On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:04:18 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
>SJ>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.
PM>So you claim but the SLOT addresses entropy. If you claim that
>life has specified complexity, you presume something which has yet
>to be shown. I disagree that there is any specified complexity
>other than governed by the laws of chemistry and physics.
Well, first of all, you "disagree" with leading origin of life
researcher Leslie Orgel who wrote:
"Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity.
Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity;
mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack
specificity." (Orgel L.E., "The Origins of Life", Wiley: New York,
1973, p189, in Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery
of Life's Origin", 1992, p130)
>SJ>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).
PM>Please describe in terms of entropy a snowflake and living things.
>Using order and complexity are very subjective terms.
One can indeed "describe in terms of entropy a snowflake and living
things", but that does not go far enough to describe the difference
between them. One must use concepts like "order" (regular pattern)
and "complexity" (many parts), and in the case of living things one
must use *specified* complexity - many parts that work together in a
purposeful way.
PM>The suggestion that they are specified in advance is both
>incorrect and unsupported by fact and logic.
I have already cited Dawkins as support that "living things" are
"specified in advance":
"This has been quite a long, drawn-out argument, and it is time to
remind ourselves of how we got into it in the first place. We were
looking for a precise way to express what we mean when we refer to
something as complicated. We were trying to put a finger on what it
is that humans and moles and earthworms and airliners and watches
have in common with each other, but not with blancmange, or Mont
Blanc, or the moon. The answer we have arrived at is that
complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is
highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the
case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is, in
some sense 'proficiency'; either proficiency in a particular ability such
as flying, as an aero-engineer might admire it; or proficiency in
something more general, such as the ability to stave off death, or the
ability to propagate genes in reproduction." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, pp9-10)
You have cited nobody, but as usual just make unsupported assertions.
Please support your claim that it is "both incorrect and unsupported
by fact and logic" to say that "living things are specified
in advance".
PM>The use of information theory confuses the issue of entropy. If
>your claim is that life violates a law of information theory, feel
>free to pose such law and provide evidence.
You are really hung up on the " violates" word, aren't you Pim! I have
never used the word "violate" - it is *you* who use it contantly. At
least you have finally given up on claiming that I said that evolution
violates the second law of thermodynamics!
Of course "life" doesn't "violate a law of information theory". You talk
ofteb as though the laws of nature are prescriptive, when in fact they
are "descriptive":
"Modern scientific understanding of the universe as an "open system"
of which laws are merely descriptions and not a "closed system" of
immutable, prescriptive laws is certainly in accord with this
conclusion." (Geisler N.L., "Christian Apologetics", 1976, p280)
Therefore, strictly speaking, the laws of nature cannot be violated
because they don't prescribe or prohibit. They are (at least in a
scientific sense) merely general descriptions of regularities found
in nature. If something was found to "violate" a "law of nature",
then the law would have to be reformulated to take account of that
new discovery.
But that does not mean that the "information" which "life" posseses,
which Grasse pointed out is its "sine qua non" (without which nothing):
"Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence,"
very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of
cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called information, but it
is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but
rather it is condensed on molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or
in that of every organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is the
sine qua non of life. Where does it come from? ...This is a problem
that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present
science seems incapable of solving it..." (Grasse P.P., "The
Evolution of Living Organisms", 1977, p2, in Buell J. & Hearn V.,
eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", 1994, pp6-7)
arose purely naturalistically. It is virtually a law of nature, ie.
a generalization of which we know of no exceptions, that
"information" arises only from preexisting intelligence:
"There is a reasonable alternative explanation for life's origin, an
explanation that has scientific support. As we observe how living
things function, we are impressed by the high levels of complexity
and organization that are necessary. The organization in a living
creature is an expression of the information carried in the genetic
material of a cell as it directs the building of its parts. This
process is similar to the building of a house according to an
architect's plan, or the writing of a book. In 1967, scientist
Michael Polanyi said: A book or any other object bearing a pattern
that communicates information is essentially irreducible to physics
and chemistry...We must refuse to regard the pattern by which the DNA
spreads information as part of its chemical properties. (Polanyi M.,
"Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry", Chemical & Engineering
News, August 21, 1967, p62). Today this understanding, now shared by
many scientists, can be formalized in the following broad
generalization about the behavior of matter and energy: "Information
never arises from physical or chemical causes alone." This is the
same kind of formalized description of the behavior of matter and
energy as are the laws of thermodynamics-a broad generalization about
what matter and energy will or (in this case) won't do. Moreover, it
is subject to test in an identical manner. The second law of
thermodynamics could be overturned by the repeated observation of
exceptions to the rule. Likewise, one repeatedly confirmed
observation of physical or chemical processes giving rise to
information would disprove this generalization. Presently, however,
there are many good reasons to believe this generalization. First,
we know of no exceptions to it. Second, accepted concepts from
information theory seem to strengthen this conclusion. We know that
energy flowing through some systems may produce highly ordered
patterns. Darwinists have pointed to these patterns as suggestive of
how spontaneous generation may have occurred. But informational
sequences are different. They manifest an irregular order;
reflecting the constraints of a coded message. Confusing the two
ideas, order and information, has led many to attribute properties to
brute matter that it does not possess." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of
Pandas and People", 1993, pp55-56) [...]
>SJ>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>So where is the problem then? Evolution, abiogenesis etc do not
>violate the SLOT?
Just because "Evolution, abiogenesis etc do not violate the SLOT"
does not make them true! First of all "evolution" is such a vague
term, that it is not clear what you mean. Clearly *micro-*
"evolution" (eg. Peppered Moth colour variations, finches'
beak-length variation, etc) does not "violate" any "law" of nature.
Once living things are in existence they certainly operate
accordingly to the second law of thermodynamics, because they take in
energy, and by means of prexisting sophisticated cellular machinery,
operated by coded programs, convert solar energy into proteins.
As for "abiogenesis", it has never been observed in nature and in
fact it is counter to a law of nature that knows of no exceptions,
namely the Law of Biogenenesis:
"The law of biogenesis is the `principle that a living organism can
arise only from another living organism, a principle contrasting with
concepts such as that of the spontaneous generation of living from
non-living matter...' (Allaby M. ed, "Oxford Dictionary of Natural
History",, 1985, p77). That law, perhaps "the most fundamental in
biology," is the axiom that life only comes from life, as Medawar
defines it:
`In its affirmative form, the law of Biogenesis states that all
living organisms are the progeny of living organisms that went before
them. The familiar Latin tag is omne vivum ex vivo-All that is alive
came from something living; in other words, every organism has an
unbroken genealogical pedigree extending back to the first living
things. In its negative form, the law can be taken to deny the
occurrence (or even the possibility) of spontaneous generation.
Moreover, the progeny of mice are mice and of men, men-
"homogenesis," or like begetting like. The Law of Biogenesis is
arguably the most fundamental in biology, for evolution may be
construed as a form of biogenesis that provides for the occasional
begetting of a variant form...' (Medawar P. & Medawar J., "Aristotle
to Zoos: A Philosophical Dictionary of Biology", 1983, p39, in Bird
W.R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", 1991, Vol. I, pP311-312)
>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.
>SJ>The "origin of life" no doubt occurred with an Intelligent
>Designer *using* "physical/chemical process".
PM>no doubt and no evidence ?
I was correcting your suggestion that my "argument" was that the
"origin of life is somehow different from other physical/chemical
process." The point I was trying to make is that as far as the
"physical/chemical process" is concerned, the Intelligent Design
"argument" does not need to postulate a "different..physical/chemical
process". The "Intelligent Designer" could have simply used
"physical/chemical process", just as an intelligent human chemical
engineer, genetic engineer, or selective breeder does.
As for "evidence", the Intelligent Design hypothesis would point to:
1. the evidence that living things give all the appearance of having
been designed for a purpose:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", 1991, p1)
and
2. materialistic science has unexpectedly not been able to explain
how life originated by purely natural processes from non-living
chemicals:
"Thirty-eight years ago what is arguably the greatest mystery ever
puzzled over by scientists-the origin of life-seemed virtually solved
by a single, simple experiment. Stanley Miller, then a 23-year-old
graduate student at the University of Chicago, re-created the
primeval earth in a sealed glass apparatus. He filled it with a few
liters of methane, ammonia and hydrogen (the atmosphere) and some
water (the oceans). A spark-discharge device zapped the gases with
simulated lightning, while a heating coil kept the water bubbling.
Within a few days, the water and glass were stained with a reddish
goo. On analysing the substance, Miller found to his delight that it
was rich in amino acids. These organic compounds link up to form
proteins, the basic stuff of life. Miller's results, which he
published in Science, seemed to provide stunning evidence that life
could arise out of simple chemical reactions in the "primordial
soup." Pundits speculated that scientists, like Mary Shelley's Dr.
Frankenstein, would shortly conjure up living organisms in their
laboratories and thereby demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded.
It hasn't worked out that way. `The problem of the origin of life
has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other
people, envisioned,' says Miller, now a professor of chemistry at the
university of California at San Diego." (Horgan J., "In The
Beginning...", Scientific American, February 1991, p101)
>SJ>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.
PM>Irrelevant comparisson.
More of what you once called "argument by assertion". Please explain
*why* you claim that it is an "Irrelevant comparison".
PMYour suggestion that chemistry/physics alone is incomplete is an
>interesting one but requires some evidence would you not suggest ?
I just gave some "evidence" of some thing that "chemistry/physics
alone is incomplete" to explain, ie. "ink on a page follows the laws
of "physical/chemical process", but that is incomplete to account for
writing"!
>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.
>SJ>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>Yes and there is no comparisson in the inevitibility of far
>equilibrium processes increasing order and complexity.
Previously you said that "far...equilibrium processes...can exhibit
increase in order and complexity far easier than" "near equilibrium
processes". Now you claim that the difference is the "inevitibility
of far equilibrium processes increasing order and complexity". Does
this mean that "near equilibrium processes...can" still "exhibit
increase in order and complexity" but not inevitibly? If so, this is
still "a comparison between far and near equilibrium processes".
In any event, please give some examples and/or references to back up
your unsupported claims.
>PM>That hardly is a good definition of complexity though.
>SJ>Make up your mind, Pim! You said you were "confused about
>specified complexity" and wanted to know "how does one specify he
>complexity?" Now you want to know what the "definition of
"complexity" is!
PM>I still want a definition of specified complexity and how one
>determines such.
Here are some "definitions" and examples "of specified complexity":
1. The highly organized arrangement of parts in chemical machinery
in order to accomplish specialized functions:
"Specified Complexity. The highly organized arrangement of thousands
of parts in the chemical machinery needed to accomplish specialized
functions originated gradually in coacervates or other protocells."
(Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People", 1993, p46)
"There is neither solid theory nor promising experimental basis for
the belief that specified complexity-the highly organized arrangement
of thousands of parts-arose spontaneously." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H.,
"Of Pandas and People", 1993, pp55-56)
"...consider how living organisms and manufactured products both
exhibit the property of organization or specified complexity. The
pickup truck has many parts that make up a working whole and they all
obey discoverable physical and chemical laws; but the truck does not
form spontaneously as a result of these laws...an engineer or team of
engineers had to take the physical properties of these metals into
account in arriving at the design and manufacture of the engine. Is
the kind of complexity found in living cells more nearly like the
complexity of proteinoid microspheres or pickup trucks? Pickup
trucks, of course." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People',
1993, p57)
2. The encoding of specified blueprints, involving definitions of the
letters used to write the messages describing complex machines and
their functions:
"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)
"...we will show that the three-dimensional molecular structure that
controls function in biopolymers depends on the very specific
arrangement of various molecular "building blocks" in these
biopolymers. This will provide the reader with a conceptual picture
of the enigma of the origin of life, which is specified complexity or
biological information." (Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B., in Moreland
J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, p176)
3. The sequencing of amino acids to give a functional protein:
"There is little similarity between the ordering associated with
crystals, vortices and the like and the specified complexity required
in the sequencing of amino acids to give a functional protein. Thus
it is difficult to see how these ideas can resolve the information
enigma that is at the heart of the origin-of-life mystery." (Bradley
W.L. & Thaxton C.B., in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation
Hypothesis", 1994, p195)
4. The precise determination of a sequence of letters leaving fewer
choices about fulfilling each instruction:
"The discovery that DNA conveys a genetic message gives the argument
from design a new twist. Since life is at its core a chemical
message system, the origin of life is the origin of information. A
genetic message is a very special kind of order. It represents
"specified complexity."...By contrast with either random or ordered
structures, complex structures require many instructions. If we
wanted a computer to write out a poem, for example, we would have to
specify 207 each letter. That is, the poem has a high information
content. Information in this context means the precise
determination, or specification, of a sequence of letters. We said
above that a message represents "specified complexity." We are now
able to understand what specified means. The more highly specified a
thing is, the fewer choices there are about fulfilling each
instruction." (Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B., in Moreland J.P. ed.,
"The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, pp206-207)
5. A message in the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or of amino acids
in a protein which have come to symbolize meanings according to a
given symbol convention:
"No nonliving things (except DNA and protein in living things, human
artifacts and written language) have 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. A message is not composed of a sequence of
letters repeated over and over. It is not, in other words, the first
kind of order. Indeed, the letters that make up a message are in a
sense random. There is nothing inherent in the letters that tells us
the word means "present." In fact, in German the same sequence of
letters means "poison." In French the series is meaningless. If you
came across a series of letters written in the Greek alphabet and
didn't know Greek, you wouldn't be able to read it. Nor would you be
able to tell if the letters formed Greek words or were just random
groupings of letters. There is no detectable difference. What
distinguishes a message is that certain random groupings of letters
have come to symbolize meanings according to a given symbol
convention. Nothing distinguishes the sequence a-n-d from n-a-d or
n-d-a for a person who doesn't know English. Within the English
language, however, the sequence a-n-d is very specific and carries a
particular meaning." (Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B., in Moreland J.P.
ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, p208)
[continued]
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------