To facilitate discussion, we are publishing the abstracts and conclusions/summaries of the 24 papers from the Cornell Conference on the Origin of Biological Information here at Uncommon Descent, with cumulative links to previous papers at the bottom of each page.
Note: A blow-by-blow account of the difficulties that the authors experienced from Darwin lobby attempts to censor the book by denying it publication with Springer are detailed here. Fortunately, the uproar resulted in an opportunity for readers like yourself to read the book online. That said, the hard cover version is now shipping.
The Conclusion for “Entropy, Evolution and Open Systems” by Granville Sewell:
Of course, one can still argue that the spectacular increase in order seen on Earth is consistent with the underlying principle behind the second law because what has happened here is not really extremely improbable. One can still argue that once upon a time, on a special planet called Earth, a collection of atoms formed by pure chance that was able to duplicate itself, and these complex collections of atoms were able to pass their complex structures on to their descendants generation after generation, even correcting errors. One can still argue that, after a long time, the accumulation of genetic accidents resulted in greater and greater information content in the DNA of these more and more complex collections of atoms, and eventually something called “intelligence” allowed some of these collections of atoms to design cars and trucks and spaceships and nuclear power plants. One can still argue that it only seems extremely improbable, but really isn’t, that under the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy into a planet could cause atoms to rearrange themselves into computers and laser printers and the Internet. But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law of thermodynamics, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we aren’t.
See also: Origin of Biological Information conference: Its goals
Open Mike: Origin of Biological Information conference: Origin of life studies flatlined
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference— Can you answer these conundrums about information?
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference—Is a new definition of information needed for biology? (Chapter 2)
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference—New definition of information proposed: Universal Information (Chapter 2)
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference—Chapter Three, Dembski, Ewert, and Marks on the true cost of a successful search
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference—Chapter Three on the true cost of a successful search—Conservation of information
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference—Chapter Four: Pragmatic Information
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference—Chapter Four, Pragmatic information: Conclusion
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference Chapter Five Abstract
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference Chapter Five – Basener on limits of chaos – Conclusion
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference Chapter Six – Ewert et all on the Tierra evolution program – Abstract
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference Chapter Six – Ewert et all on the Tierra evolution program – Conclusion
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference Chapter 7—Probability of Beneficial Mutation— Abstract
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference Chapter 7—Probability of Beneficial Mutation— Conclusion
Open Mike: Cornell OBI Conference Chapter 8—Entropy, Evolution and Open Systems—Abstract
For the record: Salvador deletes another post of mine.
So, Salvador, what was so offensive about the content?
I guess it challenged Sal’s belief that he is good at math because he got kicked out of a casino, and thus warranted deletion.
Good on ya Sal!
Salvador seems to have embarked on a mission to excise all my posts in any thread he has authored.
That’s a FINE Christian thing to do, Sal.
Can I ask why such behavior is tolerated here at UD?
The funny part is, in an amateurish attempt to cover his tracks, Sal even deleted his post inviting me to not participate in his threads. lol!
For the record:
I responded to Elizabeth in the thread Am I the only ID proponent
The response had nothing to do with Salvador or his silly beliefs. He deleted it anyways, apparently for the sole reason that it was in a thread he had control over.
Good on ya Sal! That was the CHRISTIAN thing to do. You fraud. God is my witness.
Barry, why do you allows this?
Denyse, you sit idly by?
While ID may have religious implications I have issues with it being mixed with ID. I don’t object to having religious content in threads but they should be kept apart from the ID theory threads. It is no wonder the media and general public equates ID with creation science.
For the record:
Indictment of Salvador and UD (for failing to take action)
Mung #1
“I once played an entire game of chess blindfolded and even won the game. Does that mean I’m good at chess?”
I think it says a heck of a lot more about your opponent 😉
Granville Sewell Defends his Arguments on the Second Law of Thermodynamics – Casey Luskin – August 22, 2013
Excerpt: Sewell concludes “The ‘compensation’ counter-argument was produced by people who generalized the model equation for isolated systems, but forgot to generalize the equation for non-isolated systems.” His generalized model would be as follows: “If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75561.html
exactly! Or it says something about my ability to keep something in my mind (like counting cards) but not indicative of chess skill (or math skill).