George Andrews wrote:
>
> Hi Bert;
>
> You wrote:
> "What is the overwhelming evidence? The overwhelming evidence is
> for many complex features in biological organisms without the
> faintest suggestion by anyone as to how they might form gradually
> and saltationism begs for a creator."
>
> Your complaint continues to be that there is not the "faintest
> suggestion by anyone" as to how complex features in biological organisms
>
> might form. My informing you of information generation in
> far-from-equilibrium systems (turbulent and/or chaotic) - with the
> example of
> BZ (chemical) generated information from strange attractors pertinent to
> biology - was at least this.
>
> The philosophical center of complexity theory is not simply that
> randomness generates order as your responses and examples involving
> dice seem to indicate. It is the interplay between the laws of physics
> and chemistry (Glenn referred to these in his mention of DEQs),
> often described as "top-down", operating on the stochastic fluctuations
> (noise) of the individual elements comprising a system that
> selects certain events having a parameter or state space that resonates
> with the driving mechanisms in a self amplifying manner. This thus
> gives prominence to a set of individual fluctuations over the prevailing
> stochastic background.
The physical laws (environment) select
> certain fluctuations (fittest mutation).
**************
A assertion not a proof. Far from equilibrium indeed. But that is not the issue.
In my post about dice I made the point about far from equilibrium, that is, what
is the occurance of unusual events. It can be calculated as is suggested above.
Yes yes yes you can make a case for this resonance driving some unusual things
but this is not sufficient. There is no carefull agruement presented as to getting to
the degree of complexity needed for ignition of life. It is not the principle
it is the numbers. This effect is not potent enough to get what you want.
The example of Dawkins I think is what your are argueing for and again in my
view it is not a valid model.
Incidently, fluctuations are not mutations in physics especially due to the
lack of a latch. Mr Brownian would be very
unhappy with you for inserting the biological word into physics.
************************************************
> This paradigm explains all of the patterns we observe in
> far-from-equilibrium systems found in nature, e.g. tornados, sand dune
> and rock
> formations, (the crystallization you mention is actually very low in
> complexity; but it does adhere to the above paradigm in the sense that
> upon reaching an energy threshold, order is suddenly generated from a
> previously chaotic state - random motion of the liquid ), fractal
> geometry (e.g. trees, shore lines, etc.) , pulsed lasers, Grand Canyons,
> .... It is therefore so much more than a few patterns arising from a
> random toss of the die as is your apparent understanding. In fact, as
> Stuart Kauffman puts it, (my paraphrase) because of the presently
> understood laws of nature (quantum mechanics), when a threshold is
> reached in a turbulent system, self organization predictable occurs;
> hence, the origin of life and the evolution of humans is not only
> possible but it is expected!
************
A great great leap of faith. Something like a cosmic taffy pull.
**********
>
> While I agree that the detailed description of processes involved in
> biological mutation is demanding ( I leave you in the apparently
> competent hands of Tim Ikeda and others on this list serve), it is
> fallacious to suggest that since we don't have the mechanism required
> by the evolutionary paradigm, it is not possible for it to have
> occurred.
******************
Not having a mechanism for evolutionary paradaigm does not mean it did not
happen that way. It does mean that it is not explained. Our own ignorance
does not prejudese the truth. However, not having an explaination and the
desire to believe in this paradaigm puts one into to position of having faith
that such a paradaigm exists, kinda like "Science of the Gaps."
**************
>
> As a matter of faith, it is an observational fact that our God has
> created a universe that self organizes. What stops a deistic charge is
> that
> Christian belief involves contingency and interaction via revelation and
> Holy Spirit - with the quintessential interjection of new information
> into natural process occurring in the manger of Bethlehem.
>
> Sincerely;
>
> George A.
************
George
Enjoyed your post we we disagree on the potency of the mechanisms of Kaufman.
Bert M
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 12:00:56 EST