Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig Falsifies Darwinism

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
CR: 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.
Is there something about the phase in what way is it false? that you do not understand? Are you saying those two statements are mutually exclusive? Repeating the same claim doesn't indicate how it's false. This is yet another vague criticism. And, I'll again point out that constructor theory is a new mode of explanation that is more fundamental than the existing conception of physics. Saying "it's false" doesn't even remotely address this. Is it possible to document the particular aspect of rate independence in a paper? If so, that means those two tasks must be possible.
And so is your claim about rate-independence in DNA playing “the causal role” in genetic information in being retained. It is the organization of semantic closure that plays that role.
Each part of the organization plays a role. The details of which are embedded in a material substrate. It's right there on your site. It is set when a copy is made of the cell. That is information. It plays a causal role in being retained. That's knowledge. Nor have you addressed the network of tasks and subtasks, etc. that represents. That it's not expressed in a particular mode of explanation doesn't mean It doesn't represent a more fundamental physical theory of information. While the current conception is successful, you haven't argued it's the only one or that it fails to reflect biological life. Again, "It's false" is simply vague criticism.
Will you ever directly address the criticisms of your claims? If A requires B for A to exist, can A be the source of B?
Neo-Darwnism doesn't need accurate replication to get started. I've addressed this above. On the other hand, you completely ignore entire lines of argument, refusing to acknowledge them at all. Again, one such response is pointing out how you inconstantly appeal to experience, by means of pointing out that a consistent appeal isn't possible because inductivism is itself is impossible. And I've given concrete examples, regarding designers we've experienced, etc. The only designers we've experienced are human beings, and we couldn't have designed out selves. So, apparently, induction works, except when it doesn't? Furthermore, 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, as material information. So, they would exhibit the appearance of design, which is exactly specified in the paper. Copying information require that specific physical tasks are possible, which includes tasks on the designer itself or the knowledge is possesses. So, it's unclear how being well adapted to serve a purpose (design organisms) can be an explanation for being well adaptedness of organisms. And by well adapted, I'm literally mean an arrangement of matter that is well adapted to serve a purpose, in a physical sense. Again, when looking through the reference papers on your site, none of them concluded anything you've described reflects intelligent design. In fact, the opposite was indicated in at least one of them. So, apparently, there must be something beyond just this that supposedly leads to the conclusion of intelligent design. When will you get around to making that argument?critical rationalist
October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
CR, This is the claim you made:
a physical medium is well adapted to serve the causal role that results in it being retained.
I then asked you two questions:
What is physically required of DNA in order to be well adapted? How does that cause it to be retained?
In response, 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).
…which is false. And so is your claim about rate-independence in DNA playing “the causal role” in genetic information in being retained. It is the organization of semantic closure that plays that role. Have you abandoned your claim that Darwinian evolution is the source of the translation apparatus? Will you ever directly address the criticisms of your claims? If A requires B for A to exist, can A be the source of B?Upright BiPed
October 8, 2017
October
10
Oct
8
08
2017
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Critical Rationalist- We understand the propaganda behind the alleged theory of evolution. We know that was Darwin's intent with natural selection, ie design without a designer. What is missing, glaringly so, is supporting evidence for the claim. Spiegelman's Monster, look it up. It is quite a long way, with an observed barrier, from molecular replicators to a self-reproducing cell.ET
October 7, 2017
October
10
Oct
7
07
2017
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
I keep asking you the same question, how did the first instruction come about?
This is addressed in the reference paper. the first replicators did not exhibit highly accurate replication, so they did not exhibit the appearance of design, which is defined exactly in constructor theoretic terms.
In the biosphere self-reproduction is approximated to various accuracies. There are many poor approximations to self-reproducers - e.g., crude replicators such as crystals, short RNA strands and autocatalytic cycles involved in the origin of life [11]. Being so inaccurate, they do not require any further explanation under no-design laws: they do not have appearance of design, any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(4)
3.1.1 Appearance of design Something with the appearance of design is often described as “improbable” [27, 28]. This is misleading because probability measures are multiplicative; so that would mean that two independent objects with the appearance of design would have much more of that appearance than they do separately. But that is not the case when the two objects have unrelated functionalities (such as, say, internal organs of different organisms). In contrast, two organs in the context of the same organism, coordinating to the effect of gene prop- agation, do have a greater appearance of design than either separately. This can be expressed naturally in constructor-theoretic terms for programmable constructors. Consider a recipe R for a possible task T. A sub-recipe R? for the task T? is fine-tuned to perform T if almost any slight change in T? would cause T to be performed to a much lower accuracy. (For instance, changing the mechanism of insulin production in the pancreas even slightly, would impair 14 the overall task the organism performs.) A programmable constructor V whose repertoire includes T has the appearance of design if it can execute a recipe for T with a hierarchical structure including several, different sub- recipes, fine-tuned to perform T. Each fine-tuned sub-recipe is performed by a sub-constructor contained in V : the number of fine-tuned sub-recipes performable by V is a measure of V ’s appearance of design. This constructor- theoretic definition is non-multiplicative, as desired.
Selection emerges from the interaction between the replicators and the en- vironment with finite resources. It may lead to equilibrium, given enough time and energy. If so, the surviving replicators are near a local maximum of effectiveness at being replicated in that environment. Thus, the environment is passive and blind in this selection process. Since it retains its ability to cause non-specific variation and passive selection again, it qualifies as a naturally-occuring approximation to a constructor. Crucially, 19 it is a crude approximation to a constructor: crude enough that it could have arisen by chance and requires no explanation. Its actions - variations and selection - require no design in laws of physics, as they proceed by non- specific, elementary steps. So the logic of evolution by natural selection is compatible with no-design laws of physics. The second point is that natural selection, to get started, does not require accurate self-reproducers with high-fidelity replicators. Indeed, the minimal requirement for natural selection is that each kind of replicator produce at least one viable offspring, on average, per lifetime - so that the different kinds of replicators last long enough to be “selected” by the environment. In challenging environments, a vehicle with many functionalities is needed to meet this requirement. But in unchallenging ones (i.e. sufficiently unchang- ing and resource-rich), the requirement is easily met by highly inaccurate self-reproducers that not only have no appearance of design, but are so inac- curate that they can have arisen spontaneously from generic resources under no-design laws - as proposed, for instance, by the current theories of the origin of life [11, 31]. For example, template replicators, such as short RNA strands [32], or similar “naked” replicators (replicating with poor copying fi- delity without a vehicle) would suffice to get natural selection started. Since they bear no design, they require no further explanation - any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(11) I conclude that the theory of evolution is compatible with no-design laws of physics, that allow, in addition to enough time and energy, information me- dia. These requirements do not contain the design of biological adaptations. Hence, under such laws, the theory of evolution fully explains the appearance of design in living organisms, without their being intentionally designed.
What I find particularly odd is how commenters here seem to object to it despite having no coherent criticism of it. At best, objections are raised in that we haven't experienced primitive replicators, despite the concrete examples above. "We can only work with life we know", etc. Yet, these same objectors appeal to dseigners we've never experienced, as we couldn't have designed ourselves, etc.critical rationalist
October 7, 2017
October
10
Oct
7
07
2017
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
So, let me see if I understand you correctly.... This is correct...
To be physically well adapted DNA must be rate independent
... while this is not?
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). And for those distinct attributes to be distinguishable too, it must be possible to set up a mechanism that would copy any of them (without knowing in advance which one) from that system to another system, and vice-versa. The copy must go both ways, so as to allow both storing of information and its retrieval.
So, DNA doesn't need to be capable of being physically set to at least two distinct attributes? And those attributes do not need to be copyable via some possible mechanism? Are these somehow mutually exclusive? Nor is it clear what "rate independent" means in the context of your theory of information and how it's relevant. Care to clarify? I would again point out that I've referenced a physical theory of information, which hasn't been possible until constructor theory. Information is defined by possible tasks, rather than, say, initial conditions and laws of motion. For example, when you write...
The rate-independent sequence in DNA is a necessary condition of the system, and can be exploited to establish a reading-frame code – giving the system the informational capacity it needs to describe the set of interpretive constraints required for semantic closure to occur.
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? It's unclear how this isn't represented in a fundamental way as being well adapted to serve that purpose and playing a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium. This was already outlined in the referenced paper.
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 contained in F. To avoid infinite regress, two conditions must be fulfilled. It is the subsidiary theory that provides specific measures of accuracy. 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 (9)This is a schematic representation: P need not have a linear structure. 13 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 constructor 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.
IOW, It's unclear how this network of possible tasks does not reflect the aspect you are referring to in a more fundamental and exact way.critical rationalist
October 7, 2017
October
10
Oct
7
07
2017
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
CR "If I follow the instructions to build a boat from raw materials..." I keep asking you the same question, how did the first instruction come about?EugeneS
October 3, 2017
October
10
Oct
3
03
2017
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
CR, The two-word answer to the first question is “rate independence”. That’s the primary physical property of DNA that makes it suitable as a very particular type of medium. The rate-independent sequence in DNA is a necessary condition of the system, and can be exploited to establish a reading-frame code – giving the system the informational capacity it needs to describe the set of interpretive constraints required for semantic closure to occur. Rate-independence is also the property that enables transcribability of its high content, another requirement of semantic closure. The two-word answer to the second question is “It doesn’t”. The rate independent properties of DNA neither determines the sequence of nucleotides that describe the constraints (obviously), nor does it determine which amino acids will appear in those constraints. Thus, rate-independence does not "serve the causal role" in retaining the information in DNA. That role is played by organization, not by the physical properties the the medium. Here is what you posted:
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).
This is incorrect. In fact, the vast majority of media in nature are not rate-independent. The author clearly does not understand the material, and fails to grasp the important physical distinctions. From previous writing:
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.
These are (among the many) critical details of the system that have already been described by physics. The conceptions you’re promoting are at odds with these details. Have you abandoned your claim that Darwinian evolution is the source of the translation apparatus?Upright BiPed
October 2, 2017
October
10
Oct
2
02
2017
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
RodW @37 "Trying to insert an intelligence in there just doesn’t work." Well, it depends. If intelligence is needed for evolution to even start, it will certainly not be the case. Upon analysis, intelligence is indeed needed for information translation to take effect (at least, it is the best possible explanation of the semiotic core of an information translation system). I think that guided evolution is a misnomer. However, logically, design of open-ended evolvable systems is still design. It is quite another matter what the degree of evolvability in practice really is.EugeneS
October 2, 2017
October
10
Oct
2
02
2017
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
CR #172 I do not understand it. "...when they follow the list of instructions in their genomes." How did the first instruction come about?EugeneS
October 1, 2017
October
10
Oct
1
01
2017
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
@EugeneS See #147
...per my comment above, “specifying objects among alternatives” isn’t sufficient to have a working specification. Does the entire medical community not consist of intelligent agents? If so, then they could just “specify objects among alternatives and record that specification” on a flash drive and have a cure for cancer. So, why don’t we have a cure for cancer, or other diseases? Because cancer will only be cured when the requisite knowledge of what transformations of matter will kill cancer cells, without killing the patient, is actually present, independent of anyone’s belief, intent or “choice”. I cannot “choose” for the bits on some flash drive to play a causal role in killing cancer cells. That’s simply magical, irrational, uncritical thinking. I don’t see why this is so difficult to comprehend. Does ID’s designer’s will magically has this result? [If so,] This assumption is notably absent in the supposedly scientific theory of ID, so what gives?
I can “specify” and “arrange” things all day long and still not create knowledge by virtual of mere specification, with the exception of the knowledge of which specifications do or do not not solve the problem at hand. For example, if you only possess the plans for a car and boat, you cannot somehow choose a third option, such as building a helicopter. You can choose, intend and specify things all day long, but that in and of itself won’t cause the result of flight. It’s only when the requisite knowledge of what transformations of matter are present that you’ll end up with a helicopter. At best, you can choose to build a car or a boat. And that would be based on your preferences and your limitations. You might need to travel somewhere, but you cannot get there on foot because you have to cross a body of water and cannot swim far or fast enough. Or you might enjoy being on the water, but cannot say above water for long periods of time due to fatigue and the fact that you would turn into a “prune”, etc.. Of you might like water skiing, but cannot pull yourself with your mind, etc. So, your preferences may result in you “choosing” to employ some knowledge you already possess that will actually result in a boat, [as oppposed to some other knowege] but that isn’t the kind of choice your implying[, or is it?] If I follow the instructions to build a boat from raw materials, I’m not designing a boat anymore than organisms “design” copies of themselves when they follow the list of instructions in their genomes.
IOW, the idea that we create knowlege by making “decisions” doesn’t withstand criticism.critical rationalist
October 1, 2017
October
10
Oct
1
01
2017
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
CR Anything concrete re my question in comment 118? A giveaway for you. Decision making is the ability to choose between physical/chemical alternatives (i.e. between two or more physically or chemically indifferent states). Decision making is necessary to achieve a non-physical condition (such as a maximum of pragmatic utility). Decision making is the necessary condition for the sign-referent relation to be instantiated into physical medium. On the other hand, nature cannot make decisions because it does not care whether anything is functional or not. E.g. there is absolutely no physical or chemical bias in nucleotide polimerization: any of the 4 nucleotides can polimerize any other in water. So it is clear why, upon direct observations, there is no other way to achieve anything functionally complex in nature (i.e. max utility such as self-reproduction or autonomy) except by intelligence. It is so because nature does not care whether anything is functional. Nature at best can only provide conditions for multiplicity of indifferent equilibrium states.EugeneS
October 1, 2017
October
10
Oct
1
01
2017
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
UB: What is physically required of DNA in order to be well adapted? How does that cause it to be retained?
It must be possible for it to undergo very specific transformations. The specific are out outlined in the papers I mentioned. To summarize...
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). And for those distinct attributes to be distinguishable too, it must be possible to set up a mechanism that would copy any of them (without knowing in advance which one) from that system to another system, and vice-versa. The copy must go both ways, so as to allow both storing of information and its retrieval. These constraints are quite tight. They are satisfied by media such as flags of different colours; or a transistor in a computer, with its on and off attributes. But not any old system would qualify as information medium. An elephant, for instance, would not, even if it was immortal and never forgot. Because its information retrieval system is ‘buggy’.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3520#comiccritical rationalist
October 1, 2017
October
10
Oct
1
01
2017
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
CR, either of the two questions posed in #167 can be briefly answered in as little as two words each. That kind of brevity is not expected of you, but perhaps you should try to shorten your answers and make them more concise.Upright BiPed
September 30, 2017
September
09
Sep
30
30
2017
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Adaptations for adaptation! I think I'll pull meself up by me own bootstraps this morning.Mung
September 29, 2017
September
09
Sep
29
29
2017
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
CR, 2050 words, and you still won't touch the issues.
a physical medium is well adapted to serve the causal role that results in it being retained.
What is physically required of DNA in order to be well adapted? How does that cause it to be retained?Upright BiPed
September 28, 2017
September
09
Sep
28
28
2017
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
@UB,
Open-ended capacity and transcribability have physical requirements. […] Again, it is not I who is ignoring these critical details, it is you.
Apparently, you don’t take your own theory seriously. The earth forms. It cools. Preexisting no-design laws of physics are in effect. The raw materials to construct highly accurate replicating cells become available, but none actually exist yet. And, apparently, none will until some external intelligent agent gets involved in some way. According to “what we know about recording information”, what are the physical requirements necessary before that first cell can be constructed by transforming raw materials? Why, that would be the very same necessary physical requirements you’re appealing to right now. In Von Neumann terms, a recipe would be used to transform raw materials into the replicator vehicle, correct? Where is this original recipe? What is materially required for that recipe? Then the actual recipe has to get into the cell, which represents the copying of information, correct? How does it get copied there? What is materially required?
Information can also be moved from one type of medium to another while retaining all its properties qua information. We call this its interoperability property; it is what makes human capabilities such as language and science possible, as well as biological adaptations that use symbolic codes, such as the genetic code.
And what is physically necessary for that interoperability? IOW, you’re merely pushed the problem up a level without improving it because the designer, or whatever information it happened to have possessed would have the same material requirements. That to reflect the appearance of design, by being well adapted to serve a purpose - transform raw materials into cells and then transform storage mediums to embody specific information. Even if we ignore the construction of the replicator vehicle, are you suggesting that the recipe (knowledge) just spontaneously appeared when the vehicle was constructed? So, apparently, there are physical material requirements that are *necessary* for recorded information, except when there isn’t?critical rationalist
September 28, 2017
September
09
Sep
28
28
2017
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
@UB
CR: How about evidence of established lower bounds on replication in environments other than the one we’re currently in? When should I expect that?
UB: You already have it. It’s the part you’re avoiding. Read John Von Neumann on the threshold of complexity for prescriptive synthesis. (Etc)
First, note how I sad environments other than the one’s we’re currently in. Apparently, you’re assuming the environment was always the same as it was in the past? Second, I didn’t say “prescriptive (programmable) replication”, which is high-fidelity because it’s programmable. The claim is that accurate replication doesn’t need From, the paper…
But in unchallenging ones (i.e. sufficiently unchanging and resource-rich), the requirement is easily met by highly inaccurate self-reproducers that not only have no appearance of design, but are so inaccurate that they can have arisen spontaneously from generic resources under no-design laws – as proposed, for instance, by the current theories of the origin of life [11, 31]. For example, template replicators, such as short RNA strands [32], or similar “naked” replicators (replicating with poor copying fidelity without a vehicle) would suffice to get natural selection started. Since they bear no design, they require no further explanation – any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.(11)
Not all replicators are programmable, just as not all computers are Universal Turing machines. While Babbage’s Difference Engine was not a UTC, his Analytic engine would have been, had he managed to convince people it was worth building. (In fact, “The Difference Engine” was a book that asked what the world would have been like had Babbage succeeded.) The same can be said for number systems, that started out as tallies, and languages, etc. Nor was universality actually a goal in the vast majority of cases, when it finally appeared. We just stumbled upon it, without really trying. So we have concrete examples of gradients with disproportionate jumps to universality, in multiple fields, based on minor, mostly unintentional, changes and additions. Add just one additional computation and you make the leap to a UTC, which can simulate any other UTC. Remove one rule from a number system and you can represent any number. Furthermore, had we only experienced UTCs made of silicon (because, say, an alien race dropped on off before we had mechanical computers like Babbage’s), one could appeal to that experience to “induce” the false theory that silicon plays a unique role in computation. So only silicon based systems were causal capable of being a UTC. However, once we developed a working theory of computation, it would cause us to expect the experiencing of something that never would have expereinced before: computations with cogs and vacuum tubes. As for Von Neumann, again from the paper….
As for Von Neumann, Indeed, the central problem here – i.e., whether and under what circumstances accurate self-reproduction and replication are compatible with no-design laws – is awkward to formulate in the prevailing conception of fundamental physics, which expresses everything in terms of predictions given some initial conditions and laws of motion. This mode of explanation can only approximately express emergent notions such as the appearance of design, no-design laws, etc. Von Neumann, who attempted to investigate self-reproduction within this framework, got as far as discovering its essential (replicator-vehicle) logic, [9]. However his use of the prevailing conception forced his analysis to be in terms of predictions: thus he attempted without success to provide the design of an actual self-reproducer in terms of atoms and microscopic interaction. He finally produced a viable toy model, [15], within cellular automata, but at the cost of severing the connections with actual physics. That model is thus inadequate to address the current problem - whether self-reproduction is compatible with the actual laws of physics un-augmented by any design of adaptations. The prevailing conception also forces a misleading formulation of the problem, as: what initial conditions and laws of motion must (or must probably) produce accurate replicators and self-reproducers (with some probability)? But what is disputed is whether such entities are possible under no-design laws. More generally, it cannot express the very explanation provided by evolutionary theory – that living organisms can have come about without intentionally being designed. It would have aimed at proving that they must occur, given certain initial conditions and dynamical laws. To overcome these problems I resort to a newly proposed theory of physics, constructor theory. [16, 17, 18]. It provides a new mode of explanation, expressing all laws as statements about which transformations are possible, which are impossible and why. This brings counterfactual statements into fundamental physics, which is key to the solution. The explanation provided by the theory of evolution is already constructor-theoretic: it is possible that the appearance of design has been brought about without intentionally being designed; so is our problem: are the physical processes essential to the theory of evolution - i.e., self- reproduction, replication and natural selection - possible under no-design laws? I shall show that they are (in section 2-3) provided that those laws of physics allow the existence of media that can instantiate (digital) information (plus enough time and energy). Information has an exact physical characterization in the constructor theory of information [17]. I also show that under no-design laws an accurate self-reproducer requires an accurate (i.e., high-fidelity) replicator, and vice versa. Thus, the replicator-vehicle logic von Neumann envisaged is here shown to be necessary for accurate self-reproduction to be possible under such laws. This provides physical foundations for the relation between “metabolism” and replication (as defined by Dyson, [10]). In addition, that vehicles are necessary to high-quality replicators under our laws of physics (despite replicators being the conceptual pillar of evolutionary theory), informs the current debate about the necessity of organisms. The latter was recently doubted by Dawkins [19]: “Just as life did not have to become multicellular [...] so living materials did not have to become packaged into discrete, individual organisms [..] behaving as unitary, purposeful agents. The only thing that is really fundamental to Darwinian life is self-replicating, coded information - genes, in the terminology of life on this planet.”. Constructor Theory’s mode of explanation also delivers an exact physical expression of the notions of the appearance of design, no-design laws, and of the logic of self-reproduction and natural selection.(5) Finally, Wigner’s argument implies that accurate self-reproduction is incompatible particularly with quantum theory, thus challenging its universality - a claim that others, with different motivations, have also made [20, 21, 22]. I shall demonstrate (in section 4) a quantum-mechanical (kinematical) model of the logic of self-reproduction, updating von Neumann’s, thus rebutting those claims. This, incidentally, clarifies how self-reproduction differs from cloning a quantum state (which has occasionally caused some confusion [20]). It also vindicates that self-reproduction - and even (possibly artificial) self-reproducers employing quantum coherence - are compatible with quantum theory.
Note that the paper is specific referring to high-fidelity replication under no-design laws. What does that mean? It means that the design of organisms and even high-fidelity replicators is not already present in the laws of physics. They are possible with generic laws of physics that do not already contain “design”.
Semantic closure is a necessary state of coordination within the system.
And that coordination can be more fundamentally described as being physically well adapted to serve a purpose, correct? If you vary it, would it not significantly reduce its ability to serve that purpose? Or to put it another way, does semantic closure not reflect being well adapted to serve a purpose? Does that well adaptedness not play a causal role in being retained when embedded in a storage medium?critical rationalist
September 28, 2017
September
09
Sep
28
28
2017
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
@UB
CR:Second, the meaning of semantic closure can refer to different things, depending on the context. For example, none of the papers on your site suggest their work indicates intelligent design. In fact, one clearly indicated the exact opposite. ?Yet, apparently, you think this is somehow relevant to ID. So, what do you mean by “semantic closure”? Is this part of your definition of information that is absent from the constructor theory of information?
UB: And there is significant demand for function from that remaining DNA; it must establish the material conditions whereby these organized elements of the system come together in the exact way required to successfully produce the effect — an autonomous self-replicating cell – the basic unit of life.
I’ve already stated the appearance of design is being well adapted to serve a purpose. It’s hard to vary without significantly reducing its ability to serve that purpose, if even at all. In the case of knowledge, a physical medium is well adapted to serve the causal role that results in it being retained. For example, a flash drive containing knowledge is extremely well adapted (transformed, by having its flash cells turned on or off) So, are other storage mediums, such as magnetic media (that transform magnetic grains, instead of flash cells), etc. If you vary that adaptation, it will no longer serve that purpose. In short, the physical media containing the program of a programmable replicator is well adapted. It’s the knowledge of what transformations should be performed by the programmable constructor. It’s unclear how this contrary to “what we know about information”. Again, nothing in the papers referenced on your site suggest that “semantic closure” leads to intelligent design. So, it’s unclear what exactly you mean by it and how it’s not addressed by being well adapted to serve a purpose / hard to vary. So, what really is your argument? It’s really complicated? It’s irreducible complex?
I have pointed out to you that Darwinian evolution requires the very system that you claim it explains – which makes your position not only illogical, but also contrary to universal observation. Again, you are unwilling to engage the issues.
Except you haven’t pointed it out. You’ve selectively appealed to experiences in an ad-hoc way. One could just as well appeal to the “universal experience” of all designers having complex material brains. Apparently, induction works, except when it doesn’t. Surely, if we can only point to the kind of life we know about, then we can only work with the designers we know about, right? Except when we can’t? This is why induction is impossible, because no one has managed to formulate a principle of induction we can use, in practice, that provides guidance.critical rationalist
September 28, 2017
September
09
Sep
28
28
2017
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Hi ES, I missed your comment earlier, "evolution does not even start without an epistemic cut". You are exactly right. It's precisely what the architecture of the system would predict.Upright BiPed
September 26, 2017
September
09
Sep
26
26
2017
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
CR,
Can you clarify what you mean by “placing your claims next to established knowledge”.
Sure, but I am not certain how I could have been more clear. First, you claim that knowledge is information recorded in a medium (which plays a causal role in it been retained). I evaluate that claim by comparing it to what is already known about the physics of information being recorded in a medium. I’ve asked you to clarify your conceptions of the system, using your “physical theory of information” as the model. But you’ve refused to engage those questions, preferring instead to merely restate your claim and introduce distractions to the conversation. Secondly, you claim that Darwinian evolution is responsible for the origin of the information recorded in the genome. Here again, I compare your claim to what is already known about the physics involved. I have pointed out to you that Darwinian evolution requires the very system that you claim it explains – which makes your position not only illogical, but also contrary to universal observation. Again, you are unwilling to engage the issues.
How about evidence of established lower bounds on replication in environments other than the one we’re currently in? When should I expect that?
You already have it. It’s the part you’re avoiding. Read John Von Neumann on the threshold of complexity for prescriptive synthesis. Ask Turing if his system needed anything on the tape. Ask him if it needed a way to read that tape. Ask Peirce if representation and interpretation are not complimentary parts of a system. Ask Pattee if that system requires complimentary physical descriptions as well. Ask Crick if his adapter hypothesis was necessary. Ask Nirenberg if he could have calculated the code instead of demonstrating it. The problem is not that you don’t have anything to go on; the problem is that you ignore it. For all intents and purposes, you appear to be at war with it.
what do you mean by “semantic closure”?
Semantic closure is a necessary state of coordination within the system. For semantic closure to occur there must be a functional relation between the sequence of nucleotides in DNA overall and the specific set of sequences that code for the interpretive constraints within the system (i.e. the aaRS). For whatever the sequence of nucleotides that describe the set of constraints, the remaining sequences must be a certain way in order to achieve function. And there is significant demand for function from that remaining DNA; it must establish the material conditions whereby these organized elements of the system come together in the exact way required to successfully produce the effect -- an autonomous self-replicating cell – the basic unit of life.
your “theory” says nothing about the copyability of information. Apparently, that’s not a necessary feature of information? And, I can’t say that I blame you.
Open-ended capacity and transcribability have physical requirements. The associations between the referents and their representations have to be based on spatial orientation – i.e. the physical embodiment of a reading frame code, where one referent is differentiated from another referent by the spatial orientation of objects within the medium. This results in rate-independent control of a dynamic (rate-dependent) system. Among many other things, the physical system requires an organizational hierarchy in the reading of that medium. Again, it is not I who is ignoring these critical details, it is you.Upright BiPed
September 26, 2017
September
09
Sep
26
26
2017
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
The knowledge vs. the knower relation is a manifestation of the epistemic nature of the problem under consideration. Some other examples of the epistemic cut are: code vs. interpreter object vs. subject the controlled vs. the controller the measured vs. the measurer ... Ironically, evolution does not even start without an epistemic cut being established in living systems, which requires agency 'in the equation'.EugeneS
September 26, 2017
September
09
Sep
26
26
2017
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
@Barry
CR denies there is any such thing as “knowledge” in the sense of justified true belief. I’m not making this up. See his comment here.
The funny thing is, Barry hasn't indicated which criticisms of the idea that knowledge is justified, true belief he disagrees with. Not to mention Gettier's criticism that is well known in the field. Apparently, he disagrees with them, except he doesn't? He has failed to even acknowledge that it's a epistemological idea at all. Apparently, it was so obvious that we didn't didn't get around to it around to it until Plato, except even then, he went on to criticize it in Theaetetus.critical rationalist
September 23, 2017
September
09
Sep
23
23
2017
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
No, CR, I’m not. I’m placing your claims next to established knowledge. As I have already told you, your claims about the minimum material conditions of Darwinian evolution must be evaluated against what is already known about those material conditions (i.e. you merely making a claim is not evidence).
Can you clarify what you mean by "placing your claims next to established knowledge". And while your at it, how that actually results in the growth of knowledge? Would it be related to the fact that we currently observe gradations in the accuracy of replication in biology? Would it be related to the fact that we have concrete examples of lower fidelity systems of replication, such as RNA based viruses, which have a higher rate of mutation and are less stable? Would it be related to replication is not even limited to biology? Also, did I happen to mention that the contents of our theories do not come from observations? And, of course, I should expect evidence that designers existed when life formed on earth, and of them some were actually here at the necessary time? And also evidence that of the existence of designers that were not themselves well adapted for the purpose of designing things? How about evidence of established lower bounds on replication in environments other than the one we're currently in? When should I expect that? Is this somehow established knowledge? I mean, surely, we can only work with the kind of designers we know, and every one we've observed was well adapted for the purpose of designing things, which included having a complex, material brain. Right?
I asked you how your system organizes the capacity to specify a thing among alternatives, and how it achieves semantic closure. But you appear (more than just appear) to think that your “physical theory of information” should be immune to an evidence-based analysis.
First, I keep pointing out the thing specified isn't out there in the first place. So, it's unclear how anything can choose among alternatives external itself that do not exist. Furthermore, if that were the case, then we would already have a cure for cancer. But, we currently lack such knowledge. This represents criticism of your idea with, well, evidence. Second, the meaning of semantic closure can refer to different things, depending on the context. For example, none of the papers on your site suggest their work indicates intelligent design. In fact, one clearly indicated the exact opposite. Yet, apparently, you think this is somehow relevant to ID. So, what do you mean by "semantic closure"? Is this part of your definition of information that is absent from the constructor theory of information?
You want to skip over the known physical requirements of achieving your claim, and have the mere presence of your claim carry the day. That’s a complete non-starter in science, CR. You should not need someone to point this out to you.
I'd again point out that we do not yet have an agreement on what information is. So, it's not even clear we agree on what needs to be achieved by a physical theory of information in the first place. That's a non=starter in science. For example, your "theory" says nothing about the copyability of information. Apparently, that's not a necessary feature of information? And, I can't say that I blame you. After all, that would indicate for external information to find its way into a destination storage medium, like DNA, it would already have to exist in physical form in some source storage medium. I'd avoid that like the plague as well.critical rationalist
September 23, 2017
September
09
Sep
23
23
2017
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
> It makes no sense to appeal to “knowledge” when arguing with a person who denies the category. CR is the one who wrote that knowledge doesn't require a knower. So that clearly puts knowledge into the category of things that don't need to be known in order to be knowledge.Mung
September 22, 2017
September
09
Sep
22
22
2017
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Are you suggesting the evidence of designers that designed organisms is the very organisms of which being designed is in question?
Yes, that is part of it. And if your position could account for those organisms ID couldn't use them as evidence for a Designer.
Then why isn’t the organisms that naturally evolved the evidence of natural evolution?
What does "naturally evolved" mean? Design is natural, CR. There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce the diversity of life nor any way to test the claim.
Non-telic processes did produce what we observe.
So you say yet cannot demonstrate. So that would be a problem. You don't even know how to test such a claim so you lose before you get started.ET
September 22, 2017
September
09
Sep
22
22
2017
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
UB: "No, CR, I’m not. I’m placing your claims next to established knowledge." Well, there's your mistake. CR denies there is any such thing as "knowledge" in the sense of justified true belief. I'm not making this up. See his comment here. It makes no sense to appeal to "knowledge" when arguing with a person who denies the category. Or maybe it does. After all, we write for the lurkers, not to convince hopeless idiots who deny concepts even as they employ them.Barry Arrington
September 22, 2017
September
09
Sep
22
22
2017
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
UB: Darwinian evolution cannot function until a system exist that can specify objects among alternatives and encode those specifications in a material medium. If A requires B for A to exist, then A cannot be the source of B. CR: Does the entire medical community not consist of intelligent agents? If so, then they could just “specify objects among alternatives and record that specification” on a flash drive and have a cure for cancer. So, why don’t we have a cure for cancer, or other diseases? UB: So is it your argument that since the medical community doesn’t yet know a cure for cancer, therefore B can be the source of A after all? CR: Again, you’re assuming there was always high-fidelity replicators in competition with other high-fidelity replicators.
No, CR, I’m not. I'm placing your claims next to established knowledge. As I have already told you, your claims about the minimum material conditions of Darwinian evolution must be evaluated against what is already known about those material conditions (i.e. you merely making a claim is not evidence). I asked you how your system organizes the capacity to specify a thing among alternatives, and how it achieves semantic closure. But you appear (more than just appear) to think that your “physical theory of information” should be immune to an evidence-based analysis. You want to skip over the known physical requirements of achieving your claim, and have the mere presence of your claim carry the day. That’s a complete non-starter in science, CR. You should not need someone to point this out to you.Upright BiPed
September 21, 2017
September
09
Sep
21
21
2017
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
@ET
The evidence from physics, chemistry, cosmology and biology is evidence that there were intelligent designers other than human beings.
Are you suggesting the evidence of designers that designed organisms is the very organisms of which being designed is in question? Then why isn't the organisms that naturally evolved the evidence of natural evolution? Surely, if the latter is "admissible", then why isn't the former?
That said if you had a way to test the claim that non-telic processes produced what we observe, tested and confirmed it, ID would be falsified. So perhaps you should get to work on that instead of your misguided rhetoric.
Non-telic processes did produce what we observe. The knowledge in the genomes of organisms is the proximate cause, as it contains what transformations of raw materials are necessary to make a copy of itself. The origin of that knowledge is the origin of those features. So, the question is, what is the origin of that knowledge?critical rationalist
September 21, 2017
September
09
Sep
21
21
2017
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
@UB
ugh. does it go downhill from here?
More vague criticism. Do you simply hope people won't notice this sort of thing?
CR: Does the entire medical community not consist of intelligent agents? If so, then they could just “specify objects among alternatives and record that specification” on a flash drive and have a cure for cancer. So, why don’t we have a cure for cancer, or other diseases? UB: So is it your argument that since the medical community doesn’t yet know a cure for cancer, therefore B can be the source of A after all?
Again, you're assuming there was always high-fidelity replicators in competition with other high-fidelity replicators. However simpler, more primate replicators in competition with other simpler, more primitive replicators do not need to be well adapted and therefore do not exhibit the appearance of design. So, high-fidelity replication isn't needed for Darwinism to get started. Or are you suggesting the appearance of design is not "being well adapted for a purpose?" If so, then what examples of things with the appearance of design do not fit that description in that fundamental sense?
CR: Because cancer will only be cured when the requisite knowledge of what transformations of matter will kill cancer cells, without killing the patient, is actually present independent of anyone’s belief, intent or “choice”. UB: So the formulas put themselves on the paper.
What formulas, UB? We're intelligent agents and we don't have "the formulas" on paper. If being intelligent agents was sufficient, we would. That's my point. Other Also, the human immune system can kill some forms of cancer cells without killing the patient. And in many cases, we copy existing knowledge of how to kill cancer cells into the bodies of people who lack it. That knowledge didn't come from a "formula". Nor are formula's carved on mountains for us to observe. So, we cannot merely choose one of them from many and copy it to a piece of paper. That's part of the same mistaken philosophy of knowledge.critical rationalist
September 21, 2017
September
09
Sep
21
21
2017
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
Furthermore, where is your “evidence’ that there are designers other than human beings?
The evidence from physics, chemistry, cosmology and biology is evidence that there were intelligent designers other than human beings. That said if you had a way to test the claim that non-telic processes produced what we observe, tested and confirmed it, ID would be falsified. So perhaps you should get to work on that instead of your misguided rhetoric.ET
September 19, 2017
September
09
Sep
19
19
2017
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 8

Leave a Reply