Reflectorites
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:53:03 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>SJ>That's not what Dose said in the quote I posted. Here it is again:
>>
>>"...At present all discussions on
>>principal theories and experiments in the field either end in
>>stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. New lines of thinking and
>>experimentation must be tried. ... Without fundamentally new insights in
>>evolutionary processes, perhaps involving new modes of thinking,
>>this ignorance is likely to persist. (Dose K., "The Origin of Life:
>>More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,
>>Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, pp.348,355).
>>
>>"New lines of thinking ... new modes of thinking" does not mean endlessly
>>recycling old ways of thinking. There is *one* new mode of thinking that
>>science has steadfastly tried to ignore for the last 140 years and that is
>>*design*!
After I sent this I read a similar sentiment by Paul Davies:
"When I set out to write this book I was convinced that science was
close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origin. The dramatic
evidence for microbes living deep underground promised to provide
the 'missing link' between the prebiotic world of biochemical soups
and the first primitive cells. And it is true that many scientists
working in this field confidently believe that the major problems of
biogenesis have largely been solved. Several recent books convey
the confident message that life's origin is not really so mysterious
after all. However, I think they are wrong. Having spent a year or
two researching the field I am now of the opinion that there remains
a huge gulf in our understanding. To be sure, we have a good idea
of the where and the when of life's origin, but we are a very long
way from comprehending the how. This gulf in understanding is not
merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major
conceptual lacuna. I am not suggesting that life's origin was a
supernatural event, only that we are missing something very
fundamental about the whole business. If it is the case, as so many
experts and commentators suggest, that life is bound to arise given
the right conditions, then something truly amazing is happening in
the universe, something with profound philosophical ramifications.
My personal belief, for what it is worth, is that a fully satisfactory
theory of the origin of life demands some radically new ideas."
(Davies P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle," 1998, pp.xvi-xvii).
Unfortunately Davies contradicts himself ruling out "a supernatural event".
But yet another naturalistic explanation is hardly a "radically new idea"!
>CC>Since this "new" mode of thinking has been around for thousands of years,
>I'm not at all sure why you *call* it new. Even in a modern form, it's been
>around since Paley, *200* years ago.
Actually this is not so. The old way of thinking (even among Christians)
was *spontaneous generation*, as Wald (not Bill! :-)) pointed out:
"One had only to accept the evidence of one's senses to know that
life arises regularly from the nonliving: worms from mud, maggots
from decaying meat, mice from refuse of various kinds. This is the
view that came to be called spontaneous generation. Few scientists
doubted it. Aristotle, Newton, William Harvey, Descartes, van
Helmont, all accepted spontaneous generation without serious
question. Indeed, even the theologians-witness the English Jesuit
John Turberville Needham-could subscribe to this view, for Genesis
tells us, not that God created plants and most animals directly, but
that He bade the earth and waters to bring them forth; since this
directive was never rescinded, there is nothing heretical in believing
that the process has continued." (Wald W., "The origin of life,"
Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.45-53, p.45)
As for "Paley", I have read his Natural Theology and AFAIK he made no
claims about the origin of life. Paley's argument for design was primarily
from the *mechanical* aspects of existing living things. Pasteur's
experiments were not until 1861 and Paley, may thought that spontaneous
generation was a fact.
It is not generally realised that the naturalistic origin of life assumption is
really a return to the old spontaneous generation hypothesis, as Wald
pointed out (see tagline)
This is despite it actually being a *law* of biology (i.e. a rule to which
there has never been observed to be any exceptions), that life only arises
from life:
"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. ...
The Law of Biogenesis is arguably the most fundamental in biology
..." (Medawar P. & Medawar J., "Aristotle to Zoos: A
Philosophical Dictionary of Biology", in Bird W.R., "The Origin of
Species Revisited", 1991, Vol. I, pp.311-312).
Thus Biology may be the only branch of science in conflict with its most
well-established principle!
>SJ>Here is an earlier ID prediction on OoL that has so far proved true:
>>
>>"... When it is
>>acknowledged that most so-called prebiotic simulation experiments
>>actually owe their success to the crucial but *illegitimate* role of
>>the investigator, a new and fresh phase of the experimental
>>approach to life's origin can then be entered. .... As
>>long as this informative interference of the investigator is ignored,
>>the illusion of prebiotic simulation will be fostered. We would
>>predict that this practice will prove to be a barrier to solving the
>>mystery of life's origin." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen
>>R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin," 1992, p.185. ...)
>CC>This is almost pure argument from authority and ignorance (not a pretty
>combination), and, unfortunately, one hardly to be trusted. Now, if there
>were just some *facts* involved instead of just Thaxton's, Bradley's,
>Olsen's, and Polyani's *opinions*, we might have something.
What "authority"? Thaxton, et al., are not in any position of "authority" in
this field. And as for "ignorance" this book (as its subtitle below suggests)
reassessed all the major origin of life theories, and for this it received
grudging praise from Robert Shapiro, a leading origin of life researcher:
"The authors have made an important contribution to the origin of
life field. Many workers in this area believe that an adequate
scientific explanation for the beginning of life on Earth has already
been made. Their point of view has been widely disseminated in
texts and the media, and to a large extent, has been accepted by the
public. This new work brings together the major scientific
arguments that demonstrate the inadequacy of current theories.
Although I do not share the final philosophical conclusion that the
authors reach, I welcome their contribution. It will help to clarify
our thinking.... I would recommend this book to everyone with a
scientific background and interest In the origin of life...." -Robert
Shapiro, Professor of Chemistry at New York University. Dr.
Shapiro is coauthor of Life Beyond Earth.' (Thaxton C.B., Bradley
W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing
Current Theories," [1984], 1992, back cover)
Also, as I pointed out, the above was a "prediction" (made in 1984 - the
original date of the book) which to date has held true.
CC>As usual, ID theorists want to have it both ways. They want to claim that
>*selection* cannot be responsible for what we see out of all the
>googolplexes of variations we would see if *all* of them from the beginning
>survived and reproduced, and yet, no matter *what* selection mechanism is
>used in research (probably even including random selection), they *also*
>want to claim that the researchers "will have performed work on the system
>through intelligent, exogenous intervention." That is, they will claim that
>a systematic selection criteria, of any sort, is "intelligent, exogenous
>intervention."
There is no `having it both ways here'. Chris is confused by his own
misleading *metaphor* - "selection". ID theorists maintain that
*unintelligent* natural processes (including so-called natural `selection'),
are insufficient to explain the origin of life.
The use of *real* selection by *intelligent* human designers is what ID
would expect should be successful (unless design requires a superhuman
level of intelligence). In fact some time ago, I posted a multi-point ID
research program which included just this point.
CC>But, if "intelligent" selection is all that's required to make one a
>"designer," then the environment, via chemistry, and physics, is all
>that's needed for "intelligence," because they are severely selective at
>the margins, and thus leave life *only* the option of producing enough
>variations to enable it to adjust, or go extinct.
This is what Chris, being a philosophical materialist, believes, but it is self-
refuting. If Chris thinks that there is no essential difference between the
intelligence of human intelligent designers and the `intelligence' of
unintelligent of natural processes, then he must claim there is no essential
difference between the outputs of such unintelligent processes and his'
emails!
CC>Since functionality
>requires a certain kind of structure (one capable of taking in energy and
>performing life-sustaining actions), *PHYSIC* alone provides a fundamental
>and major selective mechanism.
This is just a dogmatic assertion based on Chris' materialistic philosophy. It
is self-evidently absurd because "physics alone" never writes emails. It
takes a *mind* to write emails. And it takes a *mind* to devise a self-
refuting materialist philosophy which denies that the mind really exists.
CC>Moreover, it is "intelligent" in that it is
>anything but random; it is systematic and *permanent* (no organism can ever
>escape it's limitations and requirements).
See above on Chris (IMHO self-delusory) ambiguous use of words like
"selection" and "intelligent".
The problem with "physics" is any message it writes would all be
repetitively the same. That is how SETI expects to be able to tell the
difference between what "physics" transmits and intelligent designers
transmit.
CC>Oh, but I forgot; selection cannot control the flow of variations that are
>actually produced, and therefore cannot be responsible for the "profoundly
>informative intervention."
Chris forgets that "selection" is only a *metaphor*.
The point that Polanyi was making is that the intervention of something
*more* than just unintelligent natural "physics" and chemistry was
required. The title of his paper was: Polanyi M., "Life Transcending
Physics and Chemistry", Chemical Engineering News, August 21, 1967.
CC>Of course, we could add that, over periods of
>tens of millions of years, many environments have provided their own
>specific selective factors, such as temperature, moisture, oxygen levels,
>water pressure, the presence or absence of many materials, and threats from
>other organisms.
Again, this "selective" is just a *metaphor*. The difference between *real*
intelligent selection and unintelligent natural processes is seen in this
excerpt I posted on the difference between undirected natural panspermia
and directed panspermia:
"Overlooking the inherent uncertainties in these estimates, we can
summarize the situation regarding galactic colonization. A capable
and purposeful civilization can in principle colonize the galaxy in
about one billion years. With a random process of propagation, life
is likely to require trillions of-years to spread throughout the
galaxy. For comparison, the evolution of intelligence takes about
four billion years and the age of the galaxy is nearly ten billion
years. Thus, the galaxy is already old enough that directed galactic
colonization could have plausibly taken place. But it hasn't. No
contacts of any kind have been made with extraterrestrial societies.
This silence has some significance." (Adams F. & Laughlin G., "The
Five Ages of the Universe," 1999, p.69)
CC>Is it possible that these, too, contributed to the
>"profoundly informative intervention" by leaving *only* the variations that
>meet the informational requirements imposed by their environments?
"Is it possible" - Chris sounds like Erich Von Daniken! Of course maybe
*anything* is "possible", or at least can be *imagined* to be "possible.
But it is also "possible" that Chris' materialistic philosophy is wrong!
CC>If you
>kill off all the lighter-colored members of a species, is it not true that
>the ones that survive over many generations will be the one's that look
>like they've been "informed" to be darker? If biological inviability kills
>off the variations that do not have the means of adequately processing
>nutrients, will it not be the case that those that remain, if any,
>absolutely *must* be (barring further occasional variations) the one's that
>have been "informed" as to how to process nutrients effectively?
Not really. That nature can *appear* to resemble intelligent human
selection in some respects is not disputed.
The whole point is that there are known empirical limits to such so-called
natural `selection' in the living world today and no evidence of such natural
`selection' in the prebiotic non-living world.
As Thaxton et al. point out, what limited success prebiotic evolution has
achieved is through *real* human intelligent selection.
CC>Oh, right. I forgot. Naturally occurring variations only count as
>"information" when they are selected by human beings, not when such factors
>as the physical *requirements* of surviving and reproducing are all that's
>involved.
That is so. My son has just completed his Bachelor of Engineering degree
in Information Technology, with 1st class honours (he gets his brains from
his mum!). As can be expected Information Theory was a major component
of the course. He told me that Information Theory *presumes* an
intelligent source and that unintelligent natural processes are regarded as
*noise* to be compensated for and filtered out.
CC>So, if farmers over a period of thousands of years produce a new
>plant (such as cabbage), their activities are "a profoundly informative
>intervention."
Not really. They are just selecting out what information was already there.
This can, at its lowest level (i.e. what Darwin called "unconscious
selection", resemble natural `selection'.
The analogy between what Polanyi means by "a *profoundly* informative
intervention" would be modern GM technology, introducing new
information that never was there. For example, introducing fish genes into
plants to make them more resistant to frost. A better example would be the
creation of new genes from scratch, which have never existed in living
things and inserting them into the germline. This is being mooted but to
date it is banned.
In the case of the origin of life, there are no genes in prebiotic, unintelligent
matter, and no known unintelligent natural processes that can create the
physical medium the genetic information is encoded upon (the `hardware'),
let alone the information itself (the `software').
CC>but when *predators* or disease or food supplies do it,
>there's no informative intervention at all, right? Water, temperature,
>gravity, etc., have no informative effects, even though the fact that they
>or their lack can kill unsuited variations would seem, indeed, to be
>information of a sort.
That natural process can destroy or reshuffle existing genetic information is
granted.
I would even be prepared to grant, *if it could be shown empirically* to
actually happen, that in the existing *living* world, natural processes might
be able to generate a limited quantity of genetic information 1-bit at a time.
But this, as former Cambridge University Professor of Cell Biology, E.J.
Ambrose points out, would be "totally inadequate" to explain the level of
information that actually exists in living things:
"It must have become clear that arguments in favour of the Origin
of Species on a materialistic basis soon degenerate into circular
arguments. When these ideas were put forward in the early 20th
Century, nothing was known about the astonishing levels of order
that exist in living organisms.... Work in robotics has revealed that
information stored at astronomical magnitude is needed for
organisms to carry out even the most simple activities of sorting
out; and nuts and bolts are far easier to sort than appropriate food
when food gathering, etc. Information is the opposite of
randomness. How can it arise? The information which comes from
the environment, physical or biological, is simple, it is in each
instance one bit of information, this is *better* for survival or *not
better* for survival of the species. In relation to the level of order
and information which exists in actual organisms, even given the
many millions of years during which life has existed on earth, the
amount of information provided by natural selection is totally
inadequate. This is further enhanced by the evidence that in fact
species are unchanged (stasis) during most of the geological time
scale. Only brief periods, in geological terms are available during
which natural selection an operate. There is every justification
for concluding that Creative intelligence is operating during the still
mysterious origination of Species." (Ambrose E.J., "The Mirror of
Creation," 1990, p.175. Emphasis in original)
But in this case we are talking about the *non*-living
world. Recently there was an article about the *minimum*
amount of genetic information needed to construct a
living, self-feeding, self-maintaining, self-reproducing,
organisim, and it needed at least 300 genes:
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/23/BC-SCIENCE-LIFE.reut/index.html
Scientists look at building artificial life January 24, 1999 ... ANAHEIM,
California (Reuters) -- Scientists busy trying to map all the genes in
creatures ranging from bacteria to humans think they are on the verge of
figuring out how to build an artificial life form, from genes. ... Their guinea
pig is a tiny bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium. It lives in the human
genital tract and lungs, causing no known disease, but has the distinction of
having fewer genes than any other organism mapped so far. While humans
have about 80,000 genes, this bug gets along fine with just 470. That
makes it a good model for figuring out precisely which genes are essential
for life, and which ones code for extra value such as having blue eyes or the
ability to resist heat. "We are attempting to understand what the definition
of life is," Venter, of ... Celera Genomics Corporation, told a news
conference. "We are trying to understand what the minimum set of genes
is." ... One by one, they cut out mycoplasma genes to see which ones the
organism could live without. ... they got M. genitalium down to about 300
essential genes. This could form the basis for trying to put together an
artificial M. genitalium, Venter reckons. ...
------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know how many bits of information this would be, I presume it
would be *thousands*. What Chris has to show is a *non-living*
unintelligent natural process that can build the information content of 300
genes, just to get started.
CC>If you found that a significant percentage of each
>generation of a species was getting killed off by something while nearly
>all the rest were thriving, do you not think that we could possibly get
>*information* from examining both the living and the dead in detail
>(perhaps *genetically*)?
See above. There is no dispute that natural processes of differential survival
and reproduction (aka natural `selection') can reduce and reshuffle existing
genetic information in the *living* world.
CC>Why, surprise of surprises, we *can* sometimes do this. Much of medical
>research is devoted to precisely such questions as what *genetic*
>differences do healthy people have from people who develop certain medical
>problems? More significantly, we have, in many such cases, found definite
>and testable answers to such questions.
See above. There is no dispute that there are "genetic differences". The
question is are these *increases* in genetic information or reductions and
recombinations of same. The Human Genome project was based on the
premise that there is a human *genome*. That is, sequencing 5 human's
genomes would yield the standard human *genome* that would represent,
with minor variations, the 6 billion genomes of the rest of us.
CC>Due to "a profoundly informative intervention," there are hardly any
>members of the human race with IQ's less than twenty any more.
I am not sure what Chris' point is here.
CC>What *is* the "profoundly informative intervention"? Simple: failure to
>reproduce, often caused by *death*. This is about as profound as an
>"intervention" can possibly get. Death (of a gene) "teaches" the species
>not to use that gene very often. Survival of a gene, because of it's
>effects, "teaches" the species to keep on using that gene heavily.
See above. Chris is, as usual, trying to redefine words out of existence that
threaten his materialistic philosophy!
CC>Thus, there *is* a profoundly informative intervention, for sure, but it's
>not at all the one Thaxton and others would like. It is the laws of
>physics, chemistry, and local requirements for survival of genes and
>genomes forcibly intervening into the affairs of every species and removing
>information that doesn't work.
See above. Even if the above were true, Thaxton et al., and Polanyi too,
were talking about *pre*-biological evolution.
Chris' apparent need to change the subject, only shows that they are right.
CCThe entire issue can be analyzed *solely* in
>terms of information, in that we have a "producer" of information
>(variation, modification of genetic material), and a severe filter that
>only lets *some* information survive.
See above. There is no dispute that genetic information exists, and it can be
recombined and reduced. It may even be able to be increased, but there is
little or no hard evidence for that.
CC>Thus, the genes of all organisms
>reflect the history of their past environments (including the organismic
>environments of the cells they were in, etc.).
The "genes of all organisms" contain information. It is begging the
question to assume that it all came from "past environments". The question
in dispute is how did that information get there?
Even Pierre Grasse, holder of the chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne for 30
years, past president of the French Academy of Sciences, editor of a 28-
volume encyclopaedia of zoology, of whom even his opponent Dobzhansky
conceded, "his knowledge of the living world was encyclopedic", did not
know where the information in living things came from:
"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 a molecular scale in the chromosomal
DNA or in that of any other organelle in each cell. This
"intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is
imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which
concerns both biologists and philosophers and, at present, science
seems incapable of solving it." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living
Organisms," 1977, p.2)
CC>Thus, if we had a large
>number of a wide variety of species from all over at all periods during the
>past 3.8 billion years, we could reconstruct many of the details of both
>their internal and external environments from the *information* in their
>DNA.
Again this is begging the question. That "the *information* in their DNA"
came solely from their "internal and external environments" is what needs
to be demonstrated.
Chris just *assumes* that it *must* be so, because to him there *is*
nothing else.
CC>We would find which organisms were predators and which prey, and even,
>in many cases, which preyed on which. We would find out much about climate,
>about availability of water, and so on, because, though the information
>went in randomly (or semi-randomly) via variational mechanisms, *survival*
>of the genes and their information content was by no means random.
See above. Chris doesn't even need to look. He *assumes* that he already
knows the answer on philosophical grounds.
CC>The problem with physics, chemistry, and actual local physical conditions
>being the "intelligent" designer is only that *that's* not the "intelligent
>designer" that nearly all the ID crowd desperately *wants* to be the
>designer.
Apart from the "desperately" we agree on this at least! Now Chris better
break the news to FJ (aka Pim).
CC>Sorry, kids, but if physics and chemistry are intelligent enough
>to do the job, your designer might not be such hot stuff anyway.
Agreed with the "if"! But as even Darwin said, "But Oh, what a big `if'"!
CC>It might
>turn out to be some deranged old alien from a galaxy far, far away, who has
>been idling away his waning years by occasionally manipulating a codon or
>two to produce a variation that might not otherwise have occurred.
As I pointed out in his claim that the designers were "idiots", if Chris wants
to claim that he, his mind and its reasoning power, only shows the level of
design of "some deranged old alien" then that is OK by me!
This is further evidence of how materialism (aka physicalism) is self-
refuting:
"In sum, it is self-refuting to argue that one ought to choose
physicalism because he should see that the evidence is good for
physicalism. Physicalism cannot be offered as a rational theory
because physicalism does away with the necessary preconditions for
there to be such a thing as rationality. Physicalism usually denies
intentionality by reducing it to a physical relation of input/output,
thereby denying that the mind is genuinely capable of having
thoughts about the world. Physicalism denies the existence of
propositions and nonphysical laws of logic and evidence which can
be in minds and influence thinking. Physicalism denies the existence
of a faculty capable of rational insight into these nonphysical laws
and propositions, and it denies the existence of an enduring "I"
which is present through the process of reflection. Finally, it denies
the existence of a genuine agent who deliberates and chooses
positions because they are rational, an act possible only if physical
factors are not sufficient for determining future behavior."
(Moreland J.P., "Scaling the Secular City," 1987, p96).
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is no easy matter to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a
belief as that in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in
such a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the
naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of
Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments. When he
had finished, nothing remained of the belief in spontaneous generation. We
tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a
triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The
reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only
alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.
There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago
chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical
necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that
this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having
reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation
hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation,
are left with nothing." (Wald W., "The origin of life," Scientific American,
Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.45-53, pp.45-46)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 27 2000 - 19:02:03 EDT