Home » Biology, Darwinism, Evolution » Complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees

571 Responses to Complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees

1. 571

   PatrickMarch 28, 2008 at 10:54 am

   Final thoughts.

   1. I submitted what I thought was a reasonable “middle ground” for public education science standards. Unfortunately, none of the Darwinists decided to discuss this option but instead chose to focus on supporting standards that favor their preferred philosophy of science as the only option. This by itself is highly revealing.

   2. Jack and others were essentially attacking the method by which information content is calculated. I’m not sure what to make of this objection, especially after Atom defeated it so soundly using Jack’s own example. Earlier I linked to a primer on information theory that is independent of ID that shows how calculations are done. Even Dawkins in 2003, in his book A Devil’s Chaplain (pg.93), agrees that this method is proper.

   For biology, Dembski is using the same methods as Haldane I would assume.

   If the minimal organism involves not only the code for its one or more proteins, but also twenty types of soluble RNA, one for each amino acid, and the equivalent of ribosomal RNA, our descendants may be able to make one, but we must give up the idea that such an organism could have been produced in the past, except by a similar pre-existing organism or by an agent, natural or supernatural, at least as intelligent as ourselves, and with a good deal more knowledge.” (Haldane, J.B.S., “Data Needed for a Blueprint of the First Organism,” in Fox, S.W., ed., “The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices,” Proceedings of a Conference Conducted at Wakulla Springs, Florida, October 27-30, 1963, Academic Press: New York NY, 1965, p.12).

   “The first enzyme very possibly contained the sequence Asp-Ser-Gly, which is part of the active centers of phosphoglucomutase, trypsin, and chymotrypsin. Ribonuclease contains 124 amino acid residues. If all were equally common, this would mean 540 bits. The number is actually a little less than that. This number could be somewhat reduced if some amino acids were rare both in the medium and in the enzyme. I suggest that the primitive enzyme was a much shorter peptide of low activity and specificity, incorporating only 100 bits or so. But even this would mean one out of 1.3 x 1030 possibilities. This is an unacceptable, large number. If a new organism were tried out every minute for 108 years, we should need 1017 simultaneous trials to get the right result by chance. The earth’s surface is 5 x 1018 cm2. There just isn’t, in my opinion, room. Sixty bits, or about 15 amino acids, would be more acceptable probabilistically, but less so biochemically. I suggest that the first synthetic organisms may have been something like a tobacco mosaic virus, but including the enzyme or enzymes needed for its own replication. More verifiably, I suggest that the first synthetic organisms may be so constituted. For natural, but not for laboratory life, a semipermeable membrane is needed. This could be constituted from an inactivated enzyme and lipids. I think, however, that the first synthetic organism may be much larger than the first which occurred. It may contain several different enzymes, with a specification of 5000 bits or so-about the information on a page of Chamber’s 7-figure logarithm tables. This should be quite within human possibilities. The question will then arise: How much smaller may the first natural organism have been? If this minimum involves 500 bits, one could conclude either that terrestrial life had had an extraterrestrial origin (with Nagy and Braun) or a supernatural one (with many religions, but by no means all).” (Haldane, Ibid., p.14).

   Obviously he was focused on issues related to OOL, but the point still remains: Haldane was calculating informational bits for biology in the same manner before Dembski was even born!

   Now as to not misconstrue Jack’s argument, he apparently believes that in order for the EF to work a different method of calculating the informational bits is required. His approach, which is different than Dembski’s, has major issues:

   a. Requires causal history, which would make this modified EF useless in most historical cases (not just biology, but archeology, murder cases, etc.). Obviously this was his intent. Never mind, Atom and I showed multiple examples for how causal history is not required for the standard EF to function. And if biology is indeed a special case as Jack asserts then positive evidence for an unknown law must be gathered.
   b. Requires investigation of all potential hypothetical pathways. The results of such calculations would be different. So how does one decide which result to use in regards to the modified EF?

   3. In order to determine whether or not there exists sufficient chance for any given sequence to occur it’s helpful to know the maximum size of the probability space. The probabilistic resources are limited by the maximum number of action quanta, h_bar, (Planck’s quantum of angular momentum) available.

   If the universe is finite with total mass/energy Mc^2, then the maximum number, N, of action quanta is readily calculated by:
   N = G * M^2 / (h_bar * c) ~ 10^123, where M is ~ 10^56 gm.

   For physio-chemical processes, probability space is greatly reduced compared to the estimated maximum of 10^123. I’ve read estimates of 10^40 for biological events, plus or minus one order of magnitude (more likely minus).

   4. Jack did not seem to understand our reference to the “unknown law”. He dodged the issue by referring to an “interplay of many laws”. Well, of course.

   For example, snowflakes are crystals. Crystals are just the same simple pattern repeated. Simple, repeated patterns are not complex.

   Repetitive structures, with all the info already in H2O, whose hexagonal structure/symmetry is determined by the directional forces – ie wind, gravity- are by no means complex.

   However, repetitive structures, such as crystals, do constitute specificity.

   Snowflakes, although specified, are also low in information, because their specification is in the laws, which of course means that node 1 in the Explanatory Filter (Does a law explain it?) would reject snowflakes as being designed.

   Contingency/laws can explain complexity but not specification. For instance, the exact time sequence of radioactive emissions from a chunk of uranium will be contingent, complex, but not specified. On the other hand, laws can explain specification but not complexity. The formation of a salt crystal follows well-defined laws, produces an independently known repetitive pattern, and is therefore specified; but like the snowflake that pattern will also be simple, not complex. The problem is to explain something like the genetic code, which is both complex and specified.

   The point that Jack misses is that Node 1 need not only refer to just ONE law. It can be an interplay of laws, as in this snowflake example.

   Let me give a further example of an unknown law.

   Let’s say we found a 2001-style monolith on the moon and all the planets. Design would likely be inferred. But suppose later on we discover unknown processes (a Law) that is observed to create these monoliths in space as an emergent property of an interplay of processes. ID theory would be revised to take this Law into account.

   Similarly, formalized design detection in regards to biology is open to falsification based upon new observations. It’s possible there is an unknown Law operating upon biology. If evidence of this unknown Law were found, ID theory would need to be revised. The limits of this Law would be analyzed. For example, this Law may only operate under limited circumstances and be capable of producing limited forms of complex specified information. Now this is only in regards to self-replicating life; obviously a separate unknown Law or event would need to be found for OOL. But if positive evidence is uncovered that these Laws are capable of operating uniformly then the entire ID scientific program in regards to biology is kaput.

   5. Recently there was an uproar in Florida over science standards. I remember listening to the radio and hearing those who objected be cast as the villains. But wait a minute…are not the Darwinists the ones making the changes? It was also a joke when some of those Darwinists claimed that Florida was “stuck back in the 50′s” and did not include lessons related to evolution. I live here…I KNOW that not to be the case. If anything, the changes they were pushing for just increased the level of indoctrination. All the changes did was include Darwinist assertions instead of increasing the teaching of what we do know.