1) I must confess that you know of these things more than I do.
2) I must also confess that I see you struggling in establishing some people
and their theories to be right and some other people and their theories to be
wrong. IMHO, this attitude comes across in a negative way.
3) I may have misunderstood you but you also failed to see something. ALL
the info necessary to create the brain must be in the sperm + egg's DNA, It
is logical to think that it has to. But, till what stage of development are
the gene responsible for brain wiring? In being reductionists we forget the
"system". Once the brain is "formed" but before it is fully grown and mature
the "system" has a lot influence on its wiring as well as the environment
where the system is. By system I mean the entire developing embryo or fetus.
4) It is already complex enough, in my opinion, that the DNA must have the
blueprint for the initial stages of brain development (even before birth)
which "prepares" the brain for "self wiring" if you will, or rather, wiring by
the system-environment. So, in a way, there is enough information for the
brain in the DNA, because without that info there the brain never would get
ready to the state of development where the system-environment can shape it.
This applies to all organs that need wiring. It may not apply to other
organs, so for the rest of the body it may be true that "all biological
structures require detailed, specified information in order for them to
exist." And they legitimately doubt that the required information can arise
by chance. The entire basis upon which their major antievolutionary claim is
based may be right.
5) You said "There is no specified information for the brain." Well, I think
again you are rushing a bit much after reading some of the hundred books on
the brain. You may be right, I doubt it, you also may be wrong. In any case,
is not just a matter of right or wrong, them and yours, we are all interacting
and the truth may come from either or both camps (if just two camps). We'll see.
6) You said: "If they [the design people] admit that there is an object in the
universe which arises with each pregnancy, which is not specified, their
entire research agenda fails. The only way out is for them to explain where
the information is encoded." By this statement I can only conclude that you
(i) are putting a bunch of people holding dissimilar ideas on design into one
bag and (ii) that you don't understand very much what they are after (which by
the way it is evolving). I don't think at all that their research agenda will
fail given the conditions you mentioned, I think it will simply be modified,
and it will continue to evolve from there (and not by chance).
7) I said " How do, for example, the interactions between developing cells [I
mean cells in the developing embryo or fetus] use simple bits of information
from the original genetic code, amplify them, modify them, integrate them, and
execute them, so that the entire "person" is formed?" You answered "You have
obviously missed the entire point. there is not anywhere in the genome
sufficient information for the brains wiring pattern." Now I say that you
missed the point, you are looking for info as a reducctionist and you are
failing to see the developing system as able to take bits of info to form the
brain in a certain environment. if some bits of info are not there (DNA) the
system can not amplify them, modify them, integrate them, and execute them,
resulting in a bad brain that cannot be wired properly.
8) In either case, I failed to see how one view of the other can be explained
by evolution.
Salu2
Eduardo
Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> Hi Eduardo,
>
> At 10:36 AM 10/29/97 -0600, Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
> >Very nice info Glenn, thanks. I never thought that "ALL" the information was
> >in the genetic code, this has been known for a long time in my opinion.
>
> Maybe you didn't, but to listen to many Christian apologists, the
> information must be specified. That is the whole point of Dembski's
> specified complexity (PSCF 49:3, pp 180-190) and Behe's suggestion that all
> the information for all the animals ever to be created on earth was put into
> the first cell (Darwin's Black Box p. 231). If there isn't enough
> information in our genome for our brains, then how could one possibly stuff
> enough information into the first cell. The first cell must have been
> 99.99% DNA!
>
> My complaint is, since this HAS been known for a long time, why is it that
> Christian apologists continue to demand that all biological structures
> require detailed, specified information in order for them to exist. And
> they go further than this by saying that this information cannot arise by
> chance and so evolution must be wrong. The entire basis upon which the
> major antievolutionary claim is based is wrong!!! Why do I have to learn of
> these things from non-christians rather than Christians?
>
> I will make a prediction (and I hope by making this prediction I help
> falsify it because I want to goad them into a response): I will bet that the
> fact that the brain is underspecified in informational content will be
> ignored by the design guys. If they admit that there is an object in the
> universe which arises with each pregnancy, which is not specified, their
> entire research agenda fails. The only way out is for them to explain where
> the information is encoded.
>
> >For
> >example, it is now "common" knowledge that the critical age for children is
> >somewhat between 3 and 7 years during which most of the "wiring" in the brain
> >is done - wiring that determines "intelligence" later in life. Is is most
> >important to stimulate children during this time.
>
> This is not the issue. The issue is specified complexity as Dembski, Behe,
> Nelson and Meyer define it. There is no specified information for the brain.
>
> >I don't understand what is your "resistance" against design (Ps. 19, Job) or
> >how the brain issue you here says anything about evolution. We are yet to
> >discover much about life (Horgan is wrong, Science is just beginning,
> >especially biological sciences). How do, for example, the interactions
> >between developing cells use simple bits of information from the original
> >genetic code, amplify them, modify them, integrate them, and execute them, so
> >that the entire "person" is formed?
>
> You have obviously missed the entire point. there is not anywhere in the
> genome sufficient information for the brains wiring pattern.
>
> We don't have much info on this but is
> >not logical, even according to what the advocates of design you quoted say,
> >that a few hundred thousand genes are enough of a blue print to form an entire
> >person.
>
> But the calculation showed that they are wrong in their belief that a few
> hundred thousand genes are enough for the SPECIFICITY that they demand of
> the evolutionists.
>
> glenn
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm