On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 21:30:07 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
>SJ>...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?
PM>I should have been more careful in addressing your comment.
We *are* making progress! ;-)
PM>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.
My point all along has been that "the...order found in the formation
of a snowflake" has little or nothing to do with the specified
*complexity* found in living things. A snowflake has high order but
little complexity. Living things (eg. proteins, RNA, DNA) have low
order and high complexity, and that of a special sort, ie. they are
specified in advance to perform a function (see Dawkins example of a
combination lock below).
Bradley & Thaxton also contrast the kind of low-information order
found in a snowflake and the high-information complexity found in
DNA and protein:
"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., "Information & the Origin of Life", in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", 1994, pp207-208)
PM>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.
Pim, nowehere have I said that "the origin of life violates the
SLOT". I have pointed this out many times. If you keep alleging it
despite my repeated denials, then I can only conclude this is a
*deliberate* misconstrual on your part, which must be necessary to
save your argument.
PM>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.
See above. I do not claim that at one level that the "origin of
life" is somehow different from other physical/chemical process".
The "origin of life" no doubt occurred with an Intelligent Designer
*using* "physical/chemical process". But I do claim that
"physical/chemical process" *alone* is incomplete to account for the
"origin of life". For example, ink on a page follows the laws of
"physical/chemical process", but that is incomplete to account for
writing:
"The importance of accounting for the origin of information cannot be
overemphasized. Evolutionists believe that order and complexity come
out of chaos, that nonsense generates sense, that information has
spontaneously arisen within systems With no help from the outside.
Our human observations and experiences tell us, however, that this
never happens. The ink and paper, the typewriter, the type-setting
machine, the printing press-none of these-were responsible for the
information content within this book. All of the information within
this book was introduced from the outside. The ink (or carbon) and
paper, the typewriter, the type-setting machine, the printing press
were all necessary for the transmission of the information, but not
for the generation of that information." (Gish D.T., "Creation
Scientists Answer Their Critics", 1993, p161)
Wilder-Smith illustrates that information "rides upon" the
"physical/chemical process":
"These somewhat abstract terms are easily explained by the following
example: I take a piece of chalk and use it to color the blackboard
completely white. So now this blackboard is covered with a thin
layer of chalk, which is upheld by a certain chemical architecture
(chalk chemistry). The chalk molecules support this layer they
provide the matter, the chemistry, and the order to do so. This
type of order is the first order. If I now take a piece of chalk
and with it I write a sentence on the cleaned board, e.g., "the
grass is green," then I am also covering part of the board with
chalk molecules (chalk chemistry) and that order, just as in the
first example. But riding on this first kind of chemical order
there appears superimposed on it a second coded order, which
contains additional coded, indirect information. The writing, "the
grass is green, " does not look in the least like green glass or
taste like green grass; in the presence of sunlight it can neither
photosynthesize nor produce oxygen and carbohydrates from carbon
dioxide, all of which green grass can do. Rather the writing
symbolizes green grass in code form. It is a coded description in
chalk molecules of green grass. The information in the writing
"rides" on the chalk molecules and depends on the chemistry of the
chalk molecules. Yet the architecture imposed by my writing on the
chalk molecules simulates green grass in a secondary mediatory
linguistic form, because human language possesses a convention, a
code, which the architecture of the sentence "the grass is green"
simulates." (Wilder-Smith, A.E., "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing
of Evolution", 1981, pp45-46)
[...]
>SJ>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".
PM>Yep.
>SJ> 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"!
PM>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.
You now say "there is no comparison between far and near
equilibrium processes", yet you then turn around and compare them:
"Far easier" is a *comparision"!
[...]
>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)
PM>That hardly is a good definition of complexity though.
Make up your mind, Pim! You said you were "confused about specified
complexity" and wanted to know "how does one specify he complexity?"
No you want to know what the "definition of complexity" is!
>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:
PM>I still do not understand specified complexity? You are looking
>backwards from the end result and claiming that this was somehow
>specified beforehand?
Yes.
>SJ>"The origin of life requires the initial encoding of specified
>blueprints, a non-Darwinian process.
PM>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.
Sorry Pim, but "adaptation to environmental pressures" is a feature
of *living systems*. Non-living chemicals do not "adapt to
environmental pressures".
>SJ> 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>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.
No. That is a different issue, which I might address later. The
current question is "How then did specified complexity...arise from
any amount of nonspecified complexity...? That is, "how
did...blueprints and their described products/"machines"...arise
from any ...complex machines, but no blueprints...?
[...]
>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).
PM>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.
Who disagrees with this? I don't.
>SJ>Besides, the "order" of a "snowflake" is not relevant to the issue
>of the specified complexity of the information-bearing molecules like
>DNA:
PM>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.
No. Something with "order" (eg. snowflake) has little or no
information content. Something with "specified complexity" (eg.
DNA, human message) has little "order" but high information content.
>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:
PM>It doesn't? what other forces are there?
Mind!
>SJ>Through the application of information theory, it is now
>realized that there are actually two kinds of order. The first kind
PM>And the information theory entropy has no relationship to the
>entropy as defined by thermodynamics.
Someone better tell the author of my daughter's university physics
textbook! As he points out, there is a "relationship" between
"entropy as defined by thermodynamics" and "information theory":
"In general, we associate disorder with randomness salt and pepper
in layers is more orderly than a random mixture; a neat stack of
numbered pages is more orderly than pages strewn randomly about on
the floor. We can also say that a more orderly arrangement is one
that requires more* information to specify or classify it. When we
have one hot and one cold body, we have two classes of molecules and
two pieces of information; when the two bodies come to the same
temperature, there is only one class and one piece of information.
When salt and pepper are mixed there is only one (uniform) class;
when they are in layers, there are two classes. In this sense,
information is connected to order, or low entropy. This is the
foundation upon which the modern field of information theory is
built." (Giancoli D.C, "Physics: Principles with Applications",
Prentice Hall: New Jersey, Third Edition, 1991, p403)
* Note: I think Giancoli means here "less", as his immediately
following example shows.
PM>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.
I do not claim that "evolution violates a 'law of information
theory'" either!
>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:
PM>There is no such thing as specified in advance order.
Oh? How do you think they sent a man to the moon? Just threw 30,000
components together at random and hoped for the best!
PM>That is based on the fallacy that we see an end product and
>perceive this to have been specified in advance.
Why is this a "fallacy"? This is our 100% uniform experience.
PM>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.
There is no other "complexity and order at the chemical level (like
DNA)", except RNA and human writing:
"There exists a structural identity between the base sequences in a
DNA message and the alphabetical letter sequences in a written
message, and this assures us that the analogy is "very close and
striking," as Herschel stipulated. This structural identity is the
basis for the application of information theory to biology. As
Hubert P. Yockey notes in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, "The
sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic
text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is
mathematically identical." (Yockey H.P., "Self Organization Origin
of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 91, 1981, pp13-31, in Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B.,
"Information & the Origin of Life", in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", 1994, pp205-206)
[...]
>SJ>Actually, according to Yockey, they have been trying for *84* years:
PM>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?
I did not say it is "proof that it cannot be done". I claim merely
that it is accumulating *evidence* that life did arise from non-life
purely naturalistically. Even if using the full weight of human
intelligence, man succeeds in contriving unique circumstances where
life spontanreously begins, that would be an analogy of *creation*
by an Intelligent Designer, not the product of undirected physical
forces:
"But supposing that life could originate in the laboratory already
hinted in the Miller-Urey experiment? What should our judgment if
some day a scientist actually makes a living cell or something akin
to an amoeba? Men used to believe that man could change or
duplicate only the inorganic, for only God could make living
creatures and their products. But since the synthesis of urea a
good number of organic compounds have been created and the entire
debate ceased. Even the staunchest hyper-orthodox would hardly
reopen this debate. If man can think God's thoughts after Him, why
is it incredible that man can do some of God's works after Him?
Further, because man with a vast chemical equipment and an equally
vast body of chemical data at his disposal can synthesize complex
chemicals, it does not mean that Nature with only chance as its
guide and creator can make life and foster it into complex creatures
over the millions of years." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of
Science and Scripture", 1955, p183)
>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?
PM>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.
Well, we are not far away from "a total stand-still". Words like
"stalemate" and "lack of progress" are now common in the
prebiological evolution literature:
"A general review of prebiological evolutionary theories in 1988 by
Klaus Dose concluded that "At present all discussions on principal
theories and experiments in the field either end in STALEMATE or in
a confession of ignorance." (Joyce G.F., "RNA Evolution and the
Origins of Life," Nature, vol. 338, March 16, 1989, pp217-224).
Gerald Joyce's 1989 review article ended with the somber observation
that origin of life researchers have grown accustomed to a "lack of
relevant experimental data" and a high level of frustration."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp109-110. My emphasis.)
"Robert Shapiro observed in 1986 that Darwin's offhand speculation
"is remarkably current today, which is a tribute either to his
foresight or our LACK OF PROGRESS." (Shapiro R., "Origins: A
Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life", Summit Books: New York,
1986, p185). A generation ago the field of prebiological evolution
seemed on the brink of spectacular success; today it is just about
where Darwin left it." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
pp103-104. My emphasis.)
>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?
PM>Repeatable experimental evidence, predictions, falsifiability.
Thanks at least for finally answering! But this is not "evidence",
it is just demarcation criteria designed to rule out "evidence of
supernatural creation". That makes your claim that "There is no
such evidence of supernatural creation within a scientific arena"
just a tautology.
Unfortunately, your demarcation criteria would rule out
macroevolutionary events since these are not "repeatable":
"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)
So, please post actual "evidence" that could be produced by a theist
in this debate, that you would "accept" (at least in principle for
the sake of argument), as "evidence of supernatural creation within
a scientific arena".
>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.
>>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:
PM>Fine, if you want to argue this that is fine with me. At least
>we agree that creation has no place within science.
No. It is *you* who "want to argue this"! By your own demarcation
criteria, you have just ruled out "the Big Bang" as "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:
PM>That is incorrect on several counts. First of all it assumes
>that only one protein can have the required abilities.
No. I said nothing about "only one protein". That was *your*
example: "...a protein of length 500 for instance and getting the
same protein....". But I fail to see how more than "only one
protein" can help your claim that "Small steps can take place far
more easier than one giant leap".
PM>Furthermore it assumes that there are only random forces at work
>in the formation of the proteins.
Bradley and Kok examined the claimed non-"random" preference in
proteins and found none:
"Together with our colleague Randall Kok, we have recently analyzed
the ten proteins originally analyzed by Steinman and Cole, as
well as fifteen additional proteins whose structures (except for
hemoglobin) have been determined since their work was first
published in 1967. Our expectation in this study was that one would
only get agreement between the dipeptide bond frequencies from
Steinman and Cole's work and those observed in actual proteins if
one considered a large number of proteins averaged together. The
distinctive structures of individual proteins would cause them to
vary greatly from Steinman and Cole's data, so only when these
distinctives are averaged out could one expect to approach Steinman
and Cole's dipeptide bond frequency results. The reduced data
presented in table 9-1 shows that Steinman and Cole's dipeptide bond
frequencies do not correlate well with the observed peptide bond
frequencies for one, ten, or twenty-five proteins. It is a simple
matter to make such calculations on an electronic digital computer.
We surmise that additional assumptions not stated in their paper
were used to achieve the better agreements. Furthermore, the
peptide bond frequencies for the twenty-five proteins approach a
distribution predicted by random statistics rather than the
dipeptide bond frequency measured by Steinman and Cole. This
observation means that bonding preferences between various amino
acids play no significant role in coding protein. Finally, if
chemical bonding forces were influential in amino acid sequencing,
one would expect to get a single sequence (as in ice crystals) or no
more than a few sequences, instead of the large variety we observe
in living systems....A similar conclusion may be drawn for DNA
synthesis. No one to date has published data indicating that
bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA
molecules. Chemical bonding forces apparently have minimal effect
on the sequence of nucleotides in a polynucleotide." (Thaxton C.B.,
Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992,
p148)
Therefore please state what else these non-"random forces at work in
the formation of the proteins" are?
PM>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.
I am not "assuming" anything. I am testing your claim that: "Small
steps can take place far more easier than one giant leap" and that
there is a "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."
Regards
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------