>SJ>Yes.
PM>That is a poor method based upon the idea of design which has
>already been shown circular. You observe complexity and assume it
>has to be specified and therefore it requires a designer. Highly
>circular.
SJ: No. I "observe" *specified* "complexity and assume it...requires a
designer". It really is "specified", in the sense that the genetic
code in DNA specifies via RNA to cellular protein-enzyme systems to
make a specific amino acid:
But you conclude from this 'specifying' that there is the need for an
intelligent to perform this specifying. You observe a complexity in which
there is an organization of functions. How you could conclude from looking
at this that there is an intelligent designer is beyond me. There is no
need for such an assumption, no evidence for such an assumption. I see
something I do not (yet_) understand and assume an intelligence did it ?
Is that the argument ?
SJ: "Further, contemporary organisms carry their genetic information in
nucleic acids-RNA and DNA-and use essentially the same genetic code.
This code specifies the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each
organism needs.
So it is a specific complexity in that it performs a specific task. But
specified ? This presumes that there was something that did the specifying.
Perhaps the confusion lies in the word specified when it should be
specific ?
[...]
>SJ>Sorry Pim, but "adaptation to environmental pressures" is a
>feature of *living systems*. Non-living chemicals do not "adapt to
>environmental pressures".
PM>But they do, they do.
SJ: Are you claiming that "Mon-living chemicals...adapt to environmental
pressures", using "adapt" *in the same sense* as "living systems"?
If so, please give examples or references.
Fox protocells responded to external stimuli for instance. I also remember
an article in which new chemicals are designed through combination of
randomness and selection. If I could only remember where....
>SJ>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...?
PM>Presuming that it is specified complex ? But then it is circular.
SJ: See above. Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA states
that "Living things...are specified in detail at the level of atoms
and molecules":
SJ: "The problem of the origin of life is, at bottom, a problem in
organic chemistry the chemistry of carbon compounds-but organic
chemistry within an unusual framework.
I am glad Crick considers this 'specified detail' "a problem in organic
chemistry...within an unusual framework'.
SJ: Living things, as we shall see, are specified in detail at the level
of atoms and molecules, with incredible delicacy and precision..." (Crick
F., "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature", 1981, p37)
How are they specified ? In advance ? Or highly organized ?
SJ: "There is a general relationship between information and entropy.
This is fortunate because it allows an analysis to be developed in
the formalism of classical thermodynamics, giving us a powerful tool
for calculating the work to be done by energy flow through the system
to synthesize protein and DNA (if indeed energy flow is capable of
producing information).
A general relationship perhaps but only in appearance. There is no one to
one mapping of one entropy onto the other.
"It would be quite impossible to produce a correspondingly simple set of
instructions that would enable a chemist to synthesize the DNA of an E.
coli bacterium."
So it is more complex. But that is no evidence of specified'ness' other
than that it takes more time to specify the details. So is it level os
specified'ness' ? A crystal is less specified than DNA ? What does this
prove ?
SJ: In this case the sequence matters. Only by specifying the sequence
letter-by-letter (about 4,000,000 instructions) could we tell a
chemist what to make. Our instructions would occupy not a few short
sentences, but a large book instead!" (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. &
Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin, 1992, p131)
That's because we want to specify a complex detail to the chemist. What is
this supposed to show ? That our language is poor in describing complexity
?
>SJ>Mind!
PM>And there are observations showing that DNA order is different from
>snowflake order? Your hypothesis is founded on this unsupported assertion.
SJ: Pim, I have given kilobytes of "support" for my arguments, including
"that DNA order is different from snowflake order."
All you have shown is that it is more complex.
>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.
>SJ>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":
PM>I disagree since there is not second law of information content.
SJ: Your claim was that "information theory entropy has no relationship
to the entropy as defined by thermodynamics". I responded with a
quote from a "university physics textbook" that there is a
"`relationship' between `entropy as defined by thermodynamics' and
`information theory' ".
The relationship is similarity of the two, i.e. similar mathematical tools
can be used but that is where the relationship ends.
PM>Hmm, so what do you claim then? You presume specified complexity so
>that you can or have to invoke a designer?
SJ: Pim, I have supplied kilobytes of "what" I "claim".
You have supplied Kb's of what others claim.
SJ: I do not "presume specified complexity". It is a scientific *fact*
that there *is* "specified complexity". I have cited statements from
non-theist
scientists like Orgel, Dawkins and Crick, to that effect. You have
cited *no* references from the scientific literature that there is no
"specified complexity". I "invoke a designer" to explain that *fact*
of "specified complexity".
That's all there is to it ? You invoke a designer ? Others invoke
chemistry ? Perhaps you invoke a designer who uses chemistry ? Where is
the evidence for the designer then ?
>PM>There is no such thing as specified in advance order.
>SJ>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>Aha, but now we have a designer. So your insistance on using specified
>complexity is obvious, it presumes a designer. Thank you for your frank
>response.
SJ: Pim, you said "There is no such thing as specified in advance order",
with no qualification. I gave an example of "specified in advance
order", namely sending "a man to the moon".
This presumes intelligence or a designer. Circular as the moon.
>PM>That is based on the fallacy that we see an end product and
>perceive this to have been specified in advance.
>SJ>Why is this a "fallacy"? This is our 100% uniform experience.
PM>Maybe yours but this is based on the idea that we can identify
>design and that apparant design needs a designer.
SJ: There can be no question that we "can identify design". The sciences
of archaeology and SETI depend on it:
We can identify design only because there is additional evidence
supporting the data. You assume that you can look at the end product and
conclude from that that it was designed. This presumes that you are
correct in identifying the design. The pulsar shows a very consistent
signal which could very easily be mistaken for 'intelligence or design'.
Now we know better.
SJ: "Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be
considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)...Archaeology has pioneered the
development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and
intelligent causes." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and
People", 1993, pp126-127)
Intelligent design may be considered but this does not mean that what one
presumes to be evidence of design is actually such nor does this mean that
this includes appeal to an invisible untelligent designer.
SJ: And as for "apparant design needs a designer" clearly it doesn't.
Exactly my point.
SJ: But it is your naturalistic apriori assumption that the design
evident in living things (and indeed the whole cosmos) *is* "apparant
design". If it is *real* "design" then it goes without saying that
it "needs a designer".
No, I am saying that what you consider design need not be. I am not
presuming it to be apparant design, based on the absence of evidence I am
asking you for data that it is.
>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.
>SJ>There is no other "complexity and order at the chemical level (like
>DNA)", except RNA and human writing:
PM>Who claimed that there was other complexity and order?
SJ: See above. The "complexity and order" of "DNA...RNA and human
writing" is a *specified complexity* which is fundamentally different
from the non-specified "complexity" of all "other" things.
So the claim is and I disagree. By making this assertion one presumes
already a designer or intelligence. Language was designed to communicate
our ideas. Was DNA 'designed' to communicate ideas ? Or is it a mere
organization of molecules (and hardly complex) which we interpret as a
message ?
>SJ>"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
PM>Nonsense. One is designed, the other has yet to be shown to be designed.
SJ: That "There exists a structural identity between the base sequences
in a DNA message and the alphabetical letter sequences in a written
message" is a *fact* Pim:
We disagree. And so does Yockey. It is a hypothesis. And the mathematical
treatment is identical which hardly shows a structural identity. Even more
importantly it does not show that since a message has a designer that DNA
has to have one.
"In the following we will resort to illustrating our points by
reference to the properties of language. It is important to
understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. 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, p16)
[...]
>SJ>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.
PM>And we agree. There is accumulating evidence that life did arise
>from non-life naturalistically.
SJ: No, we disagree. I made a typo. Here is my correction: "I claim merely
that (because "they have been trying for *84* years") "it is accumulating
evidence* that life did" not "arise from non-life purely naturalistically."
Again we disagree. Our understanding and experiments have come closer and
closer to the necessary steps for 'abiogenesis'.
PM>Indeed. So there is no scientific evidence of a supernatural event.
>So all we have is increasing amount of non-evidence....
SJ: I disagree that "there is no scientific evidence of a supernatural
event".
Well, in that case show us an observation of such a supernatural event ?
SJ: If the origin of life can only be duplicated by "using the
full weight of human intelligence" by "man contriving unique
circumstances where life spontaneously begins", that would be
"repeatable experimental evidence" of "supernatural creation within a
scientific arena".
Nope, it would merely show that the origin of life is hard to reproduce in
a lab since we do not know all the boundary conditions and initial
conditions. How this shows evidence of a supernatural creation is beyond
me. That we could not simulate flight like birds 1000 years ago does not
mean that this proved that birds were created supernaturally.
>SJ>Unfortunately, your demarcation criteria would rule out
>macroevolutionary events since these are not "repeatable":
PM>But they are repeatable as well certainly in principle.
SJ: I just quoted Dobzhansky, one of the founders of Neo-Darwinism who
said that macroevolutionary events are not "unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible". You assert that they are "repeatable". Please state
your quotes or references.
Well Dobshansky and I agree, they are not unrepeatable, unique and
irreversible. Where lies the problem ? That in practice recreating the
exact circumstances will be hard or even impossible ?
PM>Perhaps you could give it a try?
SJ: It have been giving "it a try". You have confirmed my thesis that
there is no "evidence that could be produced by a theist...that you
would accept (at least in principle for the sake of argument), as
evidence of supernatural creation within a scientific arena".
We agree, there is no such evidence possible withing a scientific arena
other than through the assumption of the existance of something we cannot
observe.
>PM>Fine, if you want to argue this that is fine with me. At least
>we agree that creation has no place within science.
>SJ>No. It is *you* who "want to argue this"! By your own demarcation
>criteria, you have just ruled out "the Big Bang" as "science".
>No, I agreed with you for the sake of showing that we agree that creation
>has no place within science.
SJ: We don't "agree" at all. You seem to miss the point. On your
demarcation criteria, of excluding "creation" events as "outside the
realm of science", areas of legitimate scientific investigation into
"unique, unobservable and unrepeatable" events such as "the origin of
life and life's major groups" and "the Big Bang" would also be
"outside the realm of science".
How can you be sure that the origin of life is unique, unrepeatable and
unobservable ? How can you be sure that this applies to the big bang ? We
are presently 1e-34 s away from the big bang, not bad... And getting
closer all the time.
>SJ>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>Try climbing a mountain?
SJ: Not a good analogy - "climbing a mountain" is a purposeful activity
carried only out by intelligent living things (ie. animals and humans).
Non-living things do not "Try climbing a mountain".
Are you sure about this ? You wanted to know how small steps can take
place far more easier than a giant leap. THe analogy is useful as far as
it goes.
You again imply purpose where there need not be purpose.
Other example:
Bowl with 500 red and 500 black marbles, select 10: What is the chance
that in 1000 tries you get 10 black ones ?
Same bowl, now you put back the red marbles and keep the black marbles,
what is the probability of getting 10 black ones ?
Clearer ?
>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.
>SJ>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."
PM>As I said, try climbing a mountain.
SJ: And as I said, non-living things don't "try climbing a mountain"!
You are assuming that the small steps are totally random.