>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.
SJ: 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?
I should have been more careful in addressing your comment. There is no
comparisson between a snowflake and evolutionary processes since the
latter one takes place at far equilibrium while the former one is an
equilibrium process. However the increase in order found in the formation
of a snowflake shows that order can increase spontaneously. Unless you can
identify why the origin of life follows different laws there is no reason
to assume beforehand that the origin of life violates the SLOT because
order can increase without violation of the SLOT. If your argument is that
origin of life is somehow different from other physical/chemical process
then I encourage you to identify the differences and show how the SLOT is
violated.
PM>As I pointed out however, for evolutionary processes which take
>place at far equilibrium, increase in complexity is almost
>inevitable.
SL: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
Yep.
SL: "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"!
No I agree that there is no comparisson between far and near equilibrium
processes. The former ones can exhibit increase in order and complexity
far easier than the latter ones.
>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?
SJ: Dawkins gives a good example of a combination lock:
SJ: "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)
That hardly is a good definition of complexity though.
SJ: 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:
I still do not understand specified complexity ? You are looking backwards
from the end result and claiming that this was somehow specified
beforehand ?
SJ: "The origin of life requires the initial encoding of specified
blueprints, a non-Darwinian process. Specification involves
I do not understand why this is required. The origin of life does not
require any specification of blueprints but rather relies on adaptation to
environmental pressures to reach one of the many blueprints.
SJ: 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)
The assumption that there is specified complexity appears to be the
fallacy here. Looking back and stating how unlikely is it that this
happened while ignoring that the end result could be one of the billion of
possible end results.
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.
SJ: 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).
What is 'short time' ? In an organism this is the duration of his/her life
for instance ? Sure in the end people die but new people are born.
SJ: Besides, the "order" of a "snowflake" is not relevant to the issue
of the specified complexity of the information-bearing molecules like
DNA:
Nonsense, order is order. Giving it a name of specified complexity which
appears to be based on a faulty assumption does not make it so.
SJ: 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:
It doesn't ? what other forces are there ?
SJ: Through the application of information theory, it is now
realized that there are actually two kinds of order. The first kind
And the information theory entropy has no relationship to the entropy as
defined by thermodynamics. So perhaps the argument is that evolution
violates a 'law of information theory' but then you have to show the
existance and validity of such a law.
SJ: 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:
There is no such thing as specified in advance order. That is based on the
fallacy that we see an end product and perceive this to have been
specified in advance. Furthermore there is plenty of evidence of the
formation of complexity and order at the chemical level (like DNA) which
shows that such order and complexity can indeed form purely through
naturalistic processes.
>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.
SJ: Actually, according to Yockey, they have been trying for *84* years:
Wow, 84 years and that is somehow proof that it cannot be done ? I guess
the fact that it took 2000 years of civilization to create atomic power
shows that it could not have existed ?
SJ: 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?
Given the increase in understanding of the relevant processes and the
progress made by people like Fox, I would suggest that a total stand-still
with no hope for progress might be considered some proof but that stage
has yet to be reached.
PM>Your conclusion is mistaken. There is no such evidence of
>supernatural creation within a scientific arena.
SJ: What "such evidence of supernatural creation" would you accept, Pim?
Repeatable experimental evidence, predictions, falsifiability.
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.
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.
SJ: 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:
Fine, if you want to argue this that is fine with me. At least we agree
that creation has no place within science.
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.
SJ: 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:
That is incorrect on several counts. First of all it assumes that only one
protein can have the required abilities. Furthermore it assumes that there
are only random forces at work in the formation of the proteins.
You are incorrectly assuming that the outcome as we observed now was the
only possible outcome and that the 'evolution' of the protein was totally
random in its steps.
Regards
Pim