On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:51:49 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
>PM>...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:
PM>So what is specified complexity?
See below for "what is specified complexity".
PM>And does Orgel disagree that specified complexity cannot be
governed by the laws of chemistry and physics?
Your original disagreement was that "there is any specified
complexity other than governed by the laws of chemistry and
physics". Clearly there is: Shakespeare's play Hamlet has "specified
complexity" which is not "governed by the laws of chemistry and
physics", even though the medium on which it is carried is. Now you
have upped it to requiring Orgel (or me) to claim a universal negative:
"specified complexity cannot be governed by the laws of chemistry
and physics". I am willing to defend the first, but not the second.
Please clarify which proposition you mean.
PM>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.
Here you use "complexity and order" but immediately below you
claim they "are very subjective terms". Please clarify.
>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.
PM>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.
If there "now is a purpose" then how else did it get there unless
it was "specified beforehand"? What other "evidence" could there
be? Since our uniform experience is that existing "purpose" is only
ever "specified beforehand" by pre-existing "purpose", the burden of
proof is on you to show how "purpose" can arise other than by being
"specified beforehand".
PM>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' ?
If our "seeing purpose in living things" is not "real" but just "an
artifact of our reasoning" then how do we know that our
"seeing purpose in" *human beings* "is real or" just "an artifact of
our reasoning"?
[...]
>SJ>I have already cited Dawkins as support that "living things" are
>"specified in advance":
PM>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.
Dawkins actually says that "this proficiency" *is* "specified in
advance:
"In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is,
in some sense 'proficiency'" (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker",
1991, p9)
>SJ>Of course "life" doesn't "violate a law of information theory". You
>talk often as though the laws of nature are prescriptive, when in fact they
>are "descriptive":
PM>So no violation of SLOT or information theory. what is the problem
>then
You still misunderstand. Read what I said again: "The laws of nature
are" not "prescriptive" but "descriptive". It is a therefore a category
mistake to use the term "violation".
The real "problem" is that you don't pay attention to what I actually
say. I nowhere said that there was a "violation of SLOT or information
theory". It is *you* who keep using the word "violate". What I actually
originally said was:
1. The second law of thermodynamics cannot be ignored in evolutionary
theory bercause Evolution and entropy are headed in opposite
directions; and
2. Naturalistic evolution is contradicted by the second law of
thermodynamics, *unless there is a pre-existing energy-conversion
system*:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
To: "evolution@ursa.calvin.edu" <evolution@ursa.calvin.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 97 16:49:10 +0800
Subject: Re: design: purposeful or random?
Sender: owner-evolution@udomo.calvin.edu
[...]
Ramm points out that "the second law of thermodynamics cannot be
ignored in the construction of evolutionary theory:
"Evolution must reckon with energy and design in Nature. The second
law of thermodynamics cannot be ignored in the construction of
evolutionary theory. Evolution and entropy are headed in opposite
directions. Clark's fundamental thesis is that entropy represents a
random and degenerative process, whereas life represents an ordered
and generative process. Entropy is the gradual equalization of
molecular velocities through random collisions, and it is
degenerative in the sense that the physical state of energy levels is
decreased. Life is possible only if miraculously these two features
of entropy are reversed, and certainly entropy is the more basic and
universal law than evolution." (Ramm B. "The Christian View of
Science and Scripture", Paternoster: London, 1955, p193)
IMHO Gish and Wilder-Smith's are correct. Naturalistic evolution is
contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics, *unless there is a
pre-existing energy-conversion system*:
"For animals, energy flow through the system is provided by eating
high energy biomass, either plant or animal. The breaking down of
this energy-rich biomass, and the subsequent oxidation of part of it
(e.g., carbohydrates), provides a continuous source of energy as well
as raw materials. If plants are deprived of sunlight or animals of
food, dissipation within the system will surely bring death.
Maintenance of the complex, high-energy condition associated with
life is not possible apart from a continuous source of energy. A
source of energy alone is not sufficient, however, to explain the
origin or maintenance of living systems. The additional crucial
factor is a means of converting this energy into the necessary useful
work to build and maintain complex living systems from the simple
biomonomers that constitute their molecular building blocks. An
automobile with an internal combustion engine, transmission, and
drive chain provides the necessary mechanism for converting the
energy in gasoline into comfortable transportation. Without such an
"energy converter," however, obtaining transportation from gasoline
would be impossible. In a similar way, food would do little for a
man whose stomach, intestines, liver, or pancreas were removed.
Without these, he would surely die even though he continued to eat.
Apart from a mechanism to couple the available energy to the
necessary work, high-energy biomass is insufficient to sustain a
living system far from equilibrium. In the case of living systems
such a coupling mechanism channels the energy along specific chemical
pathways to accomplish a very specific type of work." (Thaxton C.B.,
Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992,
p124)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>But that does not mean that the "information" which "life" posseses,
>which Grasse pointed out is its "sine qua non" (without which nothing):
PM>It also does not prove this either. One can speculate about it.
One doesn't need to "speculate about it". It is a *fact* that the
"information" which "life" posseses" is its "sine qua non". The
leading Darwinist George Williams has belatedly recognised it. He
points out that "Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that
they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of
information and that of matter...The gene is a package of information,
not an object...the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the
message":
"I don't want to emphasize either the explicit or implicit dissents from
Darwinism, however, because the most revealing remark about Darwinism in
The Third Culture comes from a Darwinist of unimpeachable authority,
George Williams. Williams is much less visible to the public than
Dawkins or Gould, but he is more authoritative in the profession than
either. Along with John Maynard Smith and William Hamilton, he is at the
summit of the inner circle of evolutionary biology, in a realm where
Gould is regarded as a gadfly and Dawkins is something of a junior
partner...According to Williams, the crucial object of selection in
evolution is inherently non-material:
`Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with
two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and
that of matter.... These two domains can never be brought together in
any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism."...
The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of
base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA
molecule is the medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this
distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely
indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution. Just the fact that
fifteen years ago I started using a computer may have had something
to do with my ideas here. The constant process of transferring
information from one physical medium to another and then being able
to recover the same information in the original medium brings home
the separability of information and matter. In biology, when you're
talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're
talking about information, not physical objective reality.'
(Johnson P.E., "A Review of The Third Culture: Beyond the
Scientific Revolution by John Brockman, Simon & Schuster, 1995
http://www.mrccos.com/arn/johnson/brockman.htm)
[...]
>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!
PM>True but why bring up the argument then if it does not disprove
evolution ?
I did *not* "bring up the argument" that "Evolution, abiogenesis etc
do...violate the SLOT" - *you* did! My argument all along has been
that: 1. The second law of thermodynamics cannot be ignored in
evolutionary theory bercause Evolution and entropy are headed in
opposite directions; and 2. Naturalistic evolution is contradicted by
the second law of thermodynamics, *unless there is a pre-existing
energy-conversion system*
This latter point was even made by Neo-Darwinism co-founder
George Gaylord Simpson in a biology textbook, pointing out that
"life's complex organization...requires...particular work; it must
follow specifications..." (that word again!) "...it requires
information on how to proceed":
"We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for
the biologist by the fact of life's complex organization. We have seen
that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the
universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for
this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to
develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work,
but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is
particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information
on how to proceed." (Simpson G.G. & Beck W.S., "Life - An
Introduction to Biology", 1965, p466, in Morris H.M., "The
Troubled Waters of Evolution", 1974, p100)
>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.
PM>What would form a limit between macro and micro evolution. The
>limit is merely semantics.
The terms "macro and micro evolution" are more than "merely semantics".
Gould has distinguished between "large-scale evolution (macroevolution)"
and "microevolution (the study of small-scale changes within species):
"The strict version, with its emphasis on copious, minute, random
variation molded with excruciating but persistent slowness by natural
selection, also implied that all events of large-scale evolution
(macroevolution) were the gradual, accumulated product of
innumerable steps, each a minute adaptation to changing conditions
within a local population. This "extrapolationist" theory denied any
independence to macroevolution and interpreted all large-scale
evolutionary events (origin of basic designs, long-term trends,
patterns of extinction and faunal turnover) as slowly accumulated
microevolution (the study of small-scale changes within species)."
(Gould S.J., "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", 1984, p13)
Between "Macroevolution (major structural transition)" and
"microevolution (flies in bottles) extended":
"Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous
changes to the most profound structural transitions in the history of
life: by a long series of insensibly graded intermediate steps, birds are
linked to reptiles, fish with jaws to their jawless ancestors.
Macroevolution (major structural transition) is nothing more than
microevolution (flies in bottles) extended. If black moths can displace
white moths in a century, then reptiles can become birds in a few
million years by the smooth and sequential summation of countless
changes. The shift of gene frequencies in local populations is an
adequate model for all evolutionary processes - or so the current
orthodoxy states." (Gould S.J., "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, pp155-
156)
Between "microevolution...a consequence of shifting gene
frequences...the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns...known
as macroevolution":
"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution,
and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene
frequences. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of
new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are
known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago
conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution
can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At
the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at
the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Lewin R.,
"Evolutionary-Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago
challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis",
SCIENCE, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p883)
Note: I am primarily interested in that aspect "macroevolution"
which claims to explain the "origin of basic designs", "major
structural transition" and "the establishment of higher taxonomic
patterns".
>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:
PM>That it has not been observed to happen does not mean that it
>could not happen
I do not claim "it could not happen" - that would require me proving
a universal negative. I merely pointed at that "it is counter to a law of
nature that knows of no exceptions...the Law of Biogenenesis". The
burden of proof is on you who claims that "it" *did* "happen":
PM>After all Fox's experiment are as close to protolife as one has
come.
Which "Fox's experiment" in particular came "close to protolife"?
PM>Time shall tell.
Maybe it won't. For the convinced materialist, no amount of
negative evidence will suffice:
"Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical
experiments run to discover a probable origin for life have failed
unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may indicate a
sudden appearance of life on the earth. Finally, we may have explored
the universe and found no trace of life, or processes leading to life,
elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists might choose to turn to
religion for an answer. Others, however, myself included, would
attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific explanations
in the hope of selecting one that was still more likely than the
remainder." (Shapiro R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of
Life",, 1986, pp130-131)
>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:
PM>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.
No one tries the "spontaneous formation of life" in "Present conditions".
*All* "spontaneous formation of life" experiments from the beginning
have tried to re-create "conditions" that ocurred on the early earth:
"The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life
were formed when the earth had an atmosphere of methane,
ammonia, water, and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen,
oxygen water was suggested by Oparin and has been given emphasis
recently by Urey and Bernal. In order to test this hypothesis, an
apparatus built to circulate CH4, NH3 H20, and H2 past an electric
discharge. The resulting mixture has been tested for amino acids by
paper chromatography. Electrical discharge was used to form free
radicals instead of ultraviolet light, because quartz absorbs
wavelengths short enough to cause photo-dissociation of the gases.
Electrical discharge may have played a significant role in the
formation of compounds in the primitive atmosphere.... In this
apparatus an attempt was made to duplicate a primitive atmosphere
of the earth, and not to obtain the optimum conditions for the
formation of amino acids." (Miller S.L., "A Production of Amino
Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions," Science, Vol.
117, May 15, 1953, pp528-529)
[...]
>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.
PM>Sure but then Occam's razor once again slashes the argument.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, your *misuse* of "Occam's razor"
"slashes the argument". On that basis, there is no point even having
an "argument" with you because every time I produce any evidence
involving an "Intelligent Designer" you resort to "Occam's razor".
"Occam's razor" states that "entities are not to be multiplied beyond
necessity." ("Ockham's Razor", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benton:
Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, vii:475). You don't *know* that an
"Intelligent Designer" is not a "necessity". You would have to
have a complete knowledge of the entire universe and beyond it,
from the beginning and before it.
That's OK by me, because it tells me that you cannot actually argue
your case, but must rely on spurious demarcation arguments to
prevent "Intelligent Designer" arguments even being heard. If you
were confident of your case, you would welcome counter arguments.
>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:
PM>Appearance is not proof but is in the 'mind of the observer'.
Who said it was "proof"? I said it was "evidence"! And "Appearance"
is not necessarily "in the 'mind of the observer'". It can be *real*
as well.
PM>Nor does a purpose require an intelligent designer but could be
>resulting from natural circumstances alone.
If it was "resulting from natural circumstances alone" it would
not be regarded as really "purpose".
>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)
PM>As I said apparant design is no evidence of intelligent design.
Of course "apparent design" is "evidence of intelligent design"! It
is not *necessarily* "evidence of intelligent design", but it is
"evidence of intelligent design".
SJ>and
>2. materialistic science has unexpectedly not been able to explain
>how life originated by purely natural processes from non-living
>chemicals:
PM>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.
The point is that "the negative (presently) efforts to create life"
have been a failure since at least 1953 - over 44 years! This is
*exactly* what a creationist would expect, and the complete opposite
of what non-creationists expected:
"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)
PM>Since it ignores the possibilities that in the future this might
>happen.
Of course it can always be argued that "in the future this might
happen". But equally it can be argued that it "might" *not*
"happen"! The point is that after 44 years of intense effort by
some of science's most brilliant minds, with all the resources of
20th century technology, with the ability to recreat every conceivable
early-earth conditioons, it *has not* "happened"!
PM>After all significant steps have been made in this area. (Fox)
Please elaborate on what these "significant steps" that "have been
made in this area" are.
[...]
PM>So they were wrong that it was as simple as that.
The point is that it has to be "simple" for a naturalistic origin
of life to make its case. If the origin of life turns out to be
complex and contrived, then it will be evidence of Intelligent
Design:
"Complexity means statistical improbability. The more statistically
improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by
blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an
intelligent Designer." (Dawkins R., "The Necessity of Darwinism,
New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p130)
PM>Hardly evidence of an intelligent designer though.
See above. What *would* you accept as "evidence of an intelligent
designer", Pim?
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------