>Ccogan: I suppose that even you would admit that many living things are
very complicated. This certainly proves that material things can be as
complex as we might desire.
>DNAunion: *IF* you are implying that this in any way validates evolution,
your logic is flawed. Existence of something complicated does not tell us
that it came about by evolutionary mechanisms.
>Ccogan: No. I'm not implying that that one fact validates evolution. I'm
pointing out that matter has nothing against being organized in complex ways.
DNAunion: Actually it does: entropy. (Yes, localized decreases in entropy
are possible, but only at the expense of equal or greater increases in
entropy elsewhere: and the general rule is that the randomness and disorder
of a system tends to increase naturally). The problem with your statement is
that you incorrectly state that "matter has nothing against being organized
in complex ways." This is wrong.
>Ccogan: Thus, the question arises: Might not some small bits of it become
complex through natural, material processes not involving design?
DNAunion: Sure, matter can become *ordered* without design: the birth of
stars, the spontaneous formation of vortices when water is let out of a
drain, clouds forming from dispersed water droplets, etc. But these examples
of order forming do not deal with specific complexity arising by purely
natural means, and specified complexity is one of the main properties of all
life.
>DNAunion: For example, "I suppose that even you would admit that computers
are very complicated. That certainly proves that material things can be as
complex as we might desire." Computers are designed.
>Ccogan: Finally, I may as well point out that, if you understood the
literally *infinite* richness that derives mathematically from the principle
of repeated, cumulative variational branching, it's doubtful that you would
>claim that the theory is "simplistic."
>DNAunion: That is incorrect: there is not *literally infinite* richness
produced by repeated cumulative variational branching. Had you said
"infinite", in double quotes to indicate the word should not be taken
literally, then your comment could be considered correct. But had you even
said simply infinite, without double quotes, your statement would be wrong.
And it is clearly wrong since you prefaced the word infinite with the word
LITERALLY.
>Ccogan: My point is that there is *absolutely* no limit, in *principle*, to
the degree of complexity that can be achieved by cumulative variational
processes.
DNAunion: Bold claim - now let's see if you can support it. Or will you try
to wiggle out by solely relying on your "in *principle*" clause? If so, then
please explain the principle that allows for the infiniteness.
>Ccogan: I should have emphasized that I was speaking in mathematical terms
though. Oh, WAIT! I *did* emphasize that. Perhaps you missed the word
"mathematical" only three words further along in the sentence?
DNAunion: As I already pointed out, your use is incorrect BECAUSE you used
the term mathematically. The possibilities are not INFINITE in the correct
mathematical sense.
>DNAunion: Simple refutation. There are 20 amino acids. If they are
peptide bonded into a 10,000 amino acid protein, then there are 20^10,000
possible unique arrangements of symbols (i.e., amino acids). This is many
orders of magnitude larger than the estimated number of fundamental particles
in the universe. But then there are 20 times MORE unique combinations that
are have just one more amino acid in the chain. Then there are another 20
times MORE than that one when another single amino acid is added, and so on,
and so on, and so on. All the possible unique combinations have not been
hit, and never will, even if the universe gets to be trillions of trillions
of trillions of trillions… [you get the idea] years old.
>Ccogan: Actually, this does not refute my point at all. Obviously, since
the amount of matter in the (known) Universe is finite, and the amount of
time since the (probable) "Big Inflation" is finite, the *actual* number of
possible combinations that can be achieved will necessarily be finite.
DNAunion: Yep, just as I stated - your were wrong for saying "literally
infinite".
>Ccogan: However, this is not particularly relevant to my point.
DNAunion: Now the desperate wiggling and struggling to loose yourself from
your own claim begins.
>Ccogan: My point is that there are no special limits to the complexity that
can be achieved by the process that are inherent in the process itself. Any
kind and degree of complexity that can be achieved by *any* process can also
be achieved by a strictly evolutionary process of cumulative variation and
replication, assuming that the materials are available for it.
DNAunion: So show us that complete contents of latest issue of "Origins of
Life and Evolution of the Biosphere" could come about by the process of
NON-DIRECTED cumulative variation and replication. That would be a beginning.
>Ccogan: My point was intended to counter Bertvan's incredibly
fuzzy-thinking about the topic of what it takes to produce complexity, *not*
to claim that an infinite number of such combinations would occur in the real
world.
DNAunion: Then you should have refrained from using "literally infinite".
>CCogan: Perhaps I should have emphasized that I was talking about the
mathematical implications of the basic process of variation branching and
replication. But, wait! I *did* emphasize that!
DNAunion: Perhaps I should have emphasized that it was your supposed
mathematical use that was your downfall. But wait, I *did* emphasize that!
>Ccogan: Seriously, though, perhaps I should have added asterisks around the
word "mathematical,"
DNAunion: No, you seriously should have left out the "literally infinite"
phrase.
>Ccogan: but, even as is, I think it should be clear that I'm not claiming
that an *actual* infinity is or would be or even could be produced in a
finite period of time.
DNAunion: No, that is not clear when you use the word LITERALLY. If you are
speaking figuratively, then you should refrain from labeling such statements
are being LITERAL.
>Ccogan: The point is that the process of producing variations has no
ultimate limit in and of itself, and that, therefore, the variations can be
as complex as is physically possible, given available materials and time
(lack of materials becomes a *selective* factor at some point, as does, in a
sense, insufficient time). There is no inherent "complexity-barrier" in the
process.
DNAunion: Great, then why have no Pentium III processors ever just
materialized in nature? Why have we found no automobiles in the preCambrian
strata? Where is the pre-human fossil record devoid of radios, televisions,
airplanes, etc.?
>Ccogan: Only when selection is introduced as an integral aspect of what is
being considered do we get limitations, and they depend on what kind of
selection there is and how much of it there is.
DNAunion: So selection is the "enemy" of the natural creation of high-degree
complexity? Perhaps you could tell this to Darwinians.
>Ccogan: Here's the idea stated as a general principle:
If the variations are within certain limits and are sufficiently nearly
random or otherwise exhaustive of possibilities as time goes on, and if
selection does not *prevent* the development of a particular degree and/or
kind of complexity, then, given sufficient time, that particular degree
and/or kind of complexity *will* occur, with nearly absolute certainty
(approaching 1 as time approaches infinity).
DNAunion: This sounds like a quote that should have references (we all need
to be careful of plagiarism).
Regardless, notice that - whether or not the statements are valid - they need
the variations to be "exhaustive of possibilities". This brings us back to
what I stated. The sequence space consisting of polypeptides 10,000 amino
acids long has not been exhaustively searched by nature in 4 billion years
(nor will it ever be as the universe will not exist for trillions of
trillions of trillions or trillions more years).
>Ccogan: In the real world, selection *does* severely limit what can be
produced,
DNAunion: I think that some/many/most evolutionists would disagree with the
idea that selection *hinders* the creation of (high-degree) complexity.
>Ccogan: … and the variational mechanism itself has limits on what it will
produce (ordinary water-and-carbon-based life may not be able to evolve
internal combustion engines such as those in an ordinary car, for example,
nor will a large population of a species evolve naturally if it has no means
whatever of being reproduced).
DNAunion: So if the variations need to be "exhaustive of possibilities" to
create "that particular degree and/or kind of complexity", and you state,
"the variational mechanism itself has limits on what it will produce", then
you just showed that there are limits: you have just shown that your
statement about "literally infinite" was incorrect.
> >Ccogan: Is it possible that it's your *understanding* of it that is
"simplistic"?
>DNAunion: That might be the pot calling the kettle black.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 20:22:40 EDT