Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Mathematician’s View of Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

If you haven’t run into this essay from The Mathematical Intelligencer by mathematician Granville Sewell, I recommend it. In a concise and easily accessible fashion he summarizes why a mathematician might be driven to skepticism about orthodox Darwinian theory.

I continue to find it entertaining that many Darwinists are convinced that only religious fanatics, the uneducated, and/or not-very-brights don’t buy their arguments.

Comments
[...] In a previous UD post I commented on an article by mathematician Granville Sewell, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution.” Since then Granville and I have corresponded and he forwarded a follow-up piece entitled, “Can Anything Happen in an Open System?” [...]Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System? | Uncommon Descent
May 22, 2007
May
05
May
22
22
2007
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
DaveScot wrote:
I have no real argument that the machinery of life in and of itself can generate specified information.
But who specified the information. Until some intelligent agent somes along and yells "specified information", it wasn't there. Information isn't a thing that is out there just waiting to be discovered. Information is interpretation. What is the information in a book? We may tear the book apart, but nowhere will we find its information. Two different people may instead read the book and come up with two different interpretations. Which one, if any, is the correct one? Say we have two copies of a book. Is that twice the information or the same? Say a library that has one copy of most of its books has ten copies of one book. The ten copies on their own may just tell the same thing ten times; but in context we may interpret then ten copies as the information that this book is a very popular book, and the library stocks extra many copies to satisfy demand. But reading any of the ten copies may not tell you why it is so. have a nice day! - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
DaveScot wrote:
Where did the self-modifying machine capable or problem solving through trial and error (which is all RM+NS really is with RM generating the trials and NS detecting the errors) come from? If Sewell and Dembski are right it didn’t come by way of accidental application of physical laws but rather by intelligent manipulation of natural law.
This is rather an engineering way of looking at things. Evolution isn't problem-solving. An organism may solve problems - and amy eventually change itself in the process (though noyt necessarily physically). The problem is artificial´and disappears, if we do not see evolution as solving any problems. To go in closer on this, let's look at this piece from essay linked to in the OP:
If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards? If we graphically displayed the positions of the atoms at the end of the simulation, would we find that cars and trucks had formed, or that supercomputers had arisen?
This is metaphysical Pythogeanism. Sewell assumes that a mathematical model of the universe can fully represent the universe. But to make any sense of his suggestion, he would even need to have the model represented in the model, an infinite regress. have a nice day! - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
BC Good. We're on the same page for a definition of information. The Wiki section talking about transformational information is a pretty good working definition. What we're really talking about is specified information i.e. information that has meaning in a given context. I have no real argument that the machinery of life in and of itself can generate specified information. A computer with sufficient front loading by an intelligent agent can successfully use trial and error seeking novel solutions to problems. The simplest cell is a fine example of such a front-loaded piece of computational machinery. I've always maintained that intelligent agency can defeat 2LoT as applied to specified information while nothing else can. So the question boils down to abiogenesis. Where did the self-modifying machine capable or problem solving through trial and error (which is all RM+NS really is with RM generating the trials and NS detecting the errors) come from? If Sewell and Dembski are right it didn't come by way of accidental application of physical laws but rather by intelligent manipulation of natural law.DaveScot
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Information, eh? A linguist distinguishes between meaning and information. Words have meaning but apart from a context there is no information. The minimal unit of information is the proposition/clause, and there information is defined by it’s truth value: is it true or false? Thus the word SALMON is neither true nor false, but “I caught three large salmon in the Columbia today” is true or false against some context which may be objective reality or a fictional story. Meaning IS, information HAPPENS. Meaning is somehow “out there” whereas information is an event that transpires in time. Information, of course, can be stored (in books, hard drives, etc.), and there it is potential information until read off in time. Information might occur as input to a machine, but ultimately all information—so far as we know—issues only from mind. And then there’s the problem of understanding. To understand imagine constructing a machine that could distinguish new information from information already stored (but in different words and phrases) in the machine? I remember conversations with people in another country and language that I am now forgetting—I remember what they said but not the word in which they said it. Could a machine ever be made that understands?Rude
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
What definition of “information” are you laboring under?
Funny, I was about to append the definition of "information" I was using to my last post. I'm using the word "information" virtually synonymously with "useful". As in: if sequence X allows an organism to survive, and sequence Y doesn't do anything useful (perhaps it is simply a completely random sequence), then sequence X contains more information (utility) than sesquence Y. (It might be that a random sequence Y contains zero information.) Noting that useless gene sequences are far more common than useful gene sequences (in the set of all possible sequences), and that organisms have a disproportionately large set of useful gene sequences versus useless ones makes organisms seem designed - because their genes contain a disproportionate amount of "information" which is useful to their survival. From the evolutionary standpoint, all we care about is useful gene sequences, and the second law of thermodynamics does not prevent the creation of useful gene sequences. (A second definition, which I would use in other contexts: I would describe "information" as being the "bits" of information defined in a sequence. Under that definition, the concept of "useful" does not apply, since we are simply interested in faithfully transmitting that exact sequence while remaining agnostic about it's usefulness. I believe this is the definition that Shannon uses. This is not the definition that IDists use. Further, under this definition, all random sequences contain information. In other words, a random sequence generator is an information generator. However, random sequences rarely produce useful information. And when IDists say that the genome contains information, they mean something more than "a whole bunch of random sequences", instead, they mean, "a whole bunch of useful information for the benefit and survival of the organism".)BC
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
BC What definition of "information" are you laboring under? Read this and get back to me.DaveScot
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
DaveScot:
Let me get this straight. You’re arguing that a copy error which causes a three letter sequence to be a two letter sequence is proof that copy errors can build a complex machine with hundreds of interdependent components?
I'm not sure what you're talking about with "three letter sequence to be a two letter sequence", but ignoring that -- I answered your question before you even asked it when I said, "Also, I realize that large sequences of genes contain useful “information” and you can question the existence of that information in the first place." What I'm doing is questioning the assertion that the second law of thermodynamics prevents ANY increase in information. Switching to an argument about "complex machine with hundreds of interdependent components", is changing the subject. sabre:
Your starting sequence has no specificity (if I’m using the term correctly here), therefore there is nothing to judge if information has been lost or gained by your example.
Yes, I anticipated that response. That's why I stated my question as: mutating sequence A to sequence B (meaning B contains equal or less information than A), and mutating sequence B to sequence C where C=A occurs with some probability. If C=A and A to B represented a loss of information, then, mathematically, mutation from B to C must represent an increase in information.BC
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Todd: Yes, I believe an outside force (i.e. intelligent causation) is the logical inference. As I stated earlier, natural laws cannot be violated, but they can be influenced by a counter-acting force (such as artificially created lift counteracting gravity). BC: I did not mean to offer offense, and apologize if I have done so. Not having had the same ten classes (I’m an electrical engineer, not a life sciences major, as I have noted), I have no way of knowing exactly what your background is. Nonetheless, I stand by my assertion that your example is spurious. Your starting sequence has no specificity (if I’m using the term correctly here), therefore there is nothing to judge if information has been lost or gained by your example. “Also, I looked up the book on Amazon. I’m a little frightened by the UFO on the cover. Hearing that he’s a YEC makes me a bit worried about the objectivity of the information in the book as well (he has an axe to grind, he’s clearly out to disprove evolution; and that seems like a bad introduction to “genetic information”). I’ve had very bad reactions to YECs after fact-checking their information.” This is the genetic fallacy, is it not? Sanford reference the work of well known scientists throughout his book, and is very upfront about separating what is scientific fact versus what is the possible implications of those facts. He makes a very good case that natural selection can slow the rate of information loss in the genome, but is wholly inadequate to prevent it. I don’t have the space or time to regurgitate all his arguments; however, I can summarize by saying the overwhelming preponderance of nearly neutral deleterious mutations, along with other factors he refers to as “noise”, quickly overtakes natural selection’s limited abilities. The book does not make any arguments against the age of the earth, but does note (almost as an aside) that accumulated mutations are thought to be a factor in aging, and that this could be a reason for Biblical accounts of longer life spans in ancient times. By the way, the vehicle on the cover of Sanford’s book is not a UFO, but is part of an analogy referenced throughout the book. Perhaps your local library has a copy, so you can judge it for its content and not its source. Again, I apologize if anything I have written has offended anyone. One of the reasons I so enjoy this blog is the very collegiate nature of the debate. It was not my intent to detract from that. Respecfully,sabre
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
PaV wrote (#54)
Ken Miller is an evolutionist, and a Catholic. Michael Behe is an ID supporter, and a Catholic. I’m a Catholic: obviously I have lots of choices. This isn’t about religion; it’s about bad science. Darwinism insults my intelligence, not my religious principles.
Hmmm - there are a few possible perspectives on that I'd say. Like Ken Miller I am an evolutionist and a Christian (though a Lutheran :-)), and 1) I see no conflict here, because what I find important religiously is the present. Jesus said that God is not a god for the dead, but for the living. 2) I actually find abiogenesis intellectually challenging. Yes, it sounds impossible. How can life come from non-life? That's too puzzling a question for me to simply give it up :-)
The argument often devolves to the abiogenesis issue because of the probability arguments. Darwinists, in the face of arguments that involve enormous improbabilites, say that the fact that biological life is able to reproduce itself makes it possible to defy these odds.
But do we know these odds for sure? I'm no expert on these matters; but we might need to know quite a lot of things to calculate that probability. For instance, a common claim is that self-assembling DNA or RNA is practically impossible, since the polymers are thermodynamically unstable. However, it appears that clay minerals might have catalyzed such a process, so who knows?
... Hence, the difficulties of overcoming the problems facing abiogenesis puts into perpsective the unsure foundation of explaining all of life merely in terms of material forces.
Oh, just a moment here . Exactly what do you count as 'material forces'?
In other words, if the only way you can explain abiogenesis is through the invocation of a Creator (Designer), as Darwin does, this negates all the silly arguments about “who” the Designer is, and that we can’t know anything about this Designer, etc.
Say I was a Hindu, would I agree with you? and even if we would agree, would we understand the same thing?. One thing that is peculiar to science is that the truth value of a scientific statement should not depend on who says it. By abandoning abiogenesis you open up a whole new set of problems that may be even tougher to solve.
As well, it should be pointed out that the abiogenesis arguments puts into proper perspective the unbelievable difficulties that RM+NS must overcome.
Don't forget that Darwin knew nothing about genes and therefore nothing about gene mutations. Do we know enough at current about mutations to know if they are truly random, I have read that stress situations increase mutation rate, even for bacteria.
Behe and Snoke wrote a paper looking at getting TWO nucleotide changes (mutations) side by side, and discovered that it would take a population of 10^8 organisms 10^8 generations to do so. Is there a progenitor of the elephant? The fossil record says no. But if there were, how many nucleotide changes–in just the right places–have taken place in the last 6×10^7 years? This is the kind of thing that RM+NS has to overcome. Now at Panda’s Thumb they have torn apart Behe and Snoke’s paper, but an objective, informed reading of their criticism shows that the force of Behe and Snoke’s paper has not been diminished.
Yes, iirc, the PT disagreed with some of the calculations claiming that a duplication followed by a mutation of either or both duplicates isn't all that improbable. And, again iirc, Behe and Snoke only suggested that other mutations than point mutations might be needed. So it's a question, if they actually had anything of importance to tell - but of course, that may just be what the PT claimed :-)Poul Willy Eriksen
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
Davescot (or whoever does these things), Wow! Fine with the new interface - an instant previewer, that's really something :-) bFast wrote (#53):
Remember, many of us IDers are also evolutionists — we believe in change over time, and in many cases full common descent. We question whether purely natural causes, especially RM+NS, can fully account for life as we know it.
Ok, but that's what confuses me (well, one of the things). Is what separates 'Darwinism' (and remember: Darwin wasn't a Darwinist!) and ID is the question of abiogenesis, then why all that other stuff? And notice, even if we are designed, then - unless you are a biological reductionist - the faculties of our minds were not designed!Poul Willy Eriksen
September 25, 2006
September
09
Sep
25
25
2006
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
BC Let me get this straight. You're arguing that a copy error which causes a three letter sequence to be a two letter sequence is proof that copy errors can build a complex machine with hundreds of interdependent components? Oooooooooooooookay. Can I interest you in purchasing a nice bridge in Brooklyn? :-)DaveScot
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
BC, respectfully, your argument seems to indicate a lack of understanding of both information theory and genetics.
Skipping past any insults (I did complete the ten or so classes required for pre-med, I'm not a total novice here), let's get to the meat here - since you didn't provide any actual argument (just asked me to read a book), explain to me why the second law of thermodynamics would prevent mutation of the sequence from A->B->C, where A=C. We know from mathematics that it's possible. If it isn't possible because of the second law of thermodynamics, then you've just revolutionized the world of probability mathematics and found a robust way to measure information (i.e. if you can start with a million copies of "ACGCAC”, do one point mutation to each of them, and none of them mutate to “ACGGAC”, then you know that “ACGGAC” contains more information than “ACGCAC”; hence you've found a robust way to create a hierarchy of sequence information). Of course, that's not the way mutations work, and the second law of thermodynamics does not magically intervene to prevent that situation. Also, I realize that large sequences of genes contain useful "information" and you can question the existence of that information in the first place. I just want to provide a simple, tangible situation where there is a clear "increase in information", and ask the question "how would the second law of thermodynamics prevent this situation from occuring, even though we know from probablility theory that it will happen with a reasonable frequency?" (BTW, I can provide an account of how the second law of thermodynamics degrades the genome in the absence of natural selection, showing that, yes, under certain non-natural conditions, the genome can degrade.) Also, I looked up the book on Amazon. I'm a little frightened by the UFO on the cover. Hearing that he's a YEC makes me a bit worried about the objectivity of the information in the book as well (he has an axe to grind, he's clearly out to disprove evolution; and that seems like a bad introduction to "genetic information"). I've had very bad reactions to YECs after fact-checking their information.BC
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
sabre, If information is invariably lost in the genome as the 2nd Law implies it must, how did it get there in the first place to begin degrading? This, I think, is the rub. Would it be 'an outside force acting' to produce the information?todd
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
BC said: "BTW, does the fact that no one counterargued against my example involving the mutations “ACGGAC” -> “ACGCAC” -> “ACGGAC” mean that we can finally put the “second law of thermodynamics means evolution can’t happen because evolution requires an increase in information, 2nd law prevents it” to rest? I certainly hope so. I hope we can get everyone to agree on this point and not have to revisit it again in two months." BC, respectfully, your argument seems to indicate a lack of understanding of both information theory and genetics. I absolutely don't intend this as a flame; neither do I claim to be an expert on either of the two subjects...just a novice, really. For a better understanding of why I believe your example is superfluous, I suggest reading Dr. J.C. Sanford's "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome." He makes very compelling and higly understandable (especially for a novice such as myself) arguments why information is invariably lost in the genome (absent an outside force acting to counter that loss), as the 2nd Law implies that it must. Understand, his arguments are not couched in terms of the 2nd Law, but it is easy to see why it is supported by it. Respectfully,sabre
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Poul Willy Eriksen:
I consider myself a Christian, yet I have no problem with the theory of evolution, so apparently some thing doesn’t add up.
Ken Miller is an evolutionist, and a Catholic. Michael Behe is an ID supporter, and a Catholic. I'm a Catholic: obviously I have lots of choices. This isn't about religion; it's about bad science. Darwinism insults my intelligence, not my religious principles. Further:
But it leaves me confused, why so many people consider abiogenesis to be a necessary corollary of the theory of evolution. Darwin didn’t. It was Ernst Haeckel who introduced abiogenesis, so aren’t anti-Darwinists barking up the wrong tree?
The argument often devolves to the abiogenesis issue because of the probability arguments. Darwinists, in the face of arguments that involve enormous improbabilites, say that the fact that biological life is able to reproduce itself makes it possible to defy these odds. (But, of course, there's not one argument to date that can overcome these enormous odds!) And, so, the natural response--since we're really dealing, for the most part, not with science but with materialism, is to point out that reproduction is not available when dealing with the first life form. In this instance, all the enormous improbabilities have to be overcome without invoking arguments that include reproduction. Hence, the difficulties of overcoming the problems facing abiogenesis puts into perpsective the unsure foundation of explaining all of life merely in terms of material forces. In other words, if the only way you can explain abiogenesis is through the invocation of a Creator (Designer), as Darwin does, this negates all the silly arguments about "who" the Designer is, and that we can't know anything about this Designer, etc. As well, it should be pointed out that the abiogenesis arguments puts into proper perspective the unbelievable difficulties that RM+NS must overcome. Behe and Snoke wrote a paper looking at getting TWO nucleotide changes (mutations) side by side, and discovered that it would take a population of 10^8 organisms 10^8 generations to do so. Is there a progenitor of the elephant? The fossil record says no. But if there were, how many nucleotide changes--in just the right places--have taken place in the last 6x10^7 years? This is the kind of thing that RM+NS has to overcome. Now at Panda's Thumb they have torn apart Behe and Snoke's paper, but an objective, informed reading of their criticism shows that the force of Behe and Snoke's paper has not been diminished.PaV
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
pwe: "it leaves me confused, why so many people consider abiogenesis to be a necessary corollary of the theory of evolution." Abiogenesis is a necessary corollary of the philosophical naturalism. If abiogeneis is a supernatural event, then we are the product of ID. Beyond that, we are only debating the way that the designer(s) worked. Remember, many of us IDers are also evolutionists -- we believe in change over time, and in many cases full common descent. We question whether purely natural causes, especially RM+NS, can fully account for life as we know it.bFast
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
And, as to the canard that “we don’t know who the Designer is” argument, let me point this out. Darwin himself provides the answer. That is, in the last sentence of the Origins, Darwin says that “life” has been “originally breathed by the Creator into one or many forms.” Well, that’s who the Designer is: the Creator that Darwin talks about.
True, and a very good point :-)
And to build on that further, that quote undermines some attacks on evolution involving arguements that evolution=atheism, or that Darwin was simply out to disprove the existence of God. BTW, does the fact that no one counterargued against my example involving the mutations "ACGGAC" -> "ACGCAC" -> "ACGGAC" mean that we can finally put the "second law of thermodynamics means evolution can't happen because evolution requires an increase in information, 2nd law prevents it" to rest? I certainly hope so. I hope we can get everyone to agree on this point and not have to revisit it again in two months.BC
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
PaV wrote (in comment #49):
If we at UD do not accept this argument, I think you can understand why we don’t.
Not necessarily, and that's why I am probing around. What is really all that bad about (the theory of) evolution? I consider myself a Christian, yet I have no problem with the theory of evolution, so apparently some thing doesn't add up. As for probability arguments - there are as many rebuttals of these by evolutionists as there are arguments. It is beyond me to see, who's right. Yet, I am no Pythagorean, so I don't accept mathematical proofs as final proffs about reality. Anf that may separate me from the ID proponents, however much I may agree with (some of) them regrading other issues.
And, as to the canard that “we don’t know who the Designer is” argument, let me point this out. Darwin himself provides the answer. That is, in the last sentence of the Origins, Darwin says that “life” has been “originally breathed by the Creator into one or many forms.” Well, that’s who the Designer is: the Creator that Darwin talks about.
True, and a very good point :-) But it leaves me confused, why so many people consider abiogenesis to be a necessary corollary of the theory of evolution. Darwin didn't. It was Ernst Haeckel who introduced abiogenesis, so aren't anti-Darwinists barking up the wrong tree? have a nice day! - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
bFast wrote (in comment #39):
My dear man, not only did the designer send a clear message, he sent his son as the messanger. Many of us have chosen to listen to and heed the message. The result is a relationship with the creator of the universe, along with amazing phenomenon such as answered prayer.
LOL - you got me there :-) But one thing is Jesus, another thing is the bacterial flagellum. And that's my problem with ID: why all this concern about something that has no real impact on anyone's lives? If ID has a message, then say it loud and clear rather than hide it behind some obscure perhaps-scientific talk.Poul Willy Eriksen
September 22, 2006
September
09
Sep
22
22
2006
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Poul Willy Eriksen wrote:
A peculiarity of design is that the purpose of a designed object is external to the designed object. For intstance a watch has its purpose in the need of us humans to know, what time it is.
But this is the very argument that ID identifies. When you see design in an organism, that tells you that it didn't design itself--just as you indicate. Further:
If the bacterial flagellum is designed, it must similarly have an outside purpose. Did the bacteria design the flagellum for use as a motility system? If not, maybe the flagellum was designed as part of the design of bacteria, that in turn are used by little fairies to move themselves around.
Per your previous statement, the bacteria cannot design itself. This leaves us with two explanations: RM+NS, which defies all laws of probability. (Oh, well that's no more than an argument from incredulity!! Yes, and if your next door neighbor won the lottery five weeks in a row, you wouldn't believe, rightly--[who says that arguments from personal incredulity are famously wrong]--that the lottery was being fairly run.), or, a Designer. So, Darwinists ask us to believe, in the face of evident design, that against the most unbelievable odds that mankind can even conceive of, nevertheles, life somehow came about by accident, whereas, as is infinitely clear in our "information age", coded information can only come about through intelligent agency; that is, a Designer. If we at UD do not accept this argument, I think you can understand why we don't. And, as to the canard that "we don't know who the Designer is" argument, let me point this out. Darwin himself provides the answer. That is, in the last sentence of the Origins, Darwin says that "life" has been "originally breathed by the Creator into one or many forms." Well, that's who the Designer is: the Creator that Darwin talks about. Next question please.PaV
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
Karl Pfluger (37): "j, Why do you believe that chance and necessity [alone] cannot [repeatably and unpredictably create regions of indefinitely large amounts of low entropy, of arbitrary character]?" Because I have never seen a process that is known to be due to chance and necessity alone that can do this. Are you aware of any? (Don't say biological evolution -- that would be begging the question.) —————
The principle of uniformitarianism states that "the present is the key to the past." In particular, the principle specifies that our knowledge of present cause-effect relationships should govern our assessment of the plausibility of the inferences that we make about the remote causal past. Yet it is precisely such knowledge of cause-effect relationships that informs the inference to intelligent design. Since we know that intelligent agents do produce large amounts of information, and since all known natural processes do not (or cannot), we can infer design as the best explanation of the origin of information in the cell. ... A vast amount of human experience shows that intelligent agents have unique causal powers that matter (especially nonliving matter) does not. When we observe features or effects that we know from experience only agents produce, we rightly infer the prior activity of intelligence. To determine the best explanation, scientists do not need to say "never" with absolute certainty. They need only say that a postulated cause is best, given what we know at present about the demonstrated causal powers of competing entities or agencies.
-- Stephen C. Meyer, "DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation" (2003) —————
I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. I must, of course, admit that if such an opinion became common it would completely transform our social life and our political system; since both are at present faultless, this must weight against it.
-- Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays (1928)j
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
bFast, "ID is an evolutionary model." Not necessarily. Any patterns you might see in nature indicating evolutionary processes might have been separate creation events. If you claim "ID is an evolutionary model" to be necessarily true, you have immediately claimed something about the creator - something ID supposedly doesn´t.Hawks
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
BC:
The “law” model is what? That God created the universe with finely tuned laws so that life and intelligent life would arise by naturalistic evolution? Let me suggest a minor edit to your definition of the law model: "That God created the universe with finely tuned laws so that life and intelligent life would arise by following those laws." I suggest modifying "naturalistic evolution" with "following those laws" because I believe that more laws need to be discovered before the law model becomes a reasonable and complete explanation. When DaveScot says "when conditions are right", well, we must see law(s) that produce those "right" conditions. This, of course, means that certain natural conditions, conditions which must have arisen on earth, conditions that must arise on an earthlike planet within our place in the universe, will of necessity produce first life. Science certainly has not discovered what those conditions are. Once a solution to first life is found, a solution to that first life becoming a functioning DNA based lifeform complete with ATP synthase must be found. (RM+NS did it doesn't come close to sufficing for me.) Then a few other problems must be overcome, such as the cambrian explosion. Last the forces that cause the unusual convergence that we see, such as the convergence between the marsupials and the placentals must be discovered. Then we will have a good "law" model.
I actually have no problem with that interpretation, but it would make you an evolutionist to believe it.
ID is an evolutionary model. I am an evolutionist. I just don't buy the party line as to the cause of evolution, namely RM+NS. Something beyond RM, something as yet undiscovered, is at play here. Is that something agency? Maybe. Is that something "law"? Maybe, but if it is, it is undiscovered law. If God assembled a series of laws, and fine tunings which will, by virtue of following those laws, produce mankind or something very similar, this is a very satisfactory ID explanation, an explanation that is very telic. Is it evolutionary? Yes. Is it RM+NS? Though RM and NS may stand as pieces to the puzzle, I do not believe that they will (especially not RM) maintain their current stature within science.bFast
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
BC I understand the law model to be that physical laws governing biochemistry will inevitably lead to the generation of life, more or less the same every time, when conditions are right.DaveScot
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
I should've added at the bottom of my last post: ... you apparently believe in statistical miracles - stochastic natural forces cause information, which seems absurd on its face considering the information we are most familiar is caused by *US* and is the physical expression of our intelligence.todd
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Further, the “law” model of ID evolution very much holds to a perfect God model. If the universe, the biosphere, and man is the direct result of a series of finely tuned laws
The "law" model is what? That God created the universe with finely tuned laws so that life and intelligent life would arise by naturalistic evolution? I actually have no problem with that interpretation, but it would make you an evolutionist to believe it. (Don't confuse universeal-ID "God created the big bang and fine-tuned things so life could exist and evolve" with biological-ID, idea that "life could not have evolved and needed God to intervene to alter life within the last x billion years".) Universal-ID is completely compatible with natural evolution, which is why naturalistic evolution is *not* the same as atheism or philosophical naturalism. Keep in mind that the Intelligent Design movement is about biological-ID. (Sidenote: While I'm not a theist and I am an evolutionist, one intriguing idea is that God created the universe as a kind of "wildgarden". It has the capability of creating life. Humanity was not predetermined from the very beginning, but natural forces would guarantee that intelligent life would arrise a number of times throughout the universe. I use the phrase "wildgarden" because if you leave a field alone, life will spring up. But, because you aren't weeding and pruning the plants, you don't know exactly which plants will grow where or how many plants of a specific type you're going to get. Similarly with the "wildgarden" model of universal-ID.) Also, I noticed that no one tackled the question of why photosynthesis doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. I thought I'd throw one more idea out there. People say that the second law of thermodynamics says that information must always be degrading (I disgree, because there are mechanisms around it). Here's a thought - let's say that I have a simple gene sequence (sequence A): ACGGAC. Let's say that I mutate it at position 4, so it looks like (sequence B): ACGCAC. Is this an information increase, decrease, or the same? Well, according to people who think the second law of thermodynamics prevents an increase in information, sequence A must contain equal or more information than sequence B ( A >= B ). Now, let's mutate sequence B and call the result sequence C. There are six positions, each of which can be changed to three other values (18 possible mutations). So, each of those mutations has a 1 in 18 chance of happening. One of those mutations will change position 4 back to "G". In other words, it will change sequence B back into sequence A. If you believe that the second law of thermodynamics prevents an increase in information, then sequence B contains equal or more information than sequence C ( B >= C ). But, if sequence C is sequence A, then ( A >= B >= C and A = C ). This means that either: A,B, and C contain the same information, which is tantamount to saying that mutation cannot decrease information content (we know that's wrong); or we actually got an increase in information in one of those steps and a decrease in the other step. But that would violate the second law of thermodynamics, right? It would only if you believe that the second law of thermodynamics prevents increases in information. But, that's a wrong interpretation. Once you understand that, you will understand why my example of the two-step mutation is entirely possible. (You might point out that because there are 18 possible mutations, there will be, on average, a decrease in information. You're right. But, the evolutionary mechanism means that bad mutations tend to be eliminated and good mutations get preserved and spread throughout the entire species. That's why the "averaging" argument doesn't work.)BC
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Karl wrote,
You’d be right, if Sewell had actually presented an argument or done a probability calculation to support his assertion. Unfortunately, he didn't. If you reread the paragraph in question, you’ll see that it contains only assertions, with absolutely no supporting arguments or calculations.
Perhaps you misunderstand his point because you don't realize that paragraph is a parable meant to illuminate the last sentence:
Clearly something extremely improbable has happened here on our planet, with the origin and development of life, and especially with the development of human consciousness and creativity
I read the paragraph to be asking the question "If we had the ability to comprehensively model the forces and material on earth over 4+ billion years would it produce information?". And this, if I've got the gist, is where information entropy is relevant. Would I be correct to say NDE essentially claims that life as we know it - built and maintained by an elaborate order of information - is the sole result of these forces acting without purpose (which requires intellect)? You did go on to say,
Most of us admit that a designer is a logical possibility. We just don’t see the need to invoke a designer to explain life, any more than we do to explain weather or volcanic eruptions.
I take from this that you don't invoke a designer because natural stochastic processes are enough to explain life to your satisfaction. It is with this notion Sewell contends. Weather or volcanic eruptions are not the result of a code on par with DNA, are they? Do volcanoes or storms possess error checking mechanisms? Please clear this up for me, because it seems obvious to me that the essence of life requires intricate order because that is what we observe at its most fundamental level. It is the arrangement of proteins that is the higher order, not the proteins themselves. It is the arrangement of ink on paper which gives meaning to the words, not the ink and paper. The information with which all sentient persons are familiar is only produced by other sentient persons or their devices. If human intelligence is the product of stochastic natural forces, then by extension, so are the products of humans. Jet planes designed by computers are the products of human intelligence, therefore computers and jets are the indirect products of nature - hence Sewell's parable, which skipped the logical middle and asked if such a thing is likely to happen again if we could reset the clock. Has weather or tornados every produced anything like a jet plane? I know that is obviously complex, so how about anything like a threaded bolt and matching nut - can they produce anything exhibiting purpose and intent? So, when you say,
Nothing wrong with expressing incredulity, but you want your arguments to be based on something more substantial. Incredulity by itself is a notoriously unreliable indicator of truth and falsehood.
aren't you ignoring the substance of Sewell's argument to make the claim? The incredulity stands upon observation and logic as outlined above - you apparently believe in statistical miracles - stochastic natural forces cause information, which seems absurd on its face considering the information we are most familiar is caused by *US*.todd
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
I posted a question related to future scientific endeavors in another post below. But it seems appropriate here. In 1,000, 10,000 or a million years how will scientist create life on another planet, say the moon, or a new one they create either in our solar system or in another solar system, or another galaxy? For purpose of the though exercise I am making a few assumptions that 1) we will survive, 2) the advancement of science is ongoing. Will they use all known rules? Or will they randomly collide particles in hopes that chemicals will be created, react, and form animated life on a planet? One way is the 15 billion random event way. The Design Method however is utilizing intelligent agency to speed up the process. Another tangent that may be supplied is that within the 1,000 to 1 million year time frame scientist discover how to perpetuate our lives eternally, so maybe waiting 15 billion years for a new planet is trivial? But then this does bring so many other questions into view. Like the proverbial Grandpa statement, back in my day, 15 billion years ago we made our planets the hard way! We randomized em! Smiles...Michaels7
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
I will make only a couple of observations about this discussion. First, I’ve read and re-read this and previous posts about Sewell and his 2nd Law argument. I can find no counter argument that has decisively “discredited” Sewell’s arguments. The supposed counter-arguments have for the most part rested on semantics, a narrow application of the 2nd Law (i.e. a thermodynamic-only view of entropy), or a simple general tendency to “talk past” one another. As an engineer, I’ve not heard one compelling counter argument to Sewell in any of these posts. That is of course, simply my opinion. Second, a point needs to be made concerning natural laws in general that seems to keep being missed by some. Natural laws, a.k.a. “laws of nature”, cannot be violated. They can, however be manipulated. Take the laws of motion. One says that an object in motion will remain in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force. That last part is the key! When we say that airplanes defy the law of gravity, what we’re really saying is we’re manipulating other forces to counteract gravity, to overcome it. So, a natural law can be “overcome”, but not violated. What Sewell seems to be saying is not that life itself violates the 2nd law, but that some counterforce was necessary to counteract it in order for life to arise in the first place (or evolve after that). Intelligence is the most likely outside force; indeed, it is the only outside force we’ve been able to actually observe in the act of creating SCI and building irreducibly complex mechanisms. We have never, to my knowledge been able to observe chance and necessity alone doing so. Life does not violate the second law; complex cellular machinery manipulates it, creating a local decrease in entropy. RM&NS by itself has not demonstrated any ability to account for the existence, maintenance, or improvement of that machinery.sabre
September 21, 2006
September
09
Sep
21
21
2006
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply