Vid: Hoping to find ancient life remains on Mars

_{kairosfocus

December 18, 2015

Origin Of Life, rhetoric, specified complexity, worldview}

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

I ran across a vid of a proposal developed by Martin Marietta to explore Mars, towards settlement (and terraforming?):

[youtube tcTZvNLL0-w]

What I find highly interesting is the motivations given. In addition to the Mars colonisation idea, there seems to be hope that finding “independent” life on Mars would show life must be common in the universe.

Of course, we will recall the 1990’s dust up over Nasa’s announcement of life on a meteorite held to have come from Mars. (Cf Wiki here.) Which, brings to mind Astronomer and Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross’ thought that impacts on Earth would spread life-bearing rocks far and wide across the solar system. *His initial response to the Nasa announcement is here.)

But, too, there is a big question:

wouldn’t it be much simpler and cheaper to address the issue of whether functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I) can credibly come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity right here on Earth?

Perhaps, it is time to begin decoupling the long term solar system colonisation project from speculations on the origin of life and its hoped for abundance in the universe?

Thoughts welcome. END

Comments

DS, when an agenda is as focal as in the vid above despite the actual logic of the case, something has gone wrong. The real potential benefit is opening up the wider solar system and things linked to that. KFkairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

GE, if you are not aware of the lockout game has been going on for a long time, perhaps you need to come up to speed. No, this is not accuse the questioner, there has been a real problem for a long time. And BTW, Rowman & Littlefield -- US publisher of NFL -- as well as Cambridge U Press [I did cross checks on memory here] -- publisher of his The Design Inference -- bear no comparison to von Daniken; your mask has slipped and the unbridled hostility and ill informed contempt are showing. KF PS: The fundamental issue has been laid out, and it is in fact quite clear that complex coded text that effects algorithms is a reliable signature of design, with literally trillions of cases in point. Of cases of known origin, there are no credible counter instances. This is backed up by the needle in haystack blind search challenge.kairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

"What would make such a discovery 'scientific'?" Quite possibly the dumbest question I've ever heard. Congrats Mungy.Alicia Cartelli_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Mung,
What would make such a discovery “scientific”?
I don't know, maybe it wouldn't be a scientific discovery. It would be quite a big deal, though.daveS_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Evidence of life on other planets would be the most amazing scientific discovery of all time, IMO. What would make such a discovery "scientific"?Mung_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

KF,
Perhaps, it is time to begin decoupling the long term solar system colonisation project from speculations on the origin of life and its hoped for abundance in the universe?
How should we begin this "decoupling" process? People are interested in colonization partly because we are curious what we will find. Evidence of life on other planets would be the most amazing scientific discovery of all time, IMO.daveS_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

"your appeal to authority in a context of known censorship and lock-out speaks volumes; blah, blah, blah. " I see you fall back on your "accuse the questioner" tactic when the question is uncomfortable again. Talk about speaking volumes. We are talking libraries here. All I did was ask for a single paper from a peer reviewed journal that has concluded that a biological structure was the result of "design". In this way we could discuss your claims that there are millions of examples. You don't expect me to take your word for it, do you? I certainly wouldn't expect you to take my word without following up on it. If there was overwhelming evidence that design in Biological structures could conclusively (or even with a high degree of certainty) be identified using the concept of FSCO/I, then you would have absolutely no difficulty getting it published in Science or Nature, your censorship conspiracy not withstanding. Have you ever submitted a paper to a science journal about this subject? If it was rejected, I would love to hear the reasons given. I have had a couple papers rejected, and the reasons were justified. "Dembski’s NFL is in fact peer reviewed and technically edited." To the same extent that Erik Von Daniken's Chariots of Fire was. Getting a book published does not go through the same level of peer review that papers in the top science journals do. You know this as well as I do. If you can't find one peer reviewed paper, just say so and we can drop the subject. Cheers.George Edwards_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

F/N: An interesting discussion: http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0025v1.pdf KFkairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

GE, your appeal to authority in a context of known censorship and lock-out speaks volumes; where perhaps you did not observe that Orgel and Wicken are in fact leading authorities, speaking in technical context on expertise in journals or technically published works (Wiley); Dembski's NFL is in fact peer reviewed and technically edited. The disqualification and dismissal game fails. But we do not need to go into a debate, we are dealing with a point well within reach of anyone with basic familiarity with functional information. Again, DNA is text, string data structure. We know and can readily calculate the config space for a string of n-elements where each place takes v values. Here V^n => 4^n. That sets the haystack for search. Within the stack, it is a fact of the literature, well known, that protein fold domains (a critical step to functionality) are deeply isolated as islands, leading directly to the search challenge. For a typical protein of 300 AA, 4^[3 x 300] possibilities at 3 letters per AA codon tells us what we are up against. 4^900 --> 7.14 *10^541 possibilities, utterly swamping cosmos level search capacity. Islands of function, even before we get to interwoven codes, alternative splicing and the like, all of which have been discussed and show more and more embedded specific complexity. As fr the hoped for search for a golden search that cuts down the scale of challenge, that too has to be blind and will come from the power set of the scale o the set of possibilities, as that too must be blind. As in 2 ^[7*10^541] or thereabouts. There is excellent reason why consitently and on trillions of cases in point of textual strings, funcitonally specific informaiton bearing strings of reasonable length will consitently be seen to be designed. So, the relevant FSCO/I is an empirically reliable signature of design, whatever obfuscatory or dismissive rhetoric may be trotted out. Indeed, absent a priori imposition of self falsifying evolutionary materialism b the back door of so called methodological naturalism, we would never even have a doubt as to what discovering extensive digitally coded information in the living cell means by way of relevant cause. That such rhetorical stunts have to be resorted to to try to blunt what is staring us in the face, speaks volumes. Sad volumes. KFkairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, we have here in our midst for the first time in ages a skeptic with an open mind and a sincere desire to know the truth. Please respect that.Mung_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

KF, you copied and pasted from several discussions but not a single link to a peer reviewed article that has used the concept of FSCO/I to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a biological structure is designed. I am not asking for proof, just a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. If I am going to discuss this with you I want to do it by discussing one or two papers, not paragraphs cut and pasted into a comment in which I cannot discern the context in which it was written. I am sure you can understand this.George Edwards_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

PPS: Dembski in NFL:
p. 148:“The great myth of contemporary evolutionary biology is that the information needed to explain complex biological structures can be purchased without intelligence. My aim throughout this book is to dispel that myth . . . . Eigen and his colleagues must have something else in mind besides information simpliciter when they describe the origin of information as the central problem of biology. I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity [[cf. here below], or what equivalently we have been calling in this Chapter Complex Specified information or CSI . . . . Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. . . . In virtue of their function [[a living organism's subsystems] embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specificity criterion . . . the specification can be cashed out in any number of ways [[through observing the requisites of functional organisation within the cell, or in organs and tissues or at the level of the organism as a whole. Dembski cites: Wouters, p. 148: "globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms," Behe, p. 148: "minimal function of biochemical systems," Dawkins, pp. 148 - 9: "Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by ran-| dom chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is . . . the ability to propagate genes in reproduction." On p. 149, he roughly cites Orgel's famous remark from 1973, which exactly cited reads: In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . And, p. 149, he highlights Paul Davis in The Fifth Miracle: "Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity."] . . .” p. 144: [[Specified complexity can be more formally defined:] “. . . since a universal probability bound of 1 [[chance] in 10^150 corresponds to a universal complexity bound of 500 bits of information, [[the cluster] (T, E) constitutes CSI because T [[ effectively the target hot zone in the field of possibilities] subsumes E [[ effectively the observed event from that field], T is detachable from E, and and T measures at least 500 bits of information . . . ”
kairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

GE, Functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information is a descriptive phrase for the functional form of complex specified information and is massively evident all around us, per observation. Refusal to acknowledge such a directly evident fact is itself a sign of something gone seriously wrong. As for testing, on trillions of cases it is a reliable sign of design as cause. In the case of DNA, code strings are a common phenomenon, and functional specificity is notorious. The pattern of protein fold domains in the space of AA sequences then highlights precisely the deeply isolated islands of function pattern that instantly challenges sol system or even cosmos scope resources at OOL and origin of body plans. These are strong signs of design of life based on informational molecules and linked communication and control systems. KF PS: Let me cite here Leslie Orgel, in his 1973 discussion, which put the matter on the table:
. . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure. [--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002. Note, such a structured string -- i.e. a description language, is precisely how AutoCAD etc work.] One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . so we come to the issue of a node-arc-component mesh, described in a description language and constrained by requisites of function based on configuration, which will be sharply constrained relative to possible arbitrarily clumped or scattered combinations of the same parts. All of this is massively familiar from the world of technology] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes. [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196. Of course, that immediately highlights OOL, where the required self-replicating entity is part of what has to be explained (cf. Paley here), a notorious conundrum for advocates of evolutionary materialism; one, that has led to mutual ruin documented by Shapiro and Orgel between metabolism first and genes first schools of thought, cf here. Behe would go on to point out that irreducibly complex structures are not credibly formed by incremental evolutionary processes and Menuge et al would bring up serious issues for the suggested exaptation alternative, cf. his challenges C1 - 5 in the just linked. Finally, Dembski highlights that CSI comes in deeply isolated islands T in much larger configuration spaces W, for biological systems functional islands. That puts up serious questions for origin of dozens of body plans reasonably requiring some 10 - 100+ mn bases of fresh genetic information to account for cell types, tissues, organs and multiple coherently integrated systems. Wicken's remarks a few years later as already were cited now take on fuller force in light of the further points from Orgel at pp. 190 and 196 . . . ]
J S Wicken, in 1979, further draws out the point:
‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. [--> this is where the descriptive phrase comes from, by simple adaptation] It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65.]
kairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

KF: "GE, no. The design inference on signs such as FSCO/I is empirically testable and would be falsified by credible empirical observation of such coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity" Fair enough. Can you please provide me with a link to an article in a peer reviewed journal where FSCO/I has been empirically tested for a biological structure?George Edwards_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

GE, no. The design inference on signs such as FSCO/I is empirically testable and would be falsified by credible empirical observation of such coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Further to this, the design inference is by no means an attempt to explain everything. I strongly suggest to you that you should scroll up to the resources tab and clarify the many points of misunderstanding evident in your remarks above. This article may also be of help -- the Wiki article is a massive fail, resistant to correction because of the flawed model for that site. KFkairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

T, You are asking me off thread and tangential to this thread's main point. Be that as it may, I will say a few more things. First, the design inference proper is independent of metaphysical positions, being an inductive inference based on observations and in effect glorified common sense reasoning. Whether designers are wholly material has nothing directly to do with whether or not intelligently directed configuration exists, or whether it can leave traces such as FSCO/I that reliably indicate such as a causal factor. That is why I pointed to the issue that if strong AI succeeds somehow and machines known to be wholly material make genuine independent designs, then that will be recognised as design. And if sufficiently complex and functionally specific, the entity will point to design. Second, were an inbuilt purposefulness to be a part of the core of the world, inbuilt in its laws and materials so they have an inbuilt tendency to produce FSCO/I rich entities, that purposefulness would issue designs and such would be detectable. Third, looking to the world of life to decide whether or not designers are wholly within the physical cosmos is misdirected. Right from the first technical ID work, it was recognised and pointed out that detection of design in cell based life as observed would not allow an inference on the ontological status of the designers; as to whether within or beyond the cosmos. Indeed, I have repeatedly pointed out that a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond the crude first steps of Venter et al, would be adequate to account for the architecture and chemistry of a living cell. And BTW, this point also cuts the other way, credibly finding a spontaneous origin of life or body plans would not decide whether there is mind beyond matter, or whether reality is wholly material. No, the place to decide the question of accounting for the observed cosmos is the cosmological level. Mars is not going to answer that question; though were apparently independent life to be found there, it will be trumpeted as a triumph of the evolutionary materialist school of thought. It is that level that, per astrophysics and cosmology over the past 90 years, strongly points to ours being a fine tuned cosmos set to a locally deeply isolated operating point that sets the stage for a world in which C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life can exist. Such fine tuning points to design. Design beyond the cosmos and even beyond a speculative multiverse. Pulling back a bit, evolutionary materialism, separately, is in fact self-referentially incoherent as a worldview. For much the reason already pointed out: it cannot account for the responsible, rational freedom we need to reason, warrant, know and argue in hopes of fact and logic carrying the day. Before even coming in the door as a hoped for scientific explanation, evolutionary materialism's self referential incoherence needs to be squarely faced. Which, makes it strictly irrelevant to any serious explanation of anything. It self falsifies and that in a way that means it is utterly unreliable in terms of what it projects, predicts or explains. The lab coat is empty. Going onwards, and as linked to in earlier threads, the logic of being points to a world root that needs to be a necessary being. Which cannot be material, as such will be inherently contingent. This points to mind before and as the cause of the observed cosmos. This may not fit the conventional wisdom of our day, but that conventional wisdom is itself questionable. Bring to bear the fact of moral government, and we need to bridge the IS-OUGHT gap, leading to the point that such can only be adequately bridged at world-root level. The only serious candidate has already been pointed out. Unsurprisingly, evolutionary materialism struggles with responsible, rational freedom and linked moral government. So much the worse for it. But, coming full circle, the design inference proper does not depend on the ultimate nature of designers responsible for what it does detect: design as causal process evident from empirically reliable signs, such as FSCO/I. KFkairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Tiger131, iD is compatible with everything because it can explain everything. But it is not testable or predictable. You also mentioned the idea that ID is dead. It is certainly not dead, and will never be (in one form or another) as long as religion survives. But it is certainly comatose. Just look at UD. The most popular thread in the last thirty days has been about hardening soft targets against terrorism. I am having a hard time finding s link between this and ID.George Edwards_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, I'm asking you whether ID is compatible with materialism. On the other thread Mr Arrington said yes, but Mr Cain said no. What do you think? If ID is compatible with materialism, then finding a materialistic origin of life on Mars would not mean ID is dead, would it?Tiger131_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

T, I believe this is the thread where the issue was answered in the OP, and you were answered in comments: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-rest-on-metaphysical-claims-about-dualism/ The design inference is an exercise in inductive inference to best current explanation, and does not assume or depend on metaphysical dualism. Hence the strong AI example above. It seems you need to work through that logic. This duly noted, under the circumstances of fine tuning of the cosmos in particular, inferred design of a cosmos set up for life based on C-chemistry, aqueous medium cells in terrestrial, solar system and galactic habitable zones, can and does point to design beyond the observed cosmos and even beyond a speculative multiverse. Such an argument fits in well with a wider cumulative case pointing to necessary being, root cause of the observed cosmos that is minded and not material. Matter is incapable of being a necessary being as it is inherently contingent, cf. also the failure of the flying spaghetti monster type parody. Where, evolutionary materialism decisively fails as an account of reality by self referential incoherence. It cannot account for rational, responsible freedom, a necessity for us to reason, warrant, know and have a discussion shaped by those factors. Materialism is not a viable worldview. As a start-point for reflecting on this, cf. J B S Haldane in a famous remark:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Further to this, our being under moral government points to a root level IS that grounds OUGHT. This cluster, in another level of inference to best explanation at worldviews level, highlights that after centuries of debate, there is but one serious candidate: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. (And yes, in that lurks a definition of evil as the twisting or frustration of the good out of its proper framework or purpose manifest in its nature.) There are several recent postss at UD that explore such themes and you are referred there. E.g. cf here: https://uncommondescent.com/education/the-reasonableness-of-god-as-world-root-being-the-is-that-grounds-ought-and-cosmos-architect/ (The onward links elaborate many of the themes just touched on in this comment.) KFkairosfocus_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus - Does that mean "yes: id is compatible with materialism" ?Tiger131_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

T, inbuilt telos. As I believe was pointed to you. I won't more than point to some forms of Molinism also. I add, cross purposes, the design inference is an induction on much tested, reliable sign and by itself does not indicate identity or nature within or beyond cosmos. Should real strong AI ever get off the ground and a robot becomes an effective designer, it would be recognised as such. Objectors to design theory often err here, thinking that inferring design on tested, reliable sign is an "assumption" when per FSCO/I, chance and/or necessity are ruled out and design is inferred. No, it is inference to best explanation, and to overturn it provide a solid counter example. A commonplace of science. KFkairosfocus_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus - Is it fair to say ID might be compatible with a materialistic origin of life?Tiger131_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Similar to Earth? Used to have a lot of water?kairosfocus_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

I just don't understand why our hopes for finding ancient life should remain on Mars.Mung_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Life transcends matter. Materialism is incompatible with life.Mung_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

So ... is it fair to say ID might be compatible with a materialistic origin of life?Tiger131_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

T, the issue is the FSCO/I involved, which is an empirically reliable sign of design backed by the needle in haystack challenge. Trivially, there is a cosmological side to ID, a world that sets up C chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life is incredibly fine tuned. The real issue is, projecting the problem. For, the assumption that there is a credible chemical evolution blind chance and mechanical necessity, empirically anchored account that gets us to origin of cell based life is highly questionable. KFkairosfocus_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Isn't it fair to say ID can be compatible with a materialistic origin of life?Tiger131_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

H'mm: Explore Mars, find traces of ancient life. Voila, materialistic origin of life on chance and necessity is easy, ID and Creationism are dead. Does it really come down to that? Or, would it not be wiser to ground Mars and Asteroid belt exploration on their own merits as we break out of our home planet across this century and begin to colonise the solar system? If we need a policy rationale, wouldn't international unity and joint development of technology and knowledge that potentially transforms our accessible resources be enough? Including, say, a Bussard polywell tech derived drive, with spin offs on fusion tech and energy transformation? (And would not putting together an industrial civ 2.0 global village construction set as part of the colonising project open up development all across the world? Including of course a practical near von Neumann kinematic self replicator and universal constructor?) Do we need to rethink? KFkairosfocus_{December 18, 2015
December
12
Dec
18
18
2015
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply