>
> >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.
Chris
This is irrelevant to my claim. My claim was the obvious one that matter
can be organized in complex ways, and I was using this to suggest that it
might be premature to claim that matter could not similarly (i.e., without
design) *become* organized in complex ways.
Further, entropy only increases where there is an energy disequilibrium. A
hypercomplex block of matter at absolute zero in a completely quiescent
"space" (i.e., no "quantum foam," etc.) might not change by even one
photon's worth in trillions *of* trillions of years.
> >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.
Chris
Complexity is not the problem. Randomness is *complex.* The problem is the
generation of what Schutzenberger calls "functional complexity."
> >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.
Chris
True, but irrelevant to my point.
> >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.
Oh, but they are. Perhaps you forgot to take your math classes in
school? Perhaps you took me to mean that there could in fact be an
infinite number of *actual* variations created in a finite time or with a
finite supply of materials. If that's so, then perhaps I did not make
myself clear. I was not claiming any such thing.
>
> >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.
Chris
Okay, that's an easy one: Generate *every* possible string of characters of
that length by a process of cumulative random variation. You can even start
with a bit-string one bit long, if you want. Just keep the replication
process going long enough to ensure that every possible string of the
length of that work is generated.Among the resulting strings there will be
one that is that complete contents. You just have to find it.
It would be easier if we could simply start out with a single bit and,
treating like a number, keep incrementing the number until it was the last
number possible to be represented in the same number of bits as the
contents of the work in question. But, that might be considered a
*directed* process.
> >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".
Chris
Note that I did not say "*actually* infinite," which would be something
that would, indeed, be false.
> >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.
Chris
"Literal" and "actual" have different meanings. A literal *mathematical*
infinity is not an *actual* infinity, but merely one that is be
distinguished from a mere figurative mathematical infinity (such as a
googolplex raised to its own power a googolplex number of times). But, you
have a point, nevertheless. Using the word "mathematical" should mean that
I would not have to use the word "literal," because a *mathematical*
infinity already *is* a literal infinity. What I was trying to emphasize
was that there is *no* mathematical limit to the number of possibilities to
the variational branching process.
To illustrate: Take one string of bits. Make a modified copy of it. This
makes two strings. Make a modified copy of each string, such that there are
now four distinct strings of bits. Thus, for each "generation," we double
the number of variations because we ensure that all copies are different
from their parent and from each other. Obviously, the total number of
variations approaches infinity as the number of generations approaches
infinity (although, strictly speaking, one does not "approach" infinity;
one merely gets further from the starting point).
Though biological variations do not neatly double in number per generation
because there is so much duplication, there is still, in the same way, no
*mathematical* upper limit to the number of variations that can be produced.
> >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?
Chris
Easy: They aren't created by an inherently evolutionary process, and, in
nature, steps in that direction would be selected out. This has *nothing*
to do with my claims. *Please* drop the silly red herring type of argument.
I said there's no inherent *complexity* barrier in the process. I did *not*
say that, given a *particular environment*, just *anything* could evolve. I
hope you can understand the distinction between the general nature of the
process and the various and sundry limitations that will be imposed by any
particular situation in which it occurs.
I see no point at all to your obfuscations other than to try to confuse the
issue for the sake of reeling in a few unwary or unknowledgeable readers.
You know that there is *nothing* whatever in the process that I have
described, or in any implications of it, that would imply that a P III
processor could "just materialize in nature," and you know very well that I
am claiming no such thing. So why pretend that I am claiming such a thing,
or that what I have clearly spelled out here previously implies such a
thing? I have *repeatedly* stated that the process requires only small
changes (as little as one bit of change *per* change) and that it achieves
complexity by *accumulating* these changes. I gather that you have not been
paying attention to what I or any of the other naturalistic evolutionists
have been saying. I have even written a post on why evolution does not
imply that a pile of car parts can or ever will assemble themselves into a
working car.
Tell you what, when you start showing some signs of dealing with real
issues instead of creating absurdities like the Pentium III case above,
maybe we can take you a bit more seriously. Until then, you are just making
yourself look out of touch.
<snip of more of DNAunion's drivel, followed by I know not what (because I
lost interest)>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 02:41:27 EDT