[...]
>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.
SJ: Well, first of all, you "disagree" with leading origin of life
researcher Leslie Orgel who wrote:
So what is specified complexity ? And does Orgel disagree that specified
complexity cannot be governed by the laws of chemistry and physics ?
Indeed life is a far equilibrium dissipative system and as such cannot be
compared directly to crystalization since the former systems tend to
increase complexity and order far more easier than the latter.
PM>Please describe in terms of entropy a snowflake and living things.
>Using order and complexity are very subjective terms.
SJ: 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.
You are assuming that there is a purpose. All we know is that there now is
a purpose. That this purpose was 'specified' beforehand however lacks
evidence.
So what is the relevance of us seeing 'purpose' in living things ? Is this
real or an artifact of our reasoning ? And is a purpose pre-specified or
just 'after the fact' ?
PM>The suggestion that they are specified in advance is both
>incorrect and unsupported by fact and logic.
SJ: I have already cited Dawkins as support that "living things" are
"specified in advance":
The only specification is 'proficiency'. But the form or shape of this
proficiency is not specified in advance. I thought that you were
suggesting an intelligence specifying in advance the form and shape of the
outcome. This is not what evolution is though.
SJ: 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":
So no violation of SLOT or information theory. what is the problem then >
SJ: But that does not mean that the "information" which "life" posseses,
which Grasse pointed out is its "sine qua non" (without which nothing):
It also does not prove this either. One can speculate about it.
>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?
SJ: Just because "Evolution, abiogenesis etc do not violate the SLOT"
does not make them true!
True but why bring up the argument then if it does not disprove evolution ?
SJ: 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.
What would form a limit between macro and micro evolution. The limit is
merely semantics.
SJ: 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:
That it has not been observed to happen does not mean that it could not
happen. After all Fox's experiment are as close to protolife as one has
come.
Time shall tell.
SJ: "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:
And what are the boundaries on which this law's validity rest ? Presently
conditions of spontaneous formation of life are quite poor but this does
not mean that such conditions could not have existed.
>SJ>The "origin of life" no doubt occurred with an Intelligent
>Designer *using* "physical/chemical process".
PM>no doubt and no evidence ?
SJ: 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.
Sure but then Occam's razor once again slashes the argument.
SJ: As for "evidence", the Intelligent Design hypothesis would point to:
SJ: 1. the evidence that living things give all the appearance of having
been designed for a purpose:
Appearance is not proof but is in the 'mind of the observer'. Nor does a
purpose require an intelligent designer but could be resulting from
natural circumstances alone.
SJ: "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)
As I said apparant design is no evidence of intelligent design.
and
SJ: 2. materialistic science has unexpectedly not been able to explain
how life originated by purely natural processes from non-living
chemicals:
Once again that is no evidence of design. If your argument relies on the
negative (presently) efforts to create life then the argument is indeed
poor. Since it ignores the possibilities that in the future this might
happen. After all significant steps have been made in this area. (Fox)
SJ: 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)
So they were wrong that it was as simple as that. Hardly evidence of an
intelligent designer though.
>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.
SJ: More of what you once called "argument by assertion". Please explain
*why* you claim that it is an "Irrelevant comparison".
Evolution or abiogenesis is more than a random variation on physical laws.
PMYour suggestion that chemistry/physics alone is incomplete is an
>interesting one but requires some evidence would you not suggest ?
SJ: 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"!
And what is this suppose to show ?
>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.
SJL 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".
WHy not address the issue Steve that far equilibrium processes show an
almost inevitable increase in complexity and order ? The comparison
between the two is relevant since neither one violates the 2nd law of
thermodynamics when they increase in order and complexity. However for far
equilibriun processes this process is far easier.
SJ: In any event, please give some examples and/or references to back up
your unsupported claims.
Prigogine did a lot of work on this. Nicolis is the editor of a volume
addressing some of these issues. Let me look up the references.
PM>I still want a definition of specified complexity and how one
>determines such.
SJ: Here are some "definitions" and examples "of specified complexity":
SJ: 1. The highly organized arrangement of parts in chemical machinery
in order to accomplish specialized functions:
Why is it specified ? It suggests that it required some intelligence. Now
it means specialized rather than specified.
"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)
SJ: "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)
There is no solid evidence that it could not have happened either. Perhaps
this strawman of specified complexity, similar to irreducibly complex
presumes the exiastance of a specification in advance when in fact it is
us looking presently at the end result and marveling at the efficiency.
Specified complexity now refers to a highly organized arrangement of
parts. Yet we observe such highly organized arrangements all the time and
do not presume that they could not have arisen spontaneously ?
SJ: "...consider how living organisms and manufactured products both
exhibit the property of organization or specified complexity.
Another blatant assertion of specified complexity. If organization is the
key word then why not use organization. But then it would not give the
illusion that there is something which specified the complexity. Perhaps
to confuse ? Specified to me implies a designer. But organization could
happen without an intelligent designer. Physical and chemical processes
are very capable of increasing organization, not just in the simple forms
of crystals but also in the form of far equilibrium dissipative systems.
SJ: 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)
A truck also does not mutate or procreate. The assertion that it is more
like pickup trucks is ridiculus given the fact that protonoid cells show
evidence of life in that they respond to stimuli, divide, grow etc. The
use of the term engineer presumes intelligence when in fact the 'engineer'
could have been a non-intelligent force. To conclude that living cells
have a complexity more similar to trucks than to protonoid cells ignores
that protonoid cells show evidence of growth, division, response to
stimuli etc. Something trucks have yet to show. Thus the suggestion that
living cells are more similar to trucks than to protonod microspheres
because both appear to need a designer presumes the answer rather than
prove it.
SJ: "The origin of life requires the initial encoding of specified
blueprints, a non-Darwinian process.
Assertion without foundation in fact. What did the blueprint specify ? Why
assume that there was a blueprint which presumes some form of intelligence.
One presumes that the origin of life requires the initial coding of a
specified blueprint. What did this blueprint specify and why presume that
it was specified in advance rather than that the end result was a
combination of chance and selection ?
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)
Chance and selection ? Why presume that there is a blueprint when in fact
there is no evidence of such ? perhaps the end result is what confuses you
in believing that there was an initial blue print but there is no evidence
that such a blueprint is required or even was present.
Specified complexity is a poor choice of words as it appears to presume a
building plan or blue print/intelligence without providing evidence of
such.
SJ: 3. The sequencing of amino acids to give a functional protein:
SJ: "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.
Of course not, the latter one is far equilibrium/dissipative. However
specified complexity is again not defined but presumed here.
If through random variations a protein arises which can be helpful in the
survival or if a protein arises which can more effectively reproduce
itself and this protein is then selected for, does this show evidence of
specified complexity ?
SJ: "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."...
Once again, a buzz word without substance. It is presumed to be special
kind of order without evidence. We disagree, that we presume a message in
DNA does not mean that there is such a message or that such an apparant
message is nothing more than a coincidence.
SJ: 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 each letter. That is,
the poem has a high information content.
Not if the poem were written in a language known only to the writer. We
presume the existance of information or message in DNA when there need not
be such a message.
DNA: Information in this context means the precise determination, or
specification, of a sequence of letters.
With a letter the ordering of letters is to a certain extent specified in
advance and since we understand the coding we can read what we consider a
message. In case of DNA there is no need to require that the ordering was
specified in advance.
SJ: We said above that a message represents "specified complexity." We
are now able to understand what specified means.
So a message is specified complex and DNA is specified complex therefor
?????
Even assuming a valid similarity this does not prove that since one
required an intelligence, that the other requires one as well. More
importantly it still asserts that DNA is specified complex, that life is
specified complex without presenting proof.
SJ: 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)
This is reasoning after the fact. Marveling at the end result and
wondering how could this ever have happened.
SJ: "No nonliving things (except DNA and protein in living things, human
artifacts and written language) have specified complexity...
Assertion without proof. There is no evidence of specified complexity in
DNA or protein that would suggest proof of an intelligent designer. The
attempt to create an artificial similarity between language and artifcats
and DNA and protein is meaningless. If specified complexity means, the
appearance of order or design it presumes intelligence, if it means
organization then it does not prove that it was specified in advance from
a blueprint or that there is the need for an intelligent designer.
SJ: 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.
Only the appearance of a written message. Similarly the many layers of
sediment appear to have a message as they form a very well ordered
structure which can tell us a lot about the physical and chemical
processes which took place but to suggest that this 'order' is specified
or should be construed as a written message suggests the need for an
intelligence where such intelligence is not required. A apparant
similarity is hardly evidence that it is a valid comparison to extend the
similarity.
SJ: A message is not composed of a sequence of letters repeated over and
over.
A message construed from random mutations and selection of the message
which works best will eventually give the appearance of design when in
fact it is a mere product of naturalistic processes. Was the end result
specified in advance ? No, only the rules for selection are specified. We
cannot read a message which is not written in a language we do not
understand. Does the message have information content then ?
SJ: "What distinguishes a message is that certain random groupings of
letters
have come to symbolize meanings according to a given symbol
convention."
So it is an apparant message ? We have assigned them meaning and it
becomes a way to communicate. Therefor a message presumes an intelligent
designer, and does not prove such. The meaning however might be specific
but this does not mean that a specific combination of DNA was specified in
advance and certainly it does not mean that there was an intelligence
required.
It appears that specified complexity refers to the appearance of purpose
or design which in itself is a circular reasoning. Why is it specified
complex ? Because it appears to have a purpose or design. What is the
evidence for purpose or design ? Well it has specified complexity.