea level, then protein synthesis operates by discontinuous association; it’s right there is the very architecture of the apparatus itself. Semantic closure is another observed fact. The sequence of amino acids in the set of aaRS establish how all other DNA sequences will be translated. If that subset was changed to produce a different result, then all the remaining sequences would have to be altered as well. There is a necessary organizational relationship between the two sets. But nothing can get between CR and his prior assumptions. He returns to tell me that we needn’t concern ourselves with how these facts relate to his theory, because his theory has an ace in the hole – it’s “more fundamental” than those details. Moreover, he assures us that by disregarding the details, his theories make it possible to produce “exact statements” about the system in question. Good grief. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Just one last question for you, CR, before I deplane. At this point you may consider it a sort of test; a personal curiosity on my part: I’ve already told you the rather obvious premise that in order to organize a heterogeneous living cell, there must first be the capacity to specify an object, and encode that specification in a heritable medium of information. I assume we agree on that premise. Nature is entirely unambiguous about how this is accomplished. For each object to be specified, the system uses one arrangement of matter to serve as a representation within the medium, and a second arrangement of matter as a constraint to establish what is being specified. These two objects are well documented inside the cell; the codon in DNA and the aaRS in the translation machinery. How many objects does it take to specify something from a medium of information?Upright BiPed_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

@mung Thanks for clarifying that. Or not.critical rationalist_{October 11, 2017
October
10
Oct
11
11
2017
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

...if what you mean by “rate-indpendent”, you mean independent in regards to a spontaneous equilibrium... Given that nothing he wrote even remotely resembles that other than the words "rate-independent," that is probably exactly what he meant. Or not.Mung_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

So, to summarize... if what you mean by "rate-indpendent", you mean independent in regards to a spontaneous equilibrium, the constructor theory of information is always rate-independent because is more fundamental and cannot be rate-dependent because that would prevent it from making exact statements about information. Just as a constructor theoretic thermodynamics cannot be scale dependent because that would prevent it from making exact statements about thermodynamics. The ability to make exact statements is yet another motivation for constructor theory, as opposed to your mischaracterization of merely saying something is "possible".critical rationalist_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

@UB
UB: CR doesn’t want to deal with the organizational details that are required to specify objects from a medium of information.
Except I did. The constructor theory of information reformulates information as possible and impossible tasks. The motivation for this is to provide a exact definition of information which is not possible in the current conception of physics. It also solves problems that you have continually brushed off. This is, again, because we still have not settled on a definition of what information is. Constructor theory is a reformulation and generalization of knowledge. And the growth of knowledge is the very issue in question regarding Neo-darwnism and evolution. So it comes as no surprise that we're not in agreement. On the other hand, I suspect that thermodynamics is more concrete in this sense and, due to it’s role in your theory of information, applying constructor theory will help illustrate what it means to reformulate a field in constructor theoretic terms.
UB: There is a fundamental principle within physics sometimes referred to as the minimum total potential energy principle. This principle is related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and simply states that any physical object (regardless of its size or composition, as big as a planet or as small as a molecule) will distort and twist, and naturally orient itself to seek its lowest potential energy state.
Actually, the second law is scale-dependent in this respect and this is a problem at the level of information theory with quantum systems. However, reformulation of the Second law in Constructor theoretic terms allows for scale independence. This is yet another example of the motivation for constructor theory. From this paper….
An insidious gulf separates existing formulations of thermodynamics from other fundamental physical theories. They are scale-dependent – i.e., they hold only at a certain ‘scale’, or level of ‘coarse-graining’, none of which are ever exactly specified. So existing thermodynamics provides unambiguous predictions about ‘macroscopic’ systems such as Victorian heat engines, but it is controversial how it applies to ‘microscopic’ ones, such as individual quantum systems. Here I propose a scale-independent formulation of the zeroth, first and second laws of thermodynamics – i.e., one that does not rely on approximations, such as ‘mean values on ensembles’, ‘coarse-graining procedures’, ‘thermodynamic equilibrium’, or ‘temperature’. This new approach uses the principles and tools of the recently proposed constructor theory [1], especially the constructor theory of information [2].

UB: Since all representations are physical objects, they are all subject to this fundamental principle. There are representations that function directly as a result of the medium physically assuming its lowest potential energy state.
Except not all physical systems are classical. So the assumption that ….
An isolated system in an arbitrary initial state within a finite fixed volume will spontaneously attain a unique state of equilibrium.
does not hold in a scale-independent way. Nor does statistical approach solve the problem, either. IOW what is needed is to reformulate thermodynamics as possible and impossible tasks, in constructor theoretic terms.
In other words, any given pheromone is a combination of a certain number of specific atoms that (when bound together as a compound) assumes a certain physical structure according to its nature – and it is that specific three-dimensional structure that the system recognizes and responds to.
Some tasks are impossible in quantum systems. Specifically, regarding which attributes can be read at which times. So, technically, this is false, as qbits doe not have these structures, yet can be an information medium. In the paper, quantum information is an example of superinformation, because some tasks are impossible to perform on that medium. Constructor theory does not describe systems using initial conditions and laws of motion, which is what a potential lowest entry state represents (a tree branch comes to rest from an initial state after being acted on by snow, etc.) This is what allows it to be truly scale independent. So, your distinction between DNA and say, pheromones, hinges on the limitations of thermodynamics in the current conception of physics. Constructor theory has to define information in a way that does not depend on this equilibrium state because it’s not always present in all physical information mediums.critical rationalist_{October 10, 2017
October
10
Oct
10
10
2017
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

CR doesn’t want to deal with the organizational details that are required to specify objects from a medium of information. Those types of details get in the way of him selling his prior assumptions. He certainly doesn’t want to deal with what is required for semantic closure to occur. Clearly, he is disinterested in actual evidence, and apparently couldn’t care less about the knowledge gained from Peirce, Turing, Crick, Von Neumann, Nirenberg, Zamecnik, Hoagland, Pattee, or any of the discoveries that codified the modern model of semiotic systems (like the gene system). Instead, he is more than happy to wave his hand and contradict all of it. And if anyone should attempt to use facts, history, and logic to disagree with him, he quickly ignores those details and proceeds to give them a lesson on how to think. Like Schrodinger (?) once said “Who needs facts when you have all the theories”.Upright BiPed_{October 9, 2017
October
10
Oct
9
09
2017
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

F/N: What does our fear of radiation and cancer tell us about the likely effect of random changes to the genome. Just as a common-sense test on the oh low fidelity replication is good enough to assert with confident manner. KFkairosfocus_{October 9, 2017
October
10
Oct
9
09
2017
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

I’ve only said this a dozen times, but apparently, it’s not sinking in… A designer that “just was”, complete with the knowledge of which genes result in just the right proteins that result in just the right features, already present, doesn’t serve an explanatory purpose.
It is you who is not getting it. I told you months ago that life on earth is the only instance of life that anyone could hope to empirically analyze. Your subsequent claim that your theory explains the appearance of life anywhere is just more of the same pretentious claptrap. If you practice these little zingers in the mirror, I suggest you stop. You are far too undisciplined and gullible for the job of referee.Upright BiPed_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

First, so I can expect that ID will be updated so the designer isn’t abstract, but has a material system for storing information? I won’t be holding my breath.
Really CR, do you think that you are the first person to be reduced to this crap? You don't want to deal with discontinuous association, rate-independence, or semantic closure, so you'll ask about the designer's hair color and hat size. Suddenly, all that tedious physical evidence stuff just floats away.Upright BiPed_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

For the umpteenth time, are you suggesting there are no gradients in replication?
No, in fact I say nothing about fidelity at all. There is a reason why -- it is not the core issue. Semantic closure is the issue. Without it, you have nothing. Get that through your head and stop ignoring it.Upright BiPed_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

CR: Neo-Darwnism doesn’t need accurate replication to get started. UB: As I have already told you, this is merely an assumption on your part, not evidence. Do you not understand the difference?
Your response:
I’m merely assuming the theory does not appeal to accurate replication as an explanation for accurate replication?
Your response is more bovine poo. You are claiming that Darwinian evolution doesn't need accurate replication, and you a presenting your claim as evidence. Hello? You do this because you want to step over and avoid what is actually known to be required for Darwinian evolution to come into being. No one would be fooled by that tactic.Upright BiPed_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

CR, you cannot hide your avoidance of physical evidence. It is recorded here for everyone to see. You asked for a clarification, and one was given. You completely ignored it:
UB: you posted a clip from your theory. The first two sentences are:
In short, for a physical system to be an information medium two tasks must be possible. It must be capable of being set to a number of distinct attributes (at least two).
UB: …which is false. CR: Is there something about the phrase in what way is it false? UB: There is a fundamental principle within physics sometimes referred to as the minimum total potential energy principle. This principle is related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and simply states that any physical object (regardless of its size or composition, as big as a planet or as small as a molecule) will distort and twist, and naturally orient itself to seek its lowest potential energy state. To the average reader, this principle might seem difficult to understand, but it’s a principle we each see in effect around us all the time. For instance, we see it in the way a tree branch covered in snow will hang down low as it counteracts the additional weight of the snow, or the way that the propeller on a toy plane is spun by a tightly wound rubber band until the rubber band becomes loose again. In short, this principle can be thought of in general terms as the natural tendency of any object to seek a balance of all the various forces acting upon it at any given time. Since all representations are physical objects, they are all subject to this fundamental principle. There are representations that function directly as a result of the medium physically assuming its lowest potential energy state. This includes the vast majority of all informational mediums. A pheromone, for instance, is a perfect example. A pheromone is a chemical compound that serves as a representation by assuming its lowest potential energy state. In other words, any given pheromone is a combination of a certain number of specific atoms that (when bound together as a compound) assumes a certain physical structure according to its nature – and it is that specific three-dimensional structure that the system recognizes and responds to. However, there is another class of representation whose individuating characteristics (i.e. the properties that make a representation individually recognizable within its system) are not established by the medium assuming its lowest potential energy state. This is a very unique class of representation, and is considerably rarer among all forms of information-bearing mediums. As a simple example, the word “apple” written in ink on a piece of paper is a material structure not unlike the pheromone. In general terms, the atoms that make up the ink will interact with the atoms that make up the paper, and together they will assume their combined lowest potential energy state (i.e. a piece of paper stained with ink markings). However, what is actually recognized within the system is solely the arrangement of the ink markings (the shape and sequence of the letters) and that arrangement has nothing whatsoever to do with the lowest potential energy state of ink and paper. This is to say that the arrangement of the letters could be changed to any number of other arrangements, signifying any number of other messages, with every variation being completely undetermined by the lowest potential energy state of ink and paper. Unlike the pheromone, the sequence pattern of a spatially-oriented representation literally does not have a “physical nature” to assume. Instead, the pattern is imposed on the medium and is therefore independent of the minimum total potential energy state of the medium.
Your response is to say nothing whatsoever about the very concise clarification you asked for. Clearly, to do so would be yet another dead end for your theory. A pheromone is a rate-dependent medium of information, CR. The word "apple" written on a piece of paper is not a rate-dependent medium, it is a rate-independent medium -- and so is a codon in DNA. Your theories are completely incoherent with the core observations of the phenomenon you are attempting to explain. Hello? Allow me to say that again, your theories are incoherent with existing knowledge and you refuse to engage that knowledge. No amount of stiff-lipped avoidance or epistemological bafflegab is going to close the gap between what you say and what has already been known and recorded in the scientific and academic literature for decades on end. If you want to overturn that knowledge you have to first address it. Good grief, CR, you cannot EVEN SPEAK of the evidence. How the hell did you think you were ever going to defend this nonsense? By telling us that "explanations have reach"? Truly, that is a pitiable way to use your intelligence.Upright BiPed_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

@UB
It’s no problem at all, and never has been. As you have already been told, inferring that the designer would have a material body/brain (in which to contain the information necessary at the origin of life) is a perfectly acceptable position in biological ID.
First, so I can expect that ID will be updated so the designer isn't abstract, but has a material system for storing information? I won't be holding my breath. Second, copying requires the same information in material form, just as you can represent a story as waves of air, letters on a page, HTML markup, etc. Is this somehow not the same knowledge in your "theory" of information? So, that designer would posses the very same knowledge in material form. And It too would exhibit the appearance of design, which is the very thing that ID claims must be explained by a designer, etc. I've only said this a dozen times, but apparently, it's not sinking in...
A designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of which genes result in just the right proteins that result in just the right features, already present, doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of which genes result in just the right proteins that result in just the right features, already present.
IOW, you've only pushed the problem up a level without improving it. It's like pushing your food around on your plate and claiming you've ate it. Yet, it's still right there staring you in the face.critical rationalist_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

@ Granville, your #2 '... he means only that, for most modern day evolutionists, there is no conceivable evidence that would cause them to doubt.' Yes, I think Cornelius Hunter wryly comments that evolution cannot be disproved. Its apologists inform us that it's settled science ; everyone knows that its true, etc, etc.Axel_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

As I have already told you, this is merely an assumption on your part, not evidence. Do you not understand the difference?
I'm merely assuming the theory does not appeal to accurate replication as an explanation for accurate replication? Have I not said that evidence cannot possibility support theories? Theories explain evidence, not vice versa. Do you ever take anything you don't agree with seriously, for the purpose of criticism?
Not only is this merely an assumption, it is an assumption made contrary to establish physical evidence.
For the umpteenth time, are you suggesting there are no gradients in replication? Do we not have concrete examples of various levels of replication, including viruses, short RNA strands, simple catalysts, crystals, etc? We don't even know what the exact conditions were, so it's unclear how our inability to recreate it today is "proof" of what happened in the past. Furthermore, you're conflating a universal theory of the origin of life and the theory of the history of the origin of life on earth, which would be a specific case of the theory of the growth of knowledge. Specially, the growth of knowledge in organisms. And regarding evidence, you do realize that there is no evidence of any designers other than human beings, and we couldn't have designed ourselves, right? So, if your criteria for what we can include in the contents of a theory is limited to what we have empirically experienced, then your fresh out of designers. Make sure you turn out the lights on your way out?critical rationalist_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

you have a problem in that the very argument you’ve made about information coming externally, by means of a designer, requires them to actually contain that information or possess it
It's no problem at all, and never has been. As you have already been told, inferring that the designer would have a material body/brain (in which to contain the information necessary at the origin of life) is a perfectly acceptable position in biological ID. The physical evidence of biological ID does not require the supernatural. Why do you keep repeating this objection?Upright BiPed_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Is there something about...
"Is it possible to document the particular aspect of rate independence in a paper? If so, that means those two tasks must be possible.
or
It’s unclear how knowing where to start, end, etc. isn’t simply more knowledge. For example, while DNA is universal in sense that all organisms use the same four molecules, they are not interpreted exactly the same. The fact that the translation system can have at least two different interpretations means that some aspect of the system must have at least two attributes that represents the knowledge of where to start / end / etc. in those cases, right?
....that you do not understand? Did I misunderstand what you mean by rate independence, which I've already asked for clarification on? Can you not respond? Despite the name, constructor theory isn't really about specific constructors. It's about tasks on input substrates and output substrates. Everything is expressed what tasks are possible, which tasks are impossible and why. It's a theory because the algebra to describe tasks and networks of tasks, etc. is still being developed. And it's a theory that all scientific theories can be expressed in this form. Are you suggesting that this is not possible in the case of DNA? Then, by all means, make an argument as to how the translation system and information cannot be expressed in constructor theoretic terms (possible and impossible tasks). Please be specific. Oh wait, that would require you to actually have a theory that brings information into fundamental physics. And that has only recently been possible via constructor theory.critical rationalist_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Neo-Darwnism doesn’t need accurate replication to get started.
As I have already told you, this is merely an assumption on your part, not evidence. Do you not understand the difference? Not only is this merely an assumption, it is an assumption made contrary to establish physical evidence. Regardless of your assumptions and claims about fidelity, the fact of the matter is that you still must establish semantic closure for Darwinian evolution to come into being. Would you like to change your claim to "some unknown form of chemical evolution established semantic closure?"Upright BiPed_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Each part of the organization plays a role.
Your claim is: "a physical medium is well adapted to serve the causal role that results in it being retained." Would you like to change your claim to say that rate-independence in DNA plays a role in genetic information, but does not play "the causal role" in genetic information being retained?Upright BiPed_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Is there something about the phase in what way is it false?
In #175 I told you exactly why the statement is false. Are you unable to respond?Upright BiPed_{October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply