Category: Self-Org. Theory
|November 14, 2015||Posted by News under Self-Org. Theory, News|
Entirely at random, or so the theory runs… From ScienceDaily: While study has long been conducted on vertebrates with sight-sensory systems involving a lens, retina and nervous system, new research reported by the University of Cincinnati and supported by the National Science Foundation is the first to examine how the complex eye system of an […]
|June 26, 2015||Posted by Eric Anderson under Evolution, Self-Org. Theory, Irreducible Complexity, Origin Of Life, Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, Darwinist rhetorical tactics|
Yesterday I watched a re-run of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode. There. I said it. I love Star Trek. Notwithstanding the many absurd evolution-based plotlines. In this specific episode, Data referred to a particular characteristic of a newly-developing lifeform as an “emergent property.” I’ve looked into the “emergence” ideas in the past, and […]
|November 18, 2014||Posted by andyjones under Self-Org. Theory, Informatics, The Design of Life|
(it’s designed to) These are some thoughts prompted by the recent article Arrival of the Fittest: Robustness and flexibility are basic design principles. We design modules so that they are robust against minor damage, bad inputs and changes in other parts of the code. This aids ‘evolvability’ of the whole by untangling the knots so […]
|July 15, 2014||Posted by scordova under Comp. Sci. / Eng., Self-Org. Theory, thermodynamics and information|
A thermodynamically closed system that is far from equilibrium can increase the amount of physical design provided it is either front loaded or has an intelligent agent (like a human) within it. A simple example: A human on a large nuclear powered space ship can write software and compose music or many other designs. The […]
Origin of life: Is RNA world overlapping with self-organization theory (because it is otherwise impossible?)
|March 3, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Self-Org. Theory, Origin Of Life, News|
The big question in origin of life is really “Can we wring information from matter — shake the bit out of the it?” Or is it the other way around, as the great physicists would have it: The bit creates the it. But can that happen without an existing intelligence?
|February 8, 2014||Posted by News under Self-Org. Theory, Natural selection, News, horizontal gene transfer|
It sounds like Louis is trying to conjure the rabbits from the hat with math around variation rather than with selection. It doesn’t work, of course, but it’s a change from the usual.
|March 24, 2013||Posted by andyjones under Intelligent Design, Self-Org. Theory, Origin Of Life, 'Junk DNA'|
I need a picture of a small, hot-blooded mammal taunting an irritable dinosaur. An animation would be even better: the dinosaur would have a tic which makes him roar ‘IDiot’ constantly. Maybe make that several small mammals, becoming dozens and then hundreds. Singing something witty to the hamster dance. Or maybe not that last bit. […]
|September 5, 2012||Posted by scordova under Comp. Sci. / Eng., Self-Org. Theory, Informatics, Physics, ID Foundations, Biophysics, Complex Specified Information|
In order for a biological system to have more biological complexity, it often requires a substantial increase in thermodynamic entropy, not a reduction of it, contrary to many intuitions among creationists and IDists. This essay is part II of a series that began with Part 1 The physicist Fred Hoyle famously said: The chance that […]
|September 4, 2012||Posted by scordova under Comp. Sci. / Eng., Self-Org. Theory, Informatics, Physics, ID Foundations, Biophysics, Complex Specified Information|
The common belief is that adding disorder to a designed object will destroy the design (like a tornado passing through a city, to paraphrase Hoyle). Now if increasing entropy implies increasing disorder, creationists will often reason that “increasing entropy of an object will tend to destroy its design”. This essay will argue mathematically that this […]
|May 30, 2012||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Self-Org. Theory, Design inference, News|
“Briggs and colleagues were surprised to find that the COPI building blocks are capable of a ‘transformer’ act: they can change shape to connect to more or fewer copies of themselves.”
|May 21, 2012||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Self-Org. Theory, News|
Leaving Darwinism is simply giving oneself permission to think. And that includes patiently rethinking a number of questions (like the one Barham revisits.
|May 16, 2012||Posted by News under Self-Org. Theory, News|
“Natural genetic engineering has not been around forever even if all life as we know it presupposes it.”
James Barham at Best Schools ‘fesses up #6: Biology will finally become a science on a par with physics when …
|May 13, 2012||Posted by News under Self-Org. Theory|
… when biologists have the same attitude towards Darwin as physicists have towards Galileo and Kepler.
|May 7, 2012||Posted by News under Evolution, Self-Org. Theory|
“Much in our culture depends upon the public’s being made aware that Darwinian theory as standardly interpreted is intellectually bankrupt.”
|April 27, 2012||Posted by News under Self-Org. Theory, Design inference, News|
“Our theory of universality in network self-organization explains how they could independently develop a common design.”
|February 20, 2012||Posted by News under Darwinism, Self-Org. Theory, News|
Hmmm. Shapiro would never describe himself as a proponent of design theory, let alone a “creationist.”
|February 14, 2012||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Darwinism, Self-Org. Theory, Culture|
As a matter of fact, either Darwinism or science will survive. Not both.
|February 3, 2012||Posted by News under Self-Org. Theory, News, Cell biology|
Unwanted cross-reactions are invariably ignored in these celebrated models.
Dembski replies to Shapiro: “Natural genetic engineering” is just magic, by another name. Can you make it science?
|January 25, 2012||Posted by News under Self-Org. Theory|
“For him, natural genetic engineering is a magic phrase, a label, that he attaches to hypothesized processes that are opaque to him and yet that he claims result in evolutionary novelty.”
|January 23, 2012||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Self-Org. Theory|
“But of course, as experimentalists we are very willing to see the evidence that might prove us wrong.”