On Sun, 04 May 1997 19:34:29 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[continued]
>PM>2) is in no manner contradicted by the laws of thermodynamics.
>SJ>In your own words, this is "an argument by assertion", Pim.
>Please cite your *evidence*.
PM>It is your turn first to show evidence that the SLOT is violated
>by evolution. After all you made the assertion first. Care to try?
Actually *nowhere* did I make "the assertion" (let alone "first")
that "the SLOT is violated by evolution". This is a figment of your
imagination. I just claim that "evolution" (ie. `blind watchmaker'
fully naturalistic "evolution"), is *inadequate* to overcome the
constraints of "the SLOT".
In fact, far from claiming that "the SLOT is violated by evolution",
I am not convinced that "evolution" as a general principle even
exists (except as an illusion in Darwinist minds):
"...evolutionary illusions are so thorough that evolutionists
themselves are unaware. So I refer to an imaginary evolutionary
theorist. The theorist is the magician who produces illusions in the
mind. The illusions are achieved by selectively invoking concepts,
ideas and arguments. The theorist invokes concepts A and B to
misdirect you and accomplish end C. The central illusion of evolution
lies in making a wide array of contradictory mechanisms look like a
seamless whole. There is no single evolutionary mechanism-there are
countless. Evolutionary theory is a smorgasbord: a vast buffet of
disjointed and conflicting mechanisms waiting to be chosen by the
theorist. For any given question, the theorist invokes only those
mechanisms that look most satisfying. Yet, the next question elicits
a different response, with other mechanisms invoked and neglected."
(ReMine W.J., "The Biotic Message", 1993, p24)
>SJ>It does not tend toward autoorganization, even if one irradiates
>it with photon energy.
>PM>Again wrong.
>SJ>Another "argument by assertion", Pim? Please state *why* it is
>"wrong".
PM>Because autoorganization has been observed in many instances
>under the effect of purely naturalistic forces. for instance the
>auto-organization of crystals but also auto-organization of
>chemicals when stirred and heated.
Unfortunately "crystals" are not a good example of "auto-
organization". They are just a consequence of physical forces that
come into play when conditions are right, eg. when the kinetic
energy of water drops below a certain threshold:
"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."
(Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's
Origin", 1992, pp120-121)
Interestingly Darwin mentions this, so it was already well know
over 130 years ago:
"The shape of a crystal is determined solely by the molecular
forces..." (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species", 6th edition, 1872,
Everyman's Library, 1967, p122)
Dawkins also points out that crystals are just the same pattern
endlessly repeated:
"A crystal is just a large orderly array of atoms or molecules in the
solid state. Because of properties that we can think of as their 'shape',
atoms and small molecules tend naturally to pack themselves together
in a fixed and orderly manner. It is almost as though they 'want' to
slot together in a particular way, but this illusion is just an inadvertent
consequence of their properties. Their 'preferred' way of slotting
together shapes the whole crystal. It also means that, even in a large
crystal such as a diamond, any part of the crystal is exactly the same
as any other part, except where there are flaws. If we could shrink
ourselves to the atomic scale, we would see almost endless rows of
atoms, stretching to the horizon in straight lines - galleries of
geometric repetition." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991,
p150)
Denton points out that there is a "vast chasm" between the highest
ordered non-living thing (a "crystal"), and the lowest ordered living
thing a "cell":
"We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living
and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic
and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a
living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
it is possible to conceive." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis", 1985, p249-250)
[...]
>PM>Again wrong. Prigogine has shown that no 'planning' is required
>for order and organization to increase.
>SJ>Please cite *where* "Prigogine has shown" this, *in the context
>of the origin of life*, which is what Wilder-Smith is claiming.
PM>What makes the origin of life have a special place in science ?
>But perhaps you should read "Aspects of chemical evolution, G.
>Nicolis, Advance in chemical physics volume LV, John Wiley & Sons
>NY 1984)
Thanks, but I did not ask for the reference - I invited you to
*substantiate* your assertions that "Prigogine has shown that no
'planning' is required for order and organization to increase..." by
citing "*where* `Prigogine has shown' this, *in the context of the
origin of life*".
[...]
>SJ>No one is "abusing of the second law of thermodynamics", Pim.
And as for "a lack of real arguments", to date this has characterised
>*your* messages on this topic. You cite *no* scientific references,
>but just rely on "argument by assertion".
PM>You forget that you have yet to show that evolution violates the
>SLOT.
Agreed - because I *never* have claimed that! How about facing up to
what I am really saying instead of investing imaginary straw men?
PM>Then we can talk about your arguments. Uptil now I am
>providing as much evidence for my assertions as you have. But since
>you made the original assertion it is up to you to first make a
>scientific case for your argument.
Pim, 1. you have provided little or *no* "evidence for" your
"assertions", ie. few (if any) quotes from the literature; 2. I
have *not* made the "the original assertion" that "evolution
violates the SLOT"; and 3. I have provided *many* quotes and
references to the literature to back up my *real* "assertion" that
"the SLOT" is a major *problem* for "evolution *in the origin of
life*.
[...]
>SJ>If "Know-how is...required in reconstructing this event", then
>there is no way of showing that "Know-how is" not "required in" the
>*original "event". All successful origin-of-life `simulation'
>experiements depend for their success on the "crucial but
>illegitimate role of the investigator":
PM>Incorrect. They only rely on the role of the investigator to try
>to re-create the original circumstances. In their limited
>experiment they showed that under certain conditions, amino acids
>can form from simple chemicals. That later evidence shows support
>for their findings is remarkable given the limited experiments.
It is hardly surprising that "amino acids can form from simple
chemicals" - "amino acids" *are* "simple chemicals"!
PM>You are now claiming that science cannot investigate since it
would interfere and therefor add information to the experiment. This
>of course is not true. If the same conditions had existed on a
>pre-biotic earth the same would have happened as was observed in the
>laboratory. In a sense presence of the investigators decreased the
>information since it was limited in its extent to a few chemicals
>and physical processes. That they succeeded is remarkable.
All they have "succeeded" in doing is modelling *creation*:
"Scientists today know very well indeed that they must apply
exogenous constraints and supply information to undergird the
properties of matter if certain synthetic goals are to be reached.
In fact, science has been injecting intelligence and intellectual
effort on a stupendous scale into reaction systems in the hope of
pulling out a living organism from an exit point in the maze. But
scientific materialism denies this very principle in its theories of
the origin of life. That is, scientific materialism practices one
thing-the principle of exogenous direction and information-but
preaches another, especially when it comes to matters supernatural
and religious. For it practices exogenous interference in things
material in order to synthesize life in the laboratory, but denies
exogenous interference at abiogenesis. In other words, the whole
matter is reduced to an unwillingness to acknowledge exogenous
interference of abiogenesis, even when all the scientific evidence
demands that we acknowledge it.." (Wilder-Smith, A.E., "The Creation
of Life", 1988, p108)
>SJ> Why should it have been different at biogenesis if the laws
>governing the autoorganization of matter today have remained
>constant since the origin of matter? Why should matter plus energy
>plus chance have been vital at biogenesis, whereas today matter and
>energy plus know-how are required under the same laws?...Where in
the >history of experimental science does one
[...]
PM>There is no evidence in a scientific manner to support
>supernatural creation.
I will ask you once again, Pim. What "evidence" would you accept as
"support" for "supernatural creation"? If you keep deleting this
question (as you have done many times), I can only conclude it is not
an oversight but a deliberate avoidance of the issue.
PM>A failure of experiments to recreate one out of the
>billions**billions of possible circumstances does not mean that
>science will fail. Your assumption that every conceivable similar
>circumstance has been tried is incorrect.
The point is that the underlying assumption of chemical evolution
is that human intelligent design could amply compensate for the
vast time frames and "possible circumstances" that blind nature
allegedly found by trial and error:
"What we need is some technique which allows us to single out
individual reaction processes in our simulated "prebiotic soup" and
thus follow their progress. Such an approach would allow us to say
something meaningful about the mechanism that might have been
involved in the pathway to life, and also about the validity of the
proposed scheme itself. In addition, for a laboratory simulation
experiment to be of practical value, some technique must be used to
overcome the factor millions of years of time. Somehow we must speed
up the process so that, like time-lapse photography, we are able to
effectively compress the happenings of a long time span into
manageable laboratory time, yet without distortion. In fact it is
widely accepted today that a technique is available for simulating
the extended time factor and for charting the progress of individual
chemical reactions. The technique consists of carefully selecting
and purifying chemicals conceived to have been the probable
precursors of life and subjecting them in mixture to geologically
plausible conditions of heat, light, temperature, concentration, pH,
etc. All experiment is said to be geochemically plausible when the
conditions used reproduce to a substantial degree the conditions
alleged for the primitive earth. These experiments are deemed
successful if biologically significant molecules or their precursors
are found among the products. In this way, an initial experiment can
be run to produce amino acids Then after isolating, purifying, and
concentrating them, the next stage can be simulated, reacting the
amino acids together to form polymers. After a similar process of
isolating, purifying, and I concentrating these polypeptides, the
next stage could be simulated in a third experiment to see what is
produced. By following this procedure, products such as
polysaccharides, lipids, polynucleotides, and protocells might all
conceivably result. In time it is hoped that through the right
experimental conditions inappropriate prebiotic simulation
techniques, a living entity will be produced. Such an
accomplishment, it is widely regarded, would lend a great deal of
support to the view that life occurred on this planet by natural
means." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of
Life's Origin", 1992, pp19-20)
>SJ>"The scientific materialists are bending all their efforts to
>demonstrate that, if a reaction leading up to life can take place
>now, in laboratory reaction vessels, without supernatural aid, then
>proof positive has been effectively delivered that no supernatural
>agency was needed to produce life at the beginning, at
>archebiopoesis.
PM>Which does not mean that there was no such power, just that it was
>not needed. That is all science can do.
The uniform experience of all origin-of-life simulations is that it
*is* "needed":
"Over the years a slowly emerging line or boundary has appeared which
shows observationally the limits of what can be expected from matter
and energy left to themselves, and what can be accomplished only
through what Michael Polanyi has called "a profoundly informative
intervention.". When it is acknowledged that most so-called
prebiotic simulation experiments actually owe their success to the
crucial but illegitimate role of the investigator, a new and fresh
phase of the experimental approach to life's origin can then be
entered. " (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery
of Life's Origin", 1992, p185)
>SJ>For all the efforts of the scientific naturalists to prove their
>point by the above mentioned method only serve, in fact, to verify
>the correctness of the supernaturalist position. For, is it not
>true that the scientific materialists are, in their experiment,
>applying intelligence and thought to the ordering of matter? Under
>the influence of intelligence they are hoping to produce living
>matter from its nonliving base. This is precisely the
>supernaturalist point of view." (Wilder-Smith, A.E., "The Creation
>of Life", 1988, pp.xix-xx)
PM>And this view is incorrect. At most it could show that
>intelligence could be needed not that it is necessary and certainly
>it does not show any need for supernatural intelligence.
What other sort of "intelligence" was there around 3.5 bya?
[...]
>PM>The argument that DNA is far more complex that any machine
>invented by man is 1) based on subjective arguments
>SJ>Wilder-Smith does not say "DNA" but "the cell". Leaving aside
>"DNA" for the moment, do you deny that "the cell...is far more
>complex than any machine ever invented by man"?
PM>As I said that is a poor scientific argument since it relies on my
>view not on objective arguments. Even if this were true this does
>not show anything more than our present inability to design.
You have just conceded the point! That the "the cell...is far more
complex than any machine ever invented by man" is precisely
evidenced by "our present inability to design"! Here is why:
"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular
biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is
twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large
enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would
then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive
design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of
openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and
closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out.
If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in
a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would
see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in
every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to
the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants
and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical
chamber more than a kilometre in diameter, resembling a geodesic
dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in
ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules A
huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the
manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the
various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.
We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so
many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in
perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we
looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the
simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein
molecules, were astonishingly, complex pieces of molecular machinery,
each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly
organized 3-D spatial conformation. We would wonder even more as we
watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular
machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our
accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing
one such molecular machine - that is one single functional protein
molecule - would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will
probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the next
century. Yet the life of the cell depends on the integrated activities
of thousands, certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of
different protein molecules.
We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had
its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding
systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant
control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and
components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for
quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of
prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the
feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the
terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality
would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.
What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense
automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost
as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on
earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not
equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be
capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few
hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand
million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle."
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London,
1985, p328-329)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------