Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller claims increasing information in life forms is easy

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 26, 2015

Information, News, Religion}

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

What’s needed to drive this increase? Just three things: selection, replication, and mutation.” – Kenneth Miller, Only a Theory, p. 77

Thoughts?

See also: Wow. Catholic Darwinism goes nuts. A mass for Darwin. Or is this a joke?

Open a window, someone, please.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

BA77,
This mathematical proof came out recently [Reference to Daegene Song article published in 2007/2008]
There might be a problem with his work: Mathematical Error in Incompatibility between quantum theory and consciousness by Daegene SongdaveS_{May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

So extreme functional complexity only comes from mind, yet Popperian claims that mind only comes extreme functional complexity. Two problems with Popperian's gripe. First problem, materialists have never demonstrated that it is even remotely possible that mind can 'emerge' from a material basis. In fact, it is mathematically shown that mind CANNOT ever be reduced to material explanation.
‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’ David Barash – Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor
There is simply no direct evidence that anything material is capable of generating consciousness. As Rutgers University philosopher Jerry Fodor says,
"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness. Regardless of our knowledge of the structure of the brain, no one has any idea how the brain could possibly generate conscious experience."
As Nobel neurophysiologist Roger Sperry wrote,
"Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature."
From modern physics, Nobel prize-winner Eugene Wigner agreed:
"We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind."
Contemporary physicist Nick Herbert states,
"Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot."
Physician and author Larry Dossey wrote:
"No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it." http://www.merkawah.nl/public_html/images/stories/ccvsgwrepr.pdf
This mathematical proof came out recently
Consciousness Does Not Compute (and Never Will), Says Korean Scientist - May 05, 2015 Excerpt: "Non-computability of Consciousness" documents Song's quantum computer research into TS (technological singularity (TS) or strong artificial intelligence). Song was able to show that in certain situations, a conscious state can be precisely and fully represented in mathematical terms, in much the same manner as an atom or electron can be fully described mathematically. That's important, because the neurobiological and computational approaches to brain research have only ever been able to provide approximations at best. In representing consciousness mathematically, Song shows that consciousness is not compatible with a machine. Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie." Of note: Daegene Song obtained his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Oxford http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/consciousness-does-not-compute-and-never-will-says-korean-scientist-300077306.html
Second problem with Popperian's gripe, quantum mechanics now gives us compelling evidence that mind precedes material reality:
A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit
bornagain77_{May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Harry:
One might reasonably conclude, since significant functional complexity is only known to come about via intelligent agency, that the most functionally complex phenomenon known to us — life — most likely came about through intelligent agency.
The problem with this sort of inductive argument, is that you do not, and cannot, use it consistently. Reason, in the form of some kind of theory, regardless of how poor, always comes first. Since intelligent agency is only known to come about though significant functional complexity, including complex material brains, is it reasonable to conclude that the most intelligent agency would come about through extreme, significant material complexity? After all, humans are the most intelligent agents we know of. And we have the most complex, functional nervous systems, right? Yet, I'm guessing you do not think that would be a reasonable conclusion.Popperian_{May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

StephenB @17, Yeah. Like God occasionally asks Himself, "Where did that come from?" There is no way the notion that the Universe and the life within it can be explained as mindless accidents is reconcilable with the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that, "God can be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason." If it could have all happened mindlessly and accidentally then God definitely cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made. If find Catholic intellectuals irritating who attempt to reconcile those two diametrically opposed ideas, wanting to remain in good standing with the atheistic intelligentsia who dominate the institutions of society, and at the same time attempt to present themselves as orthodox Catholics. It just doesn't work. And it is such a "no brainer" that the Universe and the life within it were not mindless accidents. We now know that the odds of the Big Bang producing a Universe where life would become a possibility were 1 in 10^10^123 (See Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe). The double exponentiation results in a number so large that it gives the assertion that the fine-tuning of the Universe for life was intended by an intelligent agent far more certainty than we are expected to have regarding the operations of the laws of physics. It is far more likely that gravity will stop working tomorrow than it is that the Universe being fine-tuned for life was dumb luck. As you know, atheism's lame, desperate response to this is multiverse theory. That feeble, flimsy, sorry response should be very enlightening to those who are genuinely agnostic regarding the existence of God. If that is the best the godless can come up with to counter the facts -- countless unobservable universes with absolutely no evidentiary basis whatsoever, universes the existence of which must be taken on blind faith -- then it should become obvious that only a very small and very reasonable faith is required to believe in one God, and an enormous, blind, irrational faith is required to believe in atheism's countless, imaginary, "untuned" universes. Some people actually believe that there are bajillions of other "not so lucky" universes, and that they make ours being fine-tuned for life a mere accident, but one that had to happen in some universe, as in "Some universe had to win the universe tuning lottery. It was ours." I have some prime real estate along the Kansas coast I will sell to those who buy that, since it is obvious they will buy anything. As Chesterton put it (and I know it is a thoroughly worn out cliché, but indulge me ;o) "When we stop believing in God, we do not then believe in nothing, we believe in anything." And then then there is the fact that the most functionally complex phenomenon known to us is life, which we now know is digital-information-based nanotechnology, and also the fact that every other instance of significant functional complexity known to us, and certainly every other instance of digital-information-based functional complexity known to us, are all known to have had intelligent agency as a causal factor in their development. One might reasonably conclude, since significant functional complexity is only known to come about via intelligent agency, that the most functionally complex phenomenon known to us -- life -- most likely came about through intelligent agency. The only causally adequate explanation for the fine-tuning of the Universe and for the emergence of the life within it is intelligent agency. Such facts provide the rational with clues, which is why atheism is clueless.harry_{May 27, 2015
May
05
May
27
27
2015
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

harry, I have often thought along those same lines. In my post "Christian Darwinism and the problem of apriori intent," (June 18, 2011) I wrote this: "The God of the Christian Darwinists does not even know what He is producing until He produces it. At that point, He looks back as if to say, “What do we have here? I wonder who initiated this process. Oh wait, that was me!”StephenB_{May 27, 2015
May
05
May
27
27
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @9,
… how does he reconcile? I don’t think he even tries.
I think you are right. ;o) I think Ken Miller needs to get a grip on the meaning of "omniscience" and "omnipotence." If God holds the Universe in existence, and past, present and future are all equally present to Him, and His providence is perfect, complete and in control of everything right down to the last subatomic particle (the free wills of rational creatures being the only exception), then whatever has transpired that was not the result of the free will He bestowed upon rational beings was according to His foreknowledge, intention and perfect providence, including the emergence of humanity, however that happened. Whatever that was, it was intentional and not an accident. I don't have any problem with humanity being the result of a God-directed biological process that took place over billions of years in terms of my religious beliefs. It is just that the more I learn about the theories of abiogenesis and evolution the more absurd they seem to me. It looks to me like there was a series of creative acts on God's part, and that humanity was the result of very special creative act in that we were endowed with rationality and free will, or "rational souls." If Ken Miller would have written the creation accounts of Genesis He would probably have the Father looking down at the Earth and asking the Son, "Hey, what are those strange creatures?" The Son replies, "I don't know. I thought you created those things." The Spirit would then say "Don't look at me! They must have just evolved. They're cute. Let's name them 'Adam' and 'Eve.'" And God saw that it was good.harry_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

@SA#8 SA:
I think the premise: “The theory of evolution must be supplemented by a theory that those physical processes upon which it relies are provably compatible with no-design laws of physics.” – needs quite a lot more support than merely citing Wigner’s paper (from 1961) and Bohm.
Given the goal of evolutionary theory, It's a straight forward premise. If the design of organisms was already present at the outset in some form, then neo-Darwinism cannot be the explanation for the appearance of design in organisms. This includes design of organisms being present in the laws of physics. To quote the paper:
In the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis [5, 6, 7], the centrepiece of the expla- nation is a physical object - the replicator [5]: something that can be copied from generation to generation, by replication, and selected (between a set of variants) under the action of the environment. Instances of replicators in the earth’s biosphere are “genes”, i.e., portions of certain DNA molecule.(1) Natural selection relies on gene replication, with occasional errors; the ap- pearance of design is explained as adaptations for gene replication across generations; and the rest of the cell or organism (and sometimes other parts of the environment, e.g. nests, [6]) constitutes a vehicle for the replicators. Thus the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution relies on the laws of physics to permit replication and the processes essential to the latter – including, as I shall explain, self-reproduction. Therefore, for the theory to explain fully the appearance of design in the biosphere, it is essential that those processes be possible under laws of physics that do not contain the design of biological adaptations - which I shall call no-design laws.(2)
Furthermore, that design was already present in some form at the outset (or spontaneously appeared) is a key part of Lamarckism and ID. In addition to mice appearing spontaneously out of rags, Lamarck thought there was some natural law that mandated life became more complex. ID assumes the knowledge exists in some form or another at the outset or spontaneously appeared when organisms were created. If design was already present in some form, or spontaneously appeared, neo-Darwinism cannot be the explanation for the appearance of design in organisms. SA:
Where is the empirical evidence used to define what she means by “appearance of design”? Why don’t crystals show this? Where is the math that distinguishes between design and non-design?
While Paley was unsuccessful in his design argument, he was successful in identifying appearance of design. The difference between Paley’s rock and the watch wasn’t merely that one could serviced a purpose while the other could not. A rock could function a paper weight, a weapon, or a construction material, etc. Rather, the key difference was that the watch was well adapted to a purpose (telling time), while the rock was not. The sun can also be used to keep time, but it could do so just as well if it was varied to even a great degree. This is because the sun wasn’t well adapted to keeping time in the first place. However, this isn’t the case for Paley’s watch, as good designs are hard to vary. It would be very hard to vary key aspects of the watch greatly and have it perform just as well at keeping time. Just as we can use knowledge to transform unadapted raw-materials in to highly adapted objects to suit our purpose, we can apply knowledge to use the sun for a purpose it was not well adapted to either. In the case of the sun, this knowledge exists in us and our sundials, not the sun itself. However, this knowledge does exist in both the watch (of how to tell time) and living organisms (how to make copies of themselves) This is briefly presented in constructor theoretic terms in section 3.1.1.
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 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.
I'd also point out that many ID arguments about the appearance of design are actually specific cases of the more generalized property of being hard to vary. Those that are not are inductive in nature, which is problematic. For example, one could just as well make the "inductive argument" that every source of intelligence we've observed has had a complex, material brain. Therefore, intelligence requires complex, material brains. Yet, I suspect ID proponents disagree with this.Popperian_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

So we need a new theory of physics so that neo-Darwinian evolution can be true, and once we have that new theory all that can be said is that neo-Darwinian theory is "compatible." Underwhelming.Mung_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

SA(3) As Larry Moran would say, “Ken Miller believes in the idiot version of evolution”. And Larry Moran's version of evolution is way less tenable than Ken Miller's. His view that natural selection plays only a soft role in evolution truly eliminates the possibility that the steps from simplicity to complexity could possibly have been selected for. Larry Moran provides the best anti-evolutionary case going.bFast_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

SA @ 3. LoL.Mung_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Re: "Where, in the biological community, has it been said that neo-Darwinian theory does not fully achieve its purpose?" thethirdwayofevolution.combFast_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

@SA I'd point out one aspect in which you seem to be confused: the paper is not a new theory of evolution. Rather, it is expressing neo-Darwinism in constructor theoretic terms. The motivation for which is briefly outlined in the paper: constructor theory is a new mode of explanation which allows neo-Darwinism to be brought into fundamental physics.Popperian_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

harry Good questions ... how does he reconcile? I don't think he even tries.
According to biologist Kenneth Miller, one of the most prominent proponents of “theistic” evolution, God did not plan the specific outcomes of evolution—including the development of human beings. Miller describes humans as “an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” While God knew that undirected evolution was so wonderful it would create some kind of creature capable of praising Him, that creature could have been “a big-brained dinosaur” or “a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities” rather than us. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/06/the-new-theistic-evolutionists-lack-direction/
Silver Asiatic_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Popperian - thank you. But there's nothing from the biological community on this, it seems.
These claims, stemming from the tradition of incredulity that living entities can be scientifically explained, [14], highlight a problem. The theory of evolution must be supplemented by a theory that those physical processes upon which it relies are provably compatible with no-design laws of physics. No such theory has been proposed; and those claims have not been properly refuted.
I haven't read Nagel's book, but that's the only reference to the "tradition of incredulity" on the claims of science with regards to living entities. I would think that ID research falls under that category, but there's no reference to the ID critique (unless William Paley counts). I think the premise: "The theory of evolution must be supplemented by a theory that those physical processes upon which it relies are provably compatible with no-design laws of physics." - needs quite a lot more support than merely citing Wigner's paper (from 1961) and Bohm. Is the ID critique of evolution valid?
Being so inaccurate, [replications as with crystals] do not require any further explanation under no-design laws: they do not have appearance of design, any more than simple inorganic catalysts do.
Interesting assertion which we agree with from the ID side. If true, it destroys all the bogus evolutionary arguments about the supposed organization crystals and rain clouds. Unfortunately, it's just an assertion. It needs evidence and verification. Where is the empirical evidence used to define what she means by "appearance of design"? Why don't crystals show this? Where is the math that distinguishes between design and non-design? She says:
even modest organisms, such as bacteria, display stupendously designed mechanisms, with many, different sub-parts coordinating to an overall function; they perform transformations on physical systems with remarkable accuracy, retaining their ability to do so again and again - just as if they had literally been designed.
This is about the best she offers on what is meant by "design". Unfortunately, outside of the ID community, nobody in biology thinks any of this is "stupendous" or "remarkable" (publicly) - it just happens.
But even more striking is that living cells can self-reproduce to high accuracy in a variety of environments, reconstructing the vehicle afresh, under the control of the genes, in all the intricate details necessary for gene replication. This is prima facie problematic under no-design laws: how can those processes be so accurate, without their design being encoded in the laws of physics?
Very good again. But unfortunately, as above - these are merely assertions. She asks a rhetorical questions "how can these be so accurate"? But there's no empirical evidence that indicates what that means and why it is a problem for evolution. In other words, it's not enough to just borrow a critique of evolution without having that critique confirmed, solidly, by evolutionary science. This is nowhere to be found. All of that said, I'm just asking this before even starting to analyze the paper because it speaks to the unfounded assertions that are presented in the premises. Is it even worth looking at this when it appears that no real analysis has been done about what the term "design" actually means and how one can identify it scientifically? It may very well offer a plausible approach from physics, but given the very loose understanding of the problem, I highly doubt it before actually studying what she has to say. In my opinion ... -- get a buy-in from biology that neo-Darwinism is inadequate -- get support for the fact that there is evidence for design in nature (and this design is not explained without this new theory) -- show the empirical evidence that distinguishes the design that she thinks is obvious After that, then there's something to talk about.Silver Asiatic_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

The claim that increasing information in life forms is easy reveals a naivete regarding digital information-based functional complexity. Any computer programmer who has written software that, to create the significant functional complexity that is required, must manage extensive amounts of information at the bit level and manipulate information at that level, knows that random changes to the CPU instructions or to the persistent data those instructions rely upon, are almost certainly going to decrease functionality or destroy it completely. As rare as a mindless, accidental yet functionality enhancing modification would be in a series of mindless, accidental modifications, it is certain that the rare occurance of such accidentally beneficial "mutations" would not change the fact that a series of mindless modifications to digital information-based functional complexity will inevitably destroy all functionality. As for Ken Miller being a Catholic, how does he reconcile with Catholic dogma his apparent belief that life as we find it now came about mindlessly and accidentally? Here is the belief of orthodox Catholics:
If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema. -- Vatican Council I, can. 2 § I
God created life, which culminated in His most spectacular creation: humanity. If one is determined to show that humanity came about mindlessly and accidentally then one does not seem to be an orthodox Catholic. If life could have come about mindlessly and accidentally then God cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made. Yet it has always been obvious that God was there from the things He has made, but never more so than today, with all that modern science has revealed to us in the last century. Maybe God's providence arranged that such discoveries would be made now because He knew this faithless, amazingly gullible generation would need more evidence than prior generations.harry_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

"Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller claims increasing information in life forms is easy" Ken Miller also thinks mouse traps make good tie clips.
Disproving Intelligent Design With A Mouse Trap https://youtu.be/rW_2lLG9EZM?t=51
Perhaps when Dr. Miller learns to dress himself properly, he can then learn what good empirical evidence to support his extraordinary claim might look like?:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper in this following podcast:
Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time – December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00
Here is a video for tech geeks that hashes the details out
Biological Information - Loss-of-Function Mutations by Paul Giem 2015 - video playlist (Behe - Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ
bornagain77_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

@SA The claim and motivation is referenced in the paper. For example, see the areas in bold below.
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) In contrast, actual gene-replication is an impressively accurate physical trans- formation, albeit imperfect. But even more striking is that living cells can self-reproduce to high accuracy in a variety of environments, reconstruct- ing the vehicle afresh, under the control of the genes, in all the intricate details necessary for gene replication. This is prima facie problematic un- der no-design laws: how can those processes be so accurate, without their design being encoded in the laws of physics? This is why some physicists - notably, Wigner and Bohm, [12], [13] - have even claimed that accurate self-reproduction of an organism with the appearance of design requires the laws of motion to be “tailored” for the purpose – i.e., they must contain its design [12]. These claims, stemming from the tradition of incredulity that living enti- ties can be scientifically explained, [14], highlight a problem. The theory of evolution must be supplemented by a theory that those physical processes upon which it relies are provably compatible with no-design laws of physics. No such theory has been proposed; and those claims have not been properly refuted. 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. (4) The very existence of catalysts might be a sign of fine-tuning in the laws of physics, but not fine-tuning for biological adaptations, with which we are concerned here. 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 characterisation 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. 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.
Emphasis mine.Popperian_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Popperian Before starting to read and analyze this new theory from a physicist on evolution, I'd just request some clarifications. First, where in the biological community has it been said that this new theory is required? We have plenty of support in the ID world for criticisms of evolutionary theory, but where did Ms. Marletto hear of it? For example, from the intro ...
I show that for those processes to be possible without the design of biological adaptations being encoded in the laws of physics, those laws must have certain other properties.
Evidence to support the meaning of the italicized text? That is an unreferenced premise. Where, in the biological or other literature, does it say that "the design of biological adaptations must be encoded in the laws of physics"?
The theory of what these properties are is not part of evolution theory proper, and has not been developed, yet without it the neo-Darwinian theory does not fully achieve its purpose of explaining the appearance of design
As above - reference here? Where, in the biological community, has it been said that neo-Darwinian theory does not fully achieve its purpose?Silver Asiatic_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

As Larry Moran would say, "Ken Miller believes in the idiot version of evolution".Silver Asiatic_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Thoughts? Miller's claim is found in significantly more specificity in the paper The Constructor Theory of Life
I shall now show that under no-design laws accurate self-reproducers and accurate replicators are not forbidden, provided only that the laws permit the existence of information media (and enough resources). This will vindicate that the theory of evolution by natural selection is compatible with those laws (and thus, in particular, with the current theories of physics). My argument includes three steps. First I establish that an accurate constructor for a generic task is compatible with no-design laws (section 3.1), provided that it contains a replicator, instantiating a recipe for that task. As a special case, I show that accurate self-reproducers are compatible with no-design laws (section 3.2), provided that they implement the “replicator- vehicle” logic; it follows that so are accurate replicators, and that they require there to be a self-reproducer. Finally I show that the logic of natural selection is compatible with no-design laws (section 3.3).
From the conclusion...
I have proved that the physical processes the theory of evolution relies upon are possible under no-design laws, provided that the latter allow for information media (and enough generic resources). Under such laws, accurate self-reproduction can occur, but only via von Neumann’s replicator-vehicle logic; and a high fidelity replicator requires an accurate self-reproducer. My argument also highlights that all accurate constructors, under such laws, must contain knowledge - a special abstract constructor - in the form of a recipe, instantiated in a replicator. I have also extended von Neumann’s model of the logic of self-reproduction to quantum theory. This informs further investigations of quantum effects in natural and artificial self-reproducers. Constructor theory has also expressed exactly within fundamental physics, the logic of self-reproduction, replica- tion, and natural selection, and the appearance of design. This has promise for a deep unification in our understanding of life and physics.
Does anyone have any criticism of paper's actual contents? I'm asking because I've already referenced it twice. Apparently, people disagree with it, without having any actual criticism of its contents.Popperian_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Don't know whether it's "easy", but apparently at least small increases in this particular type of information are possible.daveS_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply