From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 17:49:03 EST
I don't think Dirk has given any answer to Preston at all. His initial
argument is very much "heads I win, tails you lose" and then his response is
a convoluted extension of that assertion. Basically Karl Popper would do his
nut and say it is not science as it is not falsifiable.
Having decided that 70 is the magic number (perhaps numerologists may note
the 7 - divine number) then proteins with 300 bits cant be natural and
therefore divine by interruption.
Apart from the tendentious argument it is also a very dangerous strategy as
what happens if the theory is wrong? Simply God retreats as a gap is filled.
It is a sophisticated version of God of the Gaps - which is of course the
staple of IDers however cleverly they express it.
Also Biochemistry is too young a science to be that sure we can decide such
things. Just on Friday I was with a recently retired colleague who was a
biochemist until 12 years ago (D.Sc taught at Lancaster UNIV) and was then
ordained. He pointed out the primitive state of biochemistry when he started
in 1960 , it was even more primitive in the 30s when penicillin was purified
and identified. Biochemistry is too young a science to make predictions or
assertions like this. If we do in a few years someone may/will find an
explanation and God is squeezed out of another gap.
For myself, I am no biochemist but am well aware of the relative infancy of
the subject, partly through my father's work in biochemistry up to the 60s.
Biochemistry today has explained many things but much is not explained at
all. We cannot say that the unexplained wont be explained because God did
it!!!! (Actually he did anyway!!) Biochemical ID theories seem to be of one
sort and that is to make a prediction which cannot be disproved at present
but may in the future. They sound good because they are wrapped up in amino
acids and complicated sums (math) but when you unwrap them they are God of
the Gaps pure and simple.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "KIRK DURSTON" <kirk@newscholars.com>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: Kirk Durston's response
> Kirk asked me to post this for him, in response to your questions, as he
> is not a member of this list. - Denyse
>
> Intro:
>
> >>>> This hypothesis yields two falsifiable predictions: a) natural
> processes will never be observed to produce more than 70 bits of
> information, and b) any configuration or sequence that is actually
> observed to be produced that contains more than 70 bits, will always be
> produced by an intelligent agent.
>
>
> Question:
>
> >> Please explain exactly how this could be falsified. If someone says,
> >> "look at all these natural proteins which to all appearances
> >> developed gradually during evolution" you will say, "they contain
> >> over 70 bits of CSI, therefore they must be designed." If we could
> >> directly observe that they came about by a string of individual
> >> mutations, you could still say, "it contains 70 bits of CSI,
> >> therefore God was directing each mutation and its fixation along the
> >> way."
> >>
> >> So what could possibly count as falsification?
> >>
> >> Preston G.
>
>
> Response:
>
> First, just a couple points of clarification.
>
> I'm not familiar enough with Dembski's work to use the term 'CSI'. I
> would prefer to simply use the term 'functional information' as
> discussed in Jack Szostak's very brief article 'Molecular information',
> Nature 423, (2003), 689. As for why I prefer to use Shannon's approach
> to information rather than the Kolmogorov-Chaitin approach, see Adami &
> Cerf, 'Physical complexity of symbolic sequences' Physica D, 137 (2000),
> 62-69. Also, I think Shannon information is reasonably well understood
> by biologists and relatively uncontroversial. I do look forward to
> reading Dembski's works, but have not yet had the time to do so.
>
> There are some problems with the question. I will respond to each of
> them and then suggest two empirical approaches to verification or
> falsification. First, I want to point out that both predictions use the
> term 'observed'. Of course, proteins already exist; we have not observed
> their initial construction. All we can observe today is the copying or
> replication of existing functional information which, itself, requires
> no new information. There is danger of circular reasoning when proteins
> are described as 'natural' (in the question). Referring to proteins as
> 'natural' assumes that they were produced by natural processes. We do
> not know that. We did not observe how they came into existence. Thus the
> problem we are faced with is that the average 300 residue protein
> requires roughly 500 bits to encode. We do not observe any natural
> processes at all that can do such a thing. Therefore we are left
> wondering how such a thing happened. Calling them 'natural' and then
> concluding that, since they are natural, then natural processes can do
> such things is an obvious logical fallacy; it is circular reasoning. We
> cannot assume that they are 'natural'. Of course, it is an empirical
> fact that intelligent agents, such as humans, can produce vast amounts
> of functional information. Couple that with our empirical observations
> that nature cannot seem to produce more than a few dozen bits of
> information at best, and the resulting hypothesis I suggested is the
> most rational position to hold, supported by empirical observations.
>
> With respect to the possibility that God might be tinkering with
> experiments behind the scenes, when we do science, we make a tacit
> assumption that God is not doing such things. There is a way to test if
> we had such suspicions, but I see no reason to believe that He is.
> Furthermore, the same objection could be raised against any possible
> falsification for any hypothesis. One could always claim that hypothesis
> X was not really falsified, since God was tinkering away behind the
> scenes. So we need to assume that God is not tinkering behind the scenes
> if we are going to do science.
>
> There are probably a large number of ways to test the hypothesis that I
> presented, but I will only outline two. The first method would be to
> focus on a bacterial protein that has at least 6 highly conserved
> residues, any one of which, if substituted, would render the protein
> non-functional. Population A would have only one of these residues
> substituted for. Population B would have two, population C would have 3,
> and so on. Knowing the size of each population, and having an idea of
> replication times per population, and having in place some way of
> detecting when the gene (protein) became functional within a population,
> and so forth, one could then observe how many trials were required to
> mutate the gene back to functionality. One could then compare the
> experimental results with the number of trials predicted from
> probability calculations and see what kind of correlation there was
> between the two. For amino acids that must be conserved, the functional
> information they carry is maximized at 4.3 bits/highly conserved
> residue. Armed with the experimental data, one could then plot the
> results along with what probability theory would predict, and
> see if there is an upper limit to the amount of functional information
> that natural processes can produce. Similar work has already been
> underway for a number of years at the U of Wisconsin and the data thus
> far seems to correlate well with what one would predict from probability
> theory. Also, there seems to be an upper limit for the amount of
> functional information that can be regenerated that is surprisingly
> modest, significantly less than 40 bits. Also, we note that the more
> functional information that has to be regenerated, the more likely other
> areas of the temporarily non-functional gene will be degraded during its
> non-functional state, so it is not simply a matter of adding more time
> to the experiment. Rather, the experiment works against time. This
> suggested experiment will do two things. First, since the experimental
> data correlates well with what theory would predict, we can be more
> confident in our assumption that God is not tinkering away behind the
> scenes. Second, since the experimental data seems to indicate an upper
> limit for the regeneration of functional information that is well below
> 70 bits, the hypothesis is not falsified.
>
> There is a second, computational approach. One can run a simulation,
> such as Lenski's et al. 'The evolutionary origin of complex features'
> Nature 423 (2003), 139-144, to see what sort of informational jumps can
> be accomplished through a random walk. Of course, I am assuming that
> computers work within the laws of nature, God's not tinkering with the
> processor, and the simulation is not designed to cheat. We can then
> compare the results with what we would predict in theory to see if there
> is a correlation. Again, the results appear to correlate well, and there
> seems to be an upper limit. Lenski's simulation could achieve smaller,
> intermediate functional information jumps, but it could not achieve a 32
> bit jump. I have worked the numbers, and in theory, Lenski's simulation
> can achieve a 32 bit jump, he just needs to run his program a bit
> longer. He will never, however, achieve a 70 bit jump, and I can say
> that with confidence. Incidentally, something Lenski either does not
> realize, or chose not to discuss, is that one can achieve 32 bits by
> building in intermediate, selected for states, exactly as he did.
> However, he neglected to note that he will always have to input at least
> 32 bits of information into the virtual fitness landscape to do so. In
> general, one can reduce the amount of information acquired through a
> random walk by inputting the information into some sort of fitness
> landscape that will guide the random walk. The problem is then shifted
> from explaining where the information in the protein came from, to where
> the information in the fitness landscape came from. The point is moot,
> however, because the fitness factor in the regions of sequence space
> between real-world regions of folding sequence space, is zero and
> perfectly flat. There appear to be no closely spaced islands of stable,
> folding sequence space between the major 3-D structural families in
> protein topologies.
>
> If, in either of the two above proposed experiments, we saw one of the
> predictions falsified, then the hypothesis would have to be either
> abandoned, or reworked. For the present, however, all the data seems to
> verify my hypothesis.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to
www.designorchance.com
> My next book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the
> Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) will be
> published Spring 2004.
>
> To order, call Castle Quay, 1-800-265-6397,
> fax 519-748-9835, or visit www.afcanada.com (CDN $19.95 or
> US$14.95).
>
> Denyse O'Leary
> 14 Latimer Avenue
> Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5N 2L8
> Tel: 416 485-2392/Fax: 416 485-9665
> oleary@sympatico.ca
> www.denyseoleary.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 17:53:29 EST