From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 22:26:44 EST
Being somewhat confused about how 70 meager bits of information can be a
stumbling block to a simple evolutionary process, I ran my own basic
simulation. I took two arrays of 70 bits and started them with all zeros. One
was the “survivor” and the other was not. I then randomly "mutated" one bit
from the survivor array (to construct the second array) at each step. If it was
a zero, it became a one and vice versa. I then computed the total number of
ones in both arrays and took the one with the greater total to be the survivor
(more ones = the ability to get more of the food supply). The survivor array
had to acquire these 70 bits of “information” in this simple evolution model.
It did not take any 2^70 steps. In fact it generally took less than 300 steps
for the survivor to acquire 70 ones. Any evolutionary process is one that
builds upon previous steps and does not follow a random walk. It more closely
resembles a sum of the the average terms than the product of the
probabilities. I do not understand the ID viewpoint at all.
What am I missing?
Walt
Denyse O'Leary wrote:
> As before, Denyse, please have this posted on the ASA discussion list.
>
> - done, d.
>
> On 11/10/03 5:49 PM, "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> Two points to make here. First, 70 bits is not simply picked out of the
> blue. If one plots 'information gain' vs. 'time', one will notice that
> the curve approaches a horizontal asymptote somewhere in the region of
> 70 bits. I say 'somewhere in the region' because the amount of
> information carried per site in any sequence will affect how soon the
> curve goes asymptotic.
>
> Second, Michael's objection misrepresents my hypothesis. He implies that
> my argument goes something like, "wow, I can't see how nature can do
> this, therefore, God must've done it!" This is neither the argument, nor
> the hypothesis. My hypothesis is based upon two empirical observations:
>
> 1) In our observations of the day-to-day processes of nature, we notice
> that natural processes cannot seem to produce more than a few dozen bits
> of functional information. They do not even seem to have the capability.
>
> 2) In our observations of this world, we notice that intelligent agents,
> such as humans, can produce vast amounts of functional information.
>
> >From the above two empirical observations, we can put together an
> hypothesis:
>
> Hypothesis: Any structure, configuration, or sequence that requires more
> than 70 bits of functional information, requires intelligent design.
>
> Michael has not considered the role of empirical observation (2).
> Without (2), then the argument would, indeed, collapse into a
> God-of-the-gaps argument. With (2), however, the argument stands on
> solid, empirical ground, and gives us a real, live, empirically
> verifiable option.
>
> There are good reasons for all this, that center around the fact that
> configurations that contain a large amount of information, represent a
> very large entropic anomaly in the physical system, under Shannon
> information.
>
> Nature is not in the business of producing huge anomalies on a regular
> basis. For a minimal genome, we would need roughly 250 anomalies so
> large, that even just one of them is not likely to occur in the history
> of the universe. When we see something like that, we need to face
> reality, rather than concoct yet another ad hoc story with an ever
> increasing number of epicyclic embellishments, as the ardent Darwinist
> such as Dawkins is so wont to do. Dawkins, and others like him, have
> confused the art of story-telling with doing hard science. They are
> guilty of the 'evolution-of-the-gaps' argument.
>
> As for Michael's contention that the hypothesis is not falsifiable, I
> must ask him to carefully go over the two experiments I proposed. Either
> experiment is capable of falsifying the hypothesis if the hypothesis is
> wrong. The fact that, thus far, experiments have failed to falsify the
> hypothesis should not be taken as grounds for saying that the hypothesis
> is not falsifiable, otherwise, every true hypothesis in science would
> fall into the same category. Some hypotheses, although falsifiable, may
> not be able to be falsified simply because they are a true description
> of the way the world is.
>
> I repeat my challenge; do the science proposed in my two suggested
> experiments and see if my hypothesis, which is falsifiable, is actually
> falsified or not.
>
> >> 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.
>
> I cannot speak for all ID theorists; I am sure that some may actually
> use various forms of a God-of-the-gaps argument. I do know, however,
> that the general assertion that Michael makes misrepresents some ID
> theorists, including myself. One should not be so convinced that all ID
> theorists use such-and-such argument that when a valid ID argument comes
> along which the skeptic cannot refute, the skeptic assumes it is merely
> a highly sophisticated form of the standard argument, so sophisticated,
> mind you, that the skeptic cannot actually cannot show the link. When
> that occurs, then it becomes the skeptic's own beliefs that leave the
> realm of falsification.
>
> >> 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.
>
> There is a lot more than mere biochemistry involved in my hypothesis.
> There is a steadily growing body of evidence from physics, information
> theory, and mathematics, all of it consistent with the hypothesis I
> present. Furthermore, the gap, when it comes to natural processes that
> can produce novel 3-D structures in proteins, and encode functional
> information into regulatory sequences, is not by any stretch of the
> imagination becoming smaller.
>
> One more point. Until a person has a scientific method to detect ID, one
> cannot, on scientific grounds, say that ID was or was not involved. I
> see a large number of scientists insisting that ID was not involved in
> the origin and diversification of organic life, yet they do not have a
> scientific method to test such statements. That is bad science. In a
> personal email conversation I had with Richard Dawkins a couple years
> ago, it became quite clear that Dawkins not only does not have a
> scientific method to test for ID, he is actually opposed to science
> developing one!
>
> Furthermore, I see far too many scientists who foresee the philosophical
> implications of ID and who therefore refuse to do the science. The job
> of science is to develop a generally accepted method to detect ID and
> then let the philosophers and theologians wrestle with the implications.
> But scientists should not let the philosophical implications hinder
> scientific inquiry. That is bad science. So the real people who are
> smuggling philosophy and religion into their science are those who
> oppose ID without any scientific method to test for ID. The hypothesis I
> present offers such a scientific method. It makes predictions that are
> falsifiable. It can be applied to the real world, and comes up with
> results that are repeatable and entirely consistent with the general
> body of empirical science.
>
> 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
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 22:28:26 EST