On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:03:11 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[continued]
>PM>Actually it is hardly a problem for the origin of life and
>neither is it a problem for the snowflake. But the latter one is at
>a thermodynamical equilibrium, far from such equilibrium complexity
>and order can increase spontaneously as shown by Prigogine.
>SJ>Sorry, Pim, but there is no comparison between the kind of order
>found in a "snowflake" and that of a living thing:
>PM>Of course not but it shows that order can increase without
>violating the SLOT.
Now you are trying to shift ground again! No one denies "that order
can increase without violating the SLOT" Your original point was that
"order can increase spontaneously" and you cited both "the origin of
life" and "the snowflake" as examples. Now you admit that "there is
no comparison between the kind of order found in a "snowflake" and
that of a living thing", so how come you *make* a "comparison"
between them?
PM>As I pointed out however, for evolutionary processes which take
>place at far equilibrium, increase in complexity is almost
>inevitable.
You complained that creationists "increase confusion by discussing
evolution in its wider realm and then imply that this shows problems
for evolution (biological)" and this is "both misleading and
incorrect". Yet here you are in the one breath including
"evolutionary processes which take place at far equilibrium" in
non-living things (like a "snowflake") with those that take place
within "living things", even though you also agree that "there is no
comparison between the kind of order found in a "snowflake" and that
of a living thing"!
>SJ>" No nonliving things (except DNA and protein in living things,
>human artifacts and written language) have specified complexity."
PM>I am confused about specified complexity. How does one specify
>the complexity?
Dawkins gives a good example of a combination lock:
"The combination lock on my bicycle has 4,096 different positions. I
Every one of these is equally 'improbable' in the sense that, if you
spin the wheels at random, every one of the 4,096 positions is
equally unlikely to turn up. I can spin the wheels at random, look
at whatever number is displayed and exclaim with hindsight: 'How
amazing. The odds against that number appearing are 4,096:1. A
minor miracle!' That is equivalent to regarding the particular
arrangement of rocks in a mountain, or of bits of metal in a
scrap-heap, as 'complex'. But one of those 4,096 wheel positions
really is interestingly unique: the combination 1207 is the only one
that opens the lock. The uniqueness of 1207 has nothing to do with
hindsight: it is specified in advance by the manufacturer. If you
spun the wheels at random and happened to hit 1207 first time, you
would be able to steal the bike, and it would seem a minor miracle.
If you struck lucky on one of those multi-dialled combination locks
on bank safes, it would seem a very major miracle, for the odds
against it are many millions to one, and you would be able to steal a
fortune." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London,
1991, pp7-8)
Specified complexity can be maintained by a blueprint specified
in a error-checked coded programs that directs machines (as occurs in
the cell). The problem for Darwinism is how did "specified
complexity" arise in the first place:
"The origin of life requires the initial encoding of specified
blueprints, a non-Darwinian process. Specification involves
arbitrary definitions for the "letters" used to write the "messages."
How then did specified complexity (blueprints and their described
products/"machines") arise from any amount of nonspecified complexity
(complex machines, but no blueprints)?' (Wilcox D.L, in Buell J. &
Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", 1994, p201)
PM>And furthermore how does this apply to the SLOT and thermodynamics
>? After all the snowflake example merely shows that the simplistic
>arguments that order always decreases is wrong. Of course the
>example is simplistic since the processes of interest to evolution do
>not take place at thermodynamic equilibrium.
Who is making "arguments that order always decreases"? Of course in
the short run there can be local increases in order. But the overall
trend is a increase in disorder (entropy).
Besides, the "order" of a "snowflake" is not relevant to the issue
of the specified complexity of the information-bearing molecules like
DNA:
1. A "snowflake" is formed by atomic bonding forces when the
temperature drops, ie. when energy is *reduced*:
"...in phase changes such as water transforming into ice. As ice
forms, energy...is liberated to the surrounding. The change in the
entropy of the system as the amorphous water becomes crystalline ice
is...negative because the thermal and configuration entropy (or
disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly
ordered crystal....energy is removed from water to produce ice, and
the aggregate disordering of the surroundings is greater than the
ordering of the water into ice crystals....It has often been argued
by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may
polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The
analogy is clearly inappropriate, however. The /\E + P/\V term...in
the polymerization of important organic molecules is generally
positive...indicating the reaction can never spontaneously occur at
or near equilibrium. By contrast the /\E + P/\V term in water
changing to ice is a negative...indicating the phase change is
spontaneous...The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an
orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy
driving force...is made sufficiently small by lowering the
temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining
at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly
arrangement." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The
Mystery of Life's Origin, 1992, pp120-121).
2. The order of information-bearing macromolecules like DNA is
qualitatively different from that of crystals like snowflakes, since
it does not arise solely from physical forces within matter:
"...the snowflake's structure is nothing mysterious or supernatural.
It arises by the natural process of dendritic growth that accompanies
the phase change of H2O from liquid (water) to solid (snow). The
classical argument from design claims that the order we see around us
cannot have arisen by natural causes. The snowflake seems to refute
this claim. It demonstrates that at least some kinds of order can
arise by natural causes. And if matter alone can give rise to order
in some instances, why not in all others as well? Why do we need
anymore to appeal to an intelligent Being to explain the origin of
life and the world? We need only continue to search for natural
causes...Through the application of information theory, it is now
realized that there are actually two kinds of order. The first kind
(the snowflake's) arises from constraints within the material a thing
is made of (in this case water molecules). We cannot infer an
intelligent cause from it, except possibly in the remote sense of
something behind the natural cause. The second kind, however, is not
a result of anything within matter itself. It is in principle
opposed to anything we see forming naturally. This kind of order
does provide evidence for an intelligent cause." (Bradley W.L. &
Thaxton C.B., in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994,
p203)
3. The order of a snowflake has *zero* information content because it
is just a single regular pattern repeated over and over again. But
a biomolecule has a unique *irregular* pattern that corresponds to a
*message*:
"...information theory has given us tools to distinguish between the
two kinds of order we distinguished at the beginning. Lack of order
- randomness - is neither specified nor high in information. The
first kind of order is the kind found in a snowflake. Using the
terms of information theory, a snowflake is specified but has a low
information content. Its order arises from a single structure
repeated over and over. It is like the book filled with "I love
you." The second kind of order, the kind found in the faces on Mount
Rushmore, is both specified and high in information...Molecules
characterized by specified complexity make up living things. These
molecules are, most notably, DNA and protein. By contrast, nonliving
natural things fall into one of two categories. They are either
unspecified and random (lumps of granite and mixtures of random
nucleotides) or specified but simple (snowflakes and crystals). A
crystal fails to qualify as living because it lacks
complexity. A chain of random nucleotides fails to qualify because
it lacks specificity. No nonliving things (except DNA and protein in
living things, human artifacts and written language) have specified
complexity. For a long time biologists overlooked the distinction
between these two kinds of order (simple, periodic order versus
specified complexity). Only recently have they appreciated that the
distinguishing feature of living systems is not order but specified
complexity. The sequence of nucleotides in DNA or of amino acids in
a protein is not a repetitive order like a crystal. Instead it is
like the letters in a written message." (Bradley W.L. & Thaxton
C.B., in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, pp207-208)
4. There is plenty of experimental evidence that the simple regular
order found in snowflakes can arise solely by physical forces, but
there is *no* experimental evidence that the complex, irregular,
specified-in-advance order found only in biomacromolecules can arise
solely by physical forces:
"We now know there is no connection at all between the origin of
order and the origin of specified complexity. There is no connection
between orderly repeating patterns and the specified complexity in
protein and DNA. We cannot draw an analogy, as many have incorrectly
done, between the formation of a crystal and the origin of life. We
cannot argue that since natural forces account for the crystal, they
account for the structure of living things. The order we find in
crystals and snowflakes is not analogous to the specified complexity
we find in living things. Are we not back to a more sophisticated
form of the argument from design? With the insights from information
theory we need no longer argue from order in a general sense. Order
with low information content (the first kind) does arise by natural
processes. However, there is no convincing experimental evidence
that order with high information content (the second kind or
specified complexity) can arise by natural processes. Indeed, the
only evidence we have in the present is that it takes intelligence to
produce the second kind of order. (Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B.in
Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis"., 1994, p208)
[...]
>PM>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So this problem
>could be merely temporal. Hardly a brilliant analysis.
>SJ>Sorry Pim, "Absence of evidence" *is* "evidence of absence".
>Otherwise, what would be "evidence of absence"? The true statement
>is: "Absence of evidence is not" *necessarily* "evidence of
>absence".
PM>Nit picking.
No. It is *exactly* right.
>SJ>But in this particular case, the "merely temporal" "problem" of
>"Absence of evidence" has existed for at least 44 years (since the
>Miller-Urey experiment of 1953), despite determined efforts by
>brilliant minds, using the best technology and enormous resources.
PM>Wow, 44 years... And that is somehow relevant? How long did it
>take to solve the equations of motions close to the speed of light
>for instance. Insisting that 44 years somehow is proof is not very
>convincing.
Actually, according to Yockey, they have been trying for *84* years:
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:35:55 -0500
To: evolution@Calvin.EDU
From: bharper@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian D. Harper)
Subject: Is it soup yet?
[...]
I found the following post from Hubert Yockey on sci.bio.evolution
and thought it might be of interest to the group.
[...]
Subject: Priority of Walther Loeb on "Miller" Spark Discharge Experiment
(Chemical Evolution)
From: hpyockey@aol.com (HPYockey)
Date: 19 Feb 1996
[...]
The Miller-Urey experiment was not even original. The whole thing
was done by Walther Loeb in 1913 many years before Miller was born.
Loeb's publications make it clear that he was the first man to
produce an amino acid in the classic "possible prebiotic reducing
(sic) atmosphere" of carbon dioxide, ammonia and water by means of an
electrical discharge.
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------
My question to Brian at the time was:
"I find it interesting that scientific research into a naturalistic
origin of life has been unsuccessful for 83 years and not 43 years as
I originally thought!...when does dogged persistence become obsessive
folly? 43 years? 83 years? 103 years?"
Perhaps you know the answer? When does repeated failure become
itself evidence that the whole quest for a solely naturalistic origin
of life is fundamentally wrong?
>SJ>Even if science does eventually figure out how life began, it is
>unlikely after all this time, to be a simple solution...
PM>Who is claiming that it will be a simple solution.
>SJ>It will therefore turn out to be better evidence for creation
>than evolution! This is yet another version of the atheist's
>nightmare, that the agnostic astronomer Jastrow considers possible:
PM>Your conclusion is mistaken. There is no such evidence of
>supernatural creation within a scientific arena.
What "such evidence of supernatural creation" would you accept, Pim?
>SJ>"A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our
>Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the
>explanation is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the
PM>Perhaps science cannot find out how the birth of the universe took
>place but this does not mean it cannot explain what happened since
>then.
It has the same problem with other singularities such as the origin
of life and the origin of life's major groups:
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The
applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique
historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the
time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human
experimenter." (Dobzhansky T., American Scientist, vol. 45,
December 1957, p388, in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation
Hypothesis", 1994, pp277-278)
>SJ>moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development,
>unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted
>the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and
>earth... At this moment it seems as though science will never be
>able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the
>scientist who has
PM>Such however is not proof of the existance or absence of creation.
>Science has nothing to say about such creation since it falls far
>outside the realm of science.
If that is the case, so are the other singularities, like the origin
of life and life's major groups "outside the realm of science"
because they, like the Big Bang, are unique, unobservable and
unrepeatable:
"In contrast to operation science, origin science focuses on past
singularities that are not repeatable (e.g., the origins of the
universe, life, various life forms, and mankind). Such singularities
can have a personal first cause, and it is within the domain of
origin science to look for such causes. God, as a term in origin
science, means, roughly, a first cause of some discontinuity or
singularity who acts with intentionality in light of knowledge and
purpose.' (Moreland J.P., "Christianity and the Nature of Science",
Baker: Grand Rapids, 1989, p225)
>SJ>We believe the reason is the large difference in the magnitude
>of the configurational entropy work required. Amino acids
>PM>So perhaps there are more intermediate steps?
>SJ>How exactly would having "more intermediate steps" solve the
>"configurational entropy work" problem?
PM>Small steps can take place far more easier than one giant leap.
>This is the difference between the probability of specifying one
>giant leap from a mix of amino acids to a protein of length 500 for
>instance and getting the same protein through intermediate steps.
There is a slight problem. The probability is not improved by
trading one big jump for a lot of little ones, because then the
little steps must be in the right animal, the right body-part
and in the right sequence, as Milton points out:
"The same is true of Dawkins' hypothetical evolutionary model.
Although the earlier steps in his evolution process are seen
retrospectively to contribute to the end result, that does not affect
the probability of each intermediate step coming about at the time.
It is perfectly true that the minimum overall probability we have to
deal with in considering the evolution of a human eye is a product of
all the probabilities of the individual steps necessary to attaining
that end - but paradoxically, this does not diminish the probability
of each individual step when the need for the correct sequence is
also taken into account. What Dawkins is saying with his cumulative
evolution argument is that the probability of each single step in a
cumulative process must be less than the whole probability of leaping
straight to the finished result, simply because each step itself is
less than the whole. But this is simply wrong. The improbability of
step number 2 correctly following step number 1, correctly followed
by step number 3 and so on for 100 mutations, is as great as leaping
to the 100th step in one go. What is more, the greater the number of
steps into which we break up the overall leap, the more improbable it
becomes that they will all take place in the right order. Mutation
number one might be the first step in evolving an eye (or magnetic
detector or infra-red detector or X-ray detector). But the
probability of the next mutation step affecting that organ being the
second step needed for an eye is not increased thereby. It does not
become any easier for an eye to come into being just because the
first of the 100 or 1,000 accidents needed has taken place, even if
that first step is a very important general innovation such as
light-sensitive tissue." (Milton R., "The Facts of Life", 1992,
pp144-145)
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------