The Odds That End: Stephen Meyer’s Rebuttal Of The Chance Hypothesis

Mr Deyes,

What a pity that Dr Deamer was noot working under more controlled conditions in that vignette of him pouring chemicals into a volcanic pool. All that the story teaches us is that the clays have to be saturated, which would have been likely if an eruption was dumping these chemicals into the environment, not a scientist with a test tube!

BTW, you were awe-struck by the sheer beauty of the mountains, not awe-stricken by their shear beauty, unless someone had recently given them a haircut.

A haircut that made you ill:

Stricken: Seriously affected by an undesirable condition or unpleasant feeling.

Not only has Meyer’s probabilistic analysis supplied us with the odds that end the discussion for ‘chance-philes’, but contemporary extravagations over prebiotic earth have done nothing to bolster their credibility. We are left with little choice but to discard chance as a serious contender in the ‘life origins’ debate.

That would be premature.

Dr Deamer’s little experiment provides useful evidence for the hypothesis that it is extremely difficult for pre-biotic chemicals to form viable proteins over a very short timescale in one or a few volcanic pools. We should be cautious about extrapolating from that to the outcome of uncounted billions of such ‘experiments’ conducted by Nature over long periods of geologic time.

As for the “probabilistic resources” of the Universe, apart from being wary of the Hoyle fallacy or of being Dazzled by Very Big Numbers, we should remember what is being said by an estimate of probability.

If the odds of my winning a state lottery are calculated at 1 in 15 million, it means that in order to be certain of winning any one draw I would have to buy 15 million tickets. However, people have won such lotteries after having bought only a few tickets or even just one ticket on their very first try.

The same is true of protein formation in primordial volcanic pools. If it is even possible for them to form and survive in such conditions, then it might have occurred very early in the Earth’s history or, more probably, it took much more time.

In any event, even if that particular source of abiogenesis is ruled out, we should not proceed to invoke some sort of extraterrestrial or divine intelligence as a cause until we have excluded all other possible naturalistic origins.

Robert Deyes: For seasoned biologist David Deamer the realization of implausibility, at least for a direct volcanic origin, comes from his own direct observations …

This is what Deamer said:

J. P. Dworkin, D. W. Deamer, S. A. Sandford, and L. J. Allamandola. 2001. Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA

we report here that a complex mixture of molecules is produced by UV photolysis of realistic, interstellar ice analogs, and that some of the components have properties relevant to the origin of life, including the ability to self-assemble into vesicular structures

And:

Deamer D, Dworkin JP, Sandford SA, Bernstein MP, Allamandola LJ. The first cell membranes. 2002. Astrobiology.

The first forms of cellular life required self-assembled membranes that were likely to have been produced from amphiphilic compounds on the prebiotic Earth. Laboratory simulations show that such vesicles readily encapsulate functional macromolecules, including nucleic acids and polymerases.

In other words, vesicles *can* spontaneously assemble, but not in ionic pools. You were saying that they can’t assemble *here* while ignoring that they can assemble *there*.

Robert Deyes: Whether it be Darwin’s warm little pond or contemporary speculations over life-seeding environments we see in both a search for continuity from the non-living to the living- a search that was exemplified in Walt Disney’s color and sound extravaganza Fantasia almost seventy years ago.

I believe Disney et al.’s results have been superceded; however, their field work on wildlife is still considered seminal.

If the odds of my winning a state lottery are calculated at 1 in 15 million, it means that in order to be certain of winning any one draw I would have to buy 15 million tickets.

You would have to buy 15 million tickets with 15 million different numbers. Good luck doing that without using an intelligent agent.

You would have to buy 15 million tickets with 15 million different numbers. Good luck doing that without using an intelligent agent.

If we are talking about a lottery where you choose the numbers, then it is up to you. If you are thinking of a lottery with scratch off tickets, the first patent for designing them to insure that feature is held by John Koza, who also invented the evolutionary algorithm genetic programming.

Seversky:

It’s not unusual for a lottery, having a one-in-millions chance of winning, to be won by someone who only purchased a handful of tickets, because millions of other people purchase tickets as well. We hear about the winner, and not about the losers, and we don’t hear much about the weeks in which nobody wins.

The spontaneous transition of non-life to life is more like a lottery with a 10^164 chance of winning, for which only 10^139 tickets have been sold. Those odds are many billions of times slimmer than any lottery now in operation.

The spontaneous transition of non-life to life is more like a lottery with a 10^164 chance of winning, for which only 10^139 tickets have been sold. Those odds are many billions of times slimmer than any lottery now in operation.

Are these numbers just pulled from the air, or do you have any basis for them?

Heinrich, see the original post above:

Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang) (10)

Chance assembly of a 150 amino sequenced protein: 1 in 10^164 (20 acid residues in a 150 residue chain, minus varietal mitigating factors such as multiple targets).

Number of trials in the universe since the beginning of time: 10^139 (probably something like (planck time) * (age of universe) * (atoms in universe)).

Remaining for a chance assembly of a viable chain: 1 in 10^25 or ten trillion trillion. This assumes extremely favorable conditions.

Are these numbers just pulled from the air, or do you have any basis for them?

These are the numbers pulled from the post on which you are commenting:

Following in the footsteps of fellow ID advocate William Dembski, Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang) (10).

Under (10) in the references, we have 10. Stephen Meyer (2009) Signature In The Cell: DNA And The Evidence For Intelligent Design, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, pp. 215-228

That’s where I would start looking for the basis for these numbers…

In other words, vesicles *can* spontaneously assemble, but not in ionic pools. You were saying that they can’t assemble *here* while ignoring that they can assemble *there*.

The fact that a vesicle *can* spontaneously assemble, whether *here* or *there* misses just a few important points.

What point is there to vesicle formation if it doesn’t contribute the overall “project” of the OOL. Vesicles by themselves are useless.

So what would be required to makea vesicle “useful” in the quest for life, and what is it that brings about the appropriate conditions whereby vesicles begin to server a purpose or function, rather than just existing as a mere vesicle?

This doesn’t even take into consideration just how *unlike* a cell membrane a vesicle is.

http://www.godandscience.org/e.....rXQTf2T8y3

http://www.reasons.org/biotic-.....r-scrutiny

Robert Deyes: Following in the footsteps of fellow ID advocate William Dembski, Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang).

That makes a number of erroneous assumptions:

* Protein-first abiogenesis (rejected by nearly everyone in the field).
* Exactly one possible 150 aa protein.
* No possible intermediate steps.

Mr Heinrich,

Are these numbers just pulled from the air, or do you have any basis for them?

10^-164 is broken down by Dr Meyer as
10^-74 – the probability of functionality in the AA sequence
10^-45 – the probability of the AAs only forming peptide bonds
10^-45 – the probability of only using one chirality for all 150 AAs

The important point is that this is a calculation, not an experiment.

I have newer understood the intermediate steps argument when it comes to OOL could someone explain briefly what it means to me? Thanks.

@Zachriel: That makes a number of erroneous assumptions:

* Protein-first abiogenesis (rejected by nearly everyone in the field).

But then, every abiogenesis hypothesis that has been developed into any detail is rejected by nearly everyone who’s willing to look at it realistically. Yet the field remains. If Meyer helps to accurately point out the hopelessness of one hypothesis, he has done the field a service.

* Exactly one possible 150 aa protein.

According to Nakashima, Meyer’s numbers claim to represent the probability of *any* functional (AA) protein.

* No possible intermediate steps.

In order for intermediate steps to help, they have to first be preserved so that they can be built upon. Meyer points out in his book that the minimal mechanisms for preserving intermediate steps require many, many complex specified proteins to be present in the correct proportions and properly assembled. Thus intermediate steps do not help abiogenesis.

Oops, I meant “of *any* functional (150 AA) protein.”

Mr lars,

Mr Zachriel and I agree, Dr Meyer is assuming that only one 150 AA protein has that function.

The probability argument is so daunting that any attempt to get to the current system of life is impossible. A trillion to the trillionth power of universes or time is not enough (maybe a little hyperbole here but I bet not much.) The only possible salvation is that the system we have is just one amongst an incredibly large number of other possible systems.

Then the fact that we are here is that the luck of the dice just led to this system out of the incredibly large number of possibilities. The new daunting task is to show that there are other independent systems that would produce sentient life or at least a cell type replicating system. Then one can say well someone has to win the lottery if it is played often enough and we are the happy winners. But they could not say that if we are the only one or only one of a few possibilities.

But if the research shows that the universe is set up in such a way to produce this form of life then I am afraid this will be an inconvenient finding for Nakashima and all the other Darwinist crew, because such a happenstance will not be too sanguine for the no God crowd. No their only chance is that we are just one of a zillion possible ways of doing it. As I said it is a daunting task.

Meanwhile Nakashima is busy searching the internet for things that dictate our way not knowing if he will find anything or if he does find it, the information will probably produce a coffin for his dream

Zachriel:

That makes a number of erroneous assumptions:

* Protein-first abiogenesis (rejected by nearly everyone in the field).

You probably haven’t read the book, so this mistake on your part is understandable.

Meyer is not assuming protein-first abiogenesis. His argument is more nuanced than that.

His argument has to do with information content, and is equally applicable to any information-bearing macro-molecule, of which a protein is just used as an example. The information in the proteins had to come from somewhere. Pick any conformation of whatever molecules you want, the problem is the same.

Mr Jerry,

But if the research shows that the universe is set up in such a way to produce this form of life then I am afraid this will be an inconvenient finding for Nakashima and all the other Darwinist crew, because such a happenstance will not be too sanguine for the no God crowd.

I don’t think so. Knowing that our universe’s physics and chemistry makes life inevitable in certain contexts would energize the search for the parameters that make life inevitable across different choices of parameters. We could easily learn that life is inevitable across many choices of parameters. We’ve already seen this at the level of star formation.

“We could easily learn that life is inevitable across many choices of parameters.”

Calculations rather than experiments, eh?

The presence of any life or mind at all is problematic on naturalistic accounts. Determining the “likelihood” of any parameters likely kicks the question out of science and into metaphysics.

Jerry’s right. Naturalists fight a losing battle on multiple fronts – in the end, some form of theism/deism is the most reasonable conclusion. Some kind of atheism is always possible in a technical sense. But then, so is solipsism.

Mr Nullasalus,

That depends on your views. For example, when I run a CA, am I starting and stopping a universe of a particular physics and chemistry? I agree that there are limits to computational chemistry, but every experiment with a different atmosphere for the early earth is actually testing the reality of some alternate universe!

nullasalus:

Jerry’s right. Naturalists fight a losing battle on multiple fronts – in the end, some form of theism/deism is the most reasonable conclusion.

Monty Python’s black knight couldn’t have said it any better.

Nakashima,

“That depends on your views. For example, when I run a CA, am I starting and stopping a universe of a particular physics and chemistry?”

You tell me. If you are literally ‘starting and stopping a universe’ every time you run a computer simulation, then the evidence for “intelligently designed” universes becomes shockingly abundant – every simulation counts as one.

I’ve wanted to go to Quito ever since I read a great biography about Manuela Saenz and Bolivar, The four seasons of Manuela. I recommend it, you’ll want to go to Quito, it really gets romanticized.

Mr Nullasalus,

I’d be happy with using CAs, especially ones that support self reproducing forms, as examples of intelligently designed universes. An interesting follow-on question is whether the denizens of any such universe could reason to that conclusion.

I’m not sure why this idea does not get more discussion in the ID community.

Mung: His argument has to do with information content, and is equally applicable to any information-bearing macro-molecule, of which a protein is just used as an example.

Scientists regularly find ribozymes (catalytic RNA) in random sequence libraries.

lars: But then, every abiogenesis hypothesis that has been developed into any detail is rejected by nearly everyone who’s willing to look at it realistically.

When one argues against a position no one holds, it’s called a strawman argument.

lars: Meyer’s numbers claim to represent the probability of *any* functional (AA) protein.

You are correct. He is actually using Axe’s flawed 2004 study indicating a ratio of functional proteins of 10^-74 or so. We know it’s flawed because we can find functional enzymes in much smaller random sequence libraries.

The other numbers, for the probability of the formation of peptide bonds and chirality, depend the circumstance of their formation and can’t be relied upon for such an estimate.

lars: In order for intermediate steps to help, they have to first be preserved so that they can be built upon. Meyer points out in his book that the minimal mechanisms for preserving intermediate steps require many, many complex specified proteins to be present in the correct proportions and properly assembled.

That wasn’t the claim at issue.

“I don’t think so. Knowing that our universe’s physics and chemistry makes life inevitable in certain contexts would energize the search for the parameters that make life inevitable across different choices of parameters. We could easily learn that life is inevitable across many choices of parameters. We’ve already seen this at the level of star formation.”

It is nice to see how irrational Nakashima’s faith is. He knows his star formation comment is meaningless. A telling comment. Interesting phenomena. What would drive such illogical behavior when there isn’t any payout for it. I find that that the most extraordinary part of this debate. For the Christian, who sees a reason he is here and a long term goal, faith in something without empirical support is understandable. But an unwavering belief in nothing but randomness without empirical support or logic.

What would drive such a thing.

jerry: It is nice to see how irrational Nakashima’s faith is.

Of course, that’s not an actual argument. Let’s try this:

-
The first life form on Earth may have been a lucky accident, a natural property of carbon and liquid water, a unique circumstance, seeded by comets, or even a Divine Miracle. But this we do know.

* Life did not always exist on Earth.
* Once life began, it evolved and diversified from a primitive, common ancestral population.
* Living processes are due to chemical interactions.
* Complex organic molecules can spontaneously assemble under a variety of conditions.

Much of the earliest history of life is shrouded by the intervening eons and left few physical clues other than life itself. A variety of testable scientific hypothesis have been proposed for aspects of natural abiogenesis, but no complete and satisfactory theory has been proposed. No positive evidence of telic intervention has ever been discovered.

IrynaB –

Monty Python’s black knight couldn’t have said it any better.

You should check out this classic post from a few years back.

Life did not always exist on Earth.

Since we don’t have a definition of life, I’m not sure how we know this.

I guess you could always argue that the earth has not always existed, therefore it follows that life has not always existed on earth, but even that would not stand up, because it does not at all follow that life has not always existed on earth for as long as the earth has existed.

Living processes are due to chemical interactions.

I have no idea what this means.

Complex organic molecules can spontaneously assemble under a variety of conditions.

Well, if you ask me, organic molecules are only produced by living systems, so what you have there may look like an organic molecule but may not actually be an organic molecule.

Scientists regularly find ribozymes (catalytic RNA) in random sequence libraries.

How large is the library, how complex is the ribozyme, and how specific is the does the sequence have to be?

re. Mung @ 19
“His argument has to do with information content, and is equally applicable to any information-bearing macro-molecule, of which a protein is just used as an example. The information in the proteins had to come from somewhere. Pick any conformation of whatever molecules you want, the problem is the same.”

Indeed. This is the problem of information. It seems to me that this is the fatal flaw, both from a logical and an empirical point of view, for the materialist enterprise of trying to account for life.

If, as Küppers (1990), says, the problem of the origin of life is the problem of the origin of information, and it is, then WHATEVER the proposed explanation, it seems that it is necessary for it to explain what must be explained, that is, information.

But here lies the rub. If a materialist is intellectually committed (in my experience they have no real intellectual commitments) to the idea that all that is real is material, that is matter and energy, or the physical world, or the natural world, or the things described by the natural sciences, or whatever the latest version of the nonsense is, THEN, the only explanatory resources they have are the laws of physics.

This is entailed by the very definition of materialism or naturalism. If all that exists is material, then all that exists must be explainable by the laws of physics. (Which are themselves immaterial but that’s another rant for another time – I’ll grant them their insanity on this point for the sake of my argument.) This seems abundantly clear to me.

But how to explain information (life) when one’s only recourse is to resort to the Standard Model, General Relativity, Quantum Physics, Thermodynamics, String Theory, and so on? The short answer is that physics can never explain information because that’s not what physics addresses. Physics addresses the MATERIAL world. But information is IMMATERIAL, even though it is encoded into a physical substrate. This is the logical problem. We have physics, which explains the material world (quite nicely, if incompletely, so far) but that’s NOT WHAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED. (Sorry for shouting but I can’t help it.) So it looks to me like a category error of Biblical proportions has been made by the materialist. Trying to explain the existence of something they deny exists.

(This is a typical gambit, to deny the existence of what clearly exists. Design, for instance. Or the moral law. Now design and the moral law may be denied without self-contradiction but in the case of information, it is pretty hard to deny the existence of it even as you use it to deny it.)

So how does one encode information, anyway? With language, of course. And what is a language? Why it’s a set of symbols accompanied by a set of rules for the arrangement of those symbols. So the chain is now complete. Life – information – language – symbols and rules.

Now when I say that physics must explain life we can see that what physics must really explain are symbols (the representation of one thing for another) and rules (agreed upon conventions for the arrangement of those symbols) so that information can be encoded in a physical substrate. This substrate can be virtually anything physical from elecrical states in switches in a computer REPRESENTED by 1s and 0s to chemical compounds called nucleic acids and amino acids.

The argument about whether physics is competent to account for information almost always degenerates into a “yes it can” – “no it can’t” scenario that revolves around various probability calculations.

I say that this misses the more fundamental point. If one is inclined to make these calculations, then one has already assumed the existence of a set of symbols (DNA/RNA) and a set of rules (genetic code/language). But I think that gives away too much. Before we can even bother with the calculations don’t we have to account for the symbols and the rules? This is the real question.

So how is it reducible to, or explainable by physics that certain combinations of codons describe and build meaningful, i.e. functional, proteins? There is no physical explanation for why the genetic code is the way it is. It cannot be explained, it is impossible for it to be explained, by reference to physical laws. As Yockey said (2005) “If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” But they don’t.

Oddly enough, in human experience, information is always and easily explained by “mind.” Which, of course, is another thing that is routinely denied by materialist philosophers of mind. In their case I suspect it may be true.

In any event, the whole neo-Darwinian thing is not even wrong. Darwin purported to explain the existence of physical structures but that is not what needs to be explained. His explanation, ‘natural selection,’ allegedly did this. With the discovery of genetics in the late 19th and early 20th century the Darwinists realized that they needed to incorporate genetics into the theory and this they did in the latter part of the first half of the twentieth century. The “new and improved” version, called neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory or sometimes the ‘modern synthesis’ still doesn’t even pretend, as far as I can tell, to address the salient issue, information. Ah well, the choir gets it and the others apparently never will so I put this out again with the minimal hope that I will get a rational discussion of this argument instead of the usual ‘well what is information, really?’ or ‘you don’t need language for information’ (really, and how did you even phrase that question then?) or some other nonsense. I could be surprised.

The empirical problem, which is rendered moot by the logical problem, is that no one can create an algorithm based on physical law that can create meaningful information anyway. Yockey, again, says: “The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws.”

The choices with physics are two. There is the analog world of general relativity governed by law and there is the digital and probabilistic world of quantum physics (also governed by law but in a different way). So we have two “ways” to create information with physics. We can do it with law or chance. Law is immediately out since contingency is required for the creation of information. I have to be able to choose from among the letters on my keyboard to encode information. If an algorithm based on physical law, say gravity, drives my selection of letters, it will always be the same letter selected. Therefore no information. If governed by chance, say if there were some way to associate the decay of a radioactive element with various times that could then be associated with a symbol set, then we could theoretically use that method to see if we could get information. But the odds are impossible to overcome. If we assume the ASCII character set which is, I believe, 128 characters, less the 33 non-printing control characters, that gives us 94 printable charactes plus a space. Let’s call it 100 just to simplify the math. So the odds of getting a 500 character string of meaningful information can be calculated by taking the number of possible strings of meaningful characters divided by the number of possible strings. Let’s do the denominator first.

There are 100^500 possibilities for the denominator. In scientific notation that is 10^5000. Let’s say, to be as generous as possible, that EVERY atom in the observable universe represents a meaningful string of characters. That would be 10^80 meaningful strings. So the calculation is now 10^80 divided by 10^5000 which equals 10^-4920. This number is not even comprehensible by human minds. Yet some people will INSIST that not only is it “possible” but they also insist that it is “scientific” and “intellectually respectable” to necessarily rely on such odds. hee hee. This is not about the intellect, sports fans, its about the rebellion of the will. It’s about the denial of God in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Aaah, the futile enterprise of reasoning with people who reject the authority of reason. Why DO we do it???

Zachriel: Life did not always exist on Earth.

Mung: Since we don’t have a definition of life, I’m not sure how we know this.

Just because there are equivocal cases doesn’t mean that life has no definition. Indeed, the fact that there are plausible intermediates is what is expected if life emerged in steps from a prebiotic existence. For some time after the Earth’s formation, it was too hot for life to exist.

Mung: Well, if you ask me, organic molecules are only produced by living systems, so what you have there may look like an organic molecule but may not actually be an organic molecule.

“Organic molecule” has a peculiar definition.

Mung: How large is the library, how complex is the ribozyme, and how specific is the does the sequence have to be?

A typical random sequence library of a few quadrillion (10^15) nucleotide or amino acid sequences of length 80-100 will contain a number of catalytically active molecules.

Mr tgpeeler,

100^500 = 10^1000, but that is trivial compared to the irrelevance of this kind of argument. Why, indeed, do we do it?

tgpeeler:

If a materialist is intellectually committed (in my experience they have no real intellectual commitments)

Why should any materialist take you seriously after an insult like that?

The rest of your post doesn’t make much more sense. Consider this:

Physics addresses the MATERIAL world. But information is IMMATERIAL, even though it is encoded into a physical substrate.

Please give us an example of immaterial information. If it is always encoded into a physical substrate, how do you know there is immaterial information?

Zachriel makes a statement:
“Scientists regularly find ribozymes (catalytic RNA) in random sequence libraries.”

Mung asks a very relevant and important question:
“How large is the library, how complex is the ribozyme, and how specific is the does the sequence have to be?”

… and Zachriel provides (as I have seen him do many times before) a non-answer by, in effect, simply re-phrasing his initial statement:
“A typical random sequence library of a few quadrillion (10^15) nucleotide or amino acid sequences of length 80-100 will contain a number of catalytically active molecules.”

Zachriel, do you do this just so you can have the “last word.” I seriously want to know.

@33

If all that exists is material, then all that exists must be explainable by the laws of physics.

Not true! We are well aware that at every level of organisation and complexity new laws emerge that are not readily explained by the laws of the lower level in the hierarchy. Hence, as Anderson points out, each level breaks the ‘symmetry’ of the laws of the previous.

As Anderson points out, this includes the jump from particle physics to many-body physics, let alone straight to DNA.

Emergent properties are the basis of the anti-reductionist viewpoint of development biologists in response to the genetic determinism in the evolutionary thought of those such as Dawkins.

There is no physical explanation for why the genetic code is the way it is. It cannot be explained, it is impossible for it to be explained, by reference to physical laws.

Again, not true. There is a physical explanation for why the genetic code is the way it is. Codons are not some abstract language but are literally physically related to the amino acids they “code” for – in the case of DNA via mRNA and tRNA. To refer to DNA as abstract or immaterial information in is misleading. It is tempting to look at DNA as a language – after all we use C, G, A and T/U to represent the bases – this is purely a human abstraction of their physical reality.

Mr CJYman,

I’m not sure what you are objecting to in Mr Zachriel’s response. Mr Mung asked 3 questions and the response was somewhat informative on all three.

Here’s one of the classic papers on the subject, from almost 20 years ago, now.

Nakashima @39,

That’s the problem. Zachriel’s response was only somewhat informative and he left out the answer to the more important question — the last one. It seems that he does that to sound like he’s providing an answer, yet upon closer inspection no answer has truly been given.

Excellent paper. In fact, I’ve used the calculation in that paper to roughly measure the CSI of the protein Titin.

Furthermore, I’m also partial to some type of RNA first abiogenetical scenario.

Nakashima, it also seems that at the end of the paper you posted, the authors imply that it should be easy to find “functional” RNA in a small random pool of RNAs 22 amino acids long. But does this make the problem any “easier.” Has anyone shown that under realistic prebiotic conditions, a sufficiently sized pool of amino acids will form and then string together into any type of catalytic RNA?

M CJYman,

I think you mean nucleic acids. Here is an article on function and short RNAs of about 20-mer in length.

IrynaB @ 36

Sigh, as I predicted. My “insult” was based on my experiences and you will end up proving my point, I’m sure. You say: “Please give us an example of immaterial information. If it is always encoded into a physical substrate, how do you know there is immaterial information?”

You are joking, right? The fact that you recognize that it is encoded in a material substrate should be proof enough. How do you not understand that? Do I really need to explain to you that the information, although encoded in a material substrate, is not the same thing as that substrate? All information is immaterial. We know it’s immaterial because it doesn’t have mass or inertia, it is not affected by gravity, it can’t be converted to energy, it can’t be used to heat or move matter, and so on. We can’t weigh it, smell it, see it, hear it, touch it, or taste it yet we know it exists. And before you go off and say you can “see” information, I remind you that you see the physical letters that encode the information but you do not “see” the information itself. That’s how I know that information is immaterial. Plus, committed darwinists also recognize that so I know it MUST be true. ha ha. See Yockey (2005). OK. So here is the quote: “The genetic information system is the software of life and, like the symbols in a computer, it is purely symbolic and independent of its environment. Of course, the genetic message, when expressed as a sequence of symbols, is nonmaterial but must be recorded in matter or energy.” Page 7, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life. I trust this will help clear things up. By the way, Yockey thinks this proves Darwinian evolution. He’s wrong, of course, it proves that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly be true.

But just in case I haven’t made my case, try this little thought experiment on for size. Consider “IrynaB” as opposed to “BIaynr.” Same letters. Same physics account for their representation on a computer screen. But something seems different. Hmmm. I’ll leave it to you to figure out the implications.

paulmc @ 38
“Again, not true. There is a physical explanation for why the genetic code is the way it is. Codons are not some abstract language but are literally physically related to the amino acids they “code” for – in the case of DNA via mRNA and tRNA. To refer to DNA as abstract or immaterial information in is misleading. It is tempting to look at DNA as a language – after all we use C, G, A and T/U to represent the bases – this is purely a human abstraction of their physical reality.”

I only refer you to Kuppers, Yockey, Crick, Dawkins, etal, not to mention Meyer and Dembski, who absolutely understand that DNA does contain biological information and that it is information in every sense of the word. Your assertion that it is “purely a human abstraction” is hardly relevant as all information seems to fall into that category and so what of it? Just because it’s abstract means it isn’t real? Just because mathematics is abstract means it isn’t real?

Let me cite Yockey again although I’m sure you will pay him no mind either.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (page 6) So maybe you tell me how DNA does NOT contain biological information and that there is no real language involved.

Oh what the hell, I’ve got my notes out now so let me give you a couple of other quotes that suggest that information and biology are, um, linked…

Yockey p.2 “The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides the living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”

Yockey p.3 “The genetical information system, because it is segregated, linear, and digital, resembles the algorithmic language by which a computer completes its logical operation.”

Sanford (2005) p.1 “The genome is the instruction manual which specifies life. (An organism’s genome is the sum total of all its genetic parts, including all its chromosomes, genes, and nucleotides.”

Dawkins (1995) p.19 “Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information.”

And Francis Crick seems to think something of this idea in Of Molecules and Men, p.43 “…we have, in effect, to translate the information from a four-letter language into a twenty-letter language, and this is by no means easy.”

IrynaB @36 (again)

I’ll take up the gauntlet you have thrown down. Tell me what your intellectual commitments are and I will change my mind.

#45

tgpeeler

I am fascinated – can you explain what an intellectual committment is? Perhaps with an example?

Mark

I think that information is a label we stick on certain configurations of matter. Some configurations correspond to a lot of information, others to very little, but without a concrete configuration (of ‘things’) there exists no demonstrable information at all.

The reason configurations can ‘contain information’, as we say, is that in our universe, matter can and does react to other matter in variable ways. Sometimes not in very significant or interesting ways, at other times in more complicated and more consequential ways.

What we call ‘information’ is a label we stick to that subset of configurations that cause reactions, events, that strike us as remarkable and/or interesting.

In this essence ‘information’ is not different from ‘beauty’. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

fG

CJYman: Zachriel makes a statement:
“Scientists regularly find ribozymes (catalytic RNA) in random sequence libraries.”

Mung asks a very relevant and important question:
“How large is the library, how complex is the ribozyme, and how specific is the does the sequence have to be?”

… and Zachriel provides (as I have seen him do many times before) a non-answer by, in effect, simply re-phrasing his initial statement:
“A typical random sequence library of a few quadrillion (10^15) nucleotide or amino acid sequences of length 80-100 will contain a number of catalytically active molecules.”

The comment quantified the qualitative statement, which is much more than a mere restatement. The exchange has to do with the claim that chance assembly of long proteins “pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe.” In fact, given a reasonable pool of random sequences, many will be functional.

The information I provided gives us a rough idea of the *minimum* frequency of functional sequences in such a random pool. We know the specificity is relaxed as artificial evolution can increase their activity significantly. Indeed, that’s the very crux.

CSI is an ambiguous measure. This is Dembski’s formula for specified complexity:

? = –log2 [ BIGNUM · ?S(T) · P(T|H) ]

Notice that the calculation depends on the background knowledge of the Semiotic Agent, hence it depends on the Agent’s ignorance.

-

We apologize for the long, and heretofore unexplained moderation delay. Perhaps it is due to magnetic storms in the vicinity.

Hmm. Apparently this blog doesn’t handle Greek letters.

Oddly enough, the calculation also depends on the wordiness of the Semiotic Agent as it is the class of shortest descriptions that are used in Dembski’s formula.

Mark @ 46

“I am fascinated – can you explain what an intellectual committment is? Perhaps with an example?”

Sure. I’d be delighted to. Intellectual COMMITMENTS are essentially one’s first principles. For example, my primary epistemological commitment is that reason is the ultimate authority of what is true and what is not true. I take this position because its denial involves a self-contradiction. (This is a clue to identifying first principles. The denial of a first principle alwasy involves a self-contradiction.) If you reject that principle, then, since the original claim does not involve a self-contradiction, you would have to argue (reason) for your denial. Which puts anyone who disagrees with the original claim in the position of using reason to deny the efficacy of reason. (And thus the self-contradiction) Another one would be that the truth about reality can be known. That is also undeniable (that is if one is wedded to reason) since to claim that the truth about reality cannot be known is to make a truth claim about reality. Another one is that opposing truth claims cannot both be true. This is called the law of non-contradiction. For example, it is impossible for it to be true that God exists and does not exist. He either does or does not. (Law of excluded middle) And there is also the law of identity. A thing is what it is (Aristotle was the first, as far as I know, thinker to describe these first principles of logic.) The law of identity is abused by writers like Dawkins all the time. He’s very fond of saying things like there is no design in nature because what we think is design is really only “apparent design.” hee hee. So my immediate question is how in the hell does he know the difference between apparent design and real design unless there really is design in the first place? This isn’t rocket science, which is why it appeals to me, your basic garden variety simpleton. So Dawkins’ assertion that there is no such thing as real design in nature is just nonsense, literally. He opens “The Blind Watchmaker” with this hilarious sentence: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Oh really? And how would he know that? And this one, this is one of my all-time faves, it’s from “River Out of Eden” where he says: The illusion of purpose is so powerful that biologists themselves use the assumption of good design as a working tool. Is that too funny or what?? Biologists themselves. Those paragons of reason and intellectual integrity. hee hee. Talk about being blind to reality.

Oh, and one other thing. An intellectual commitment, as I think of it, is something you don’t get to change when you think it’s inconvenient or it’s leading you down a path you’d rather not walk. Let’s say, for example, when the exercise of reason points you directly to Reason.

Does this help?

fG @47
“In this essence ‘information’ is not different from ‘beauty’. It is all in the eye of the beholder.”

I think this is the point. There is a “beholder” that is apart from the matter that is reacting in interesting ways. This is what any naturalistic story of life cannot do and will never do – account for the “beholder.” It can’t do this because it rejects the existence of the “beholder” in the first place. Mind = brain. There is no mind apart from the neurons. This is what the naturalistic enterprise is all about – explaining things solely in terms of natural, i.e. physical laws. But there is an impenetrable circularity here. Nothing outside of nature exists (the primary intellectual commitment of the naturalist/materialist) therefore whatever MAY be real that we would think is part of nature but is not material MUST BE, THEN, only an illusion, since our primary commitment is that only the natural world exists. That means our conclusions are already determined by our premise, which premise is not based on reason or evidence. Thus the position of Dawkins and his ilk that design and purpose are only “apparent.” How could he say otherwise? But why does he say otherwise? Simply because he’s declared real design and purpose off limits from the beginning. How rational is that? Not very. “They’ve” been able to get away with this (my speculation) because to deny design, say, does not involve an internal contradiction. If I say design does not exist then I am not saying something that contradicts itself. Unlike, for example, if I said that: I do not exist. That involves a logical contradiction. I have to exist in order to deny my existence. In cases like this, then, that involve no internal contradictions, one has to, in my view, then weigh the piles of evidence for either side and make a determination on that basis. But the problem of information, which is an abstract entity, is different because they cannot deny the existence of information without using information. And they certainly cannot explain information without resorting to “mind” which they are unwilling to do because it’s not part of the decreed ontology. And now we’re back to the beginning of saying that “we” (not me) can explain information/design/purpose/agency/moral law/etc… in terms of physical laws. But clearly they cannot, so the only move left is to deny the actual existence of those things and declare them “apparent.” Whether that is intellectually responsible is a choice everyone has to make for himself.

At the most fundamental level, how can quarks and leptons, in any combination, be self-aware? And how can that possibly be explained by reference to physical laws? It’s a fool’s errand. To reject the very existence of what you are trying to explain. Dawkins doesn’t not believe in God. Who would write a book about “The Klingon Delusion” for instance? Dawkins just doesn’t like the God of the Bible and he desperately hopes that He is not real. Well, He either is or he is not. My advice is to treat that question with the respect that it demands if for no other reason than the consequences for getting it wrong are potentially terrifying. Being a true blue coward myself, that is all the motivation I need to investigate this honestly. It’s not a justification for believing anything, but I think it’s a good reason to take the investigation seriously. IMO.

CJYman at 40,

In fact, I’ve used the calculation in that paper to roughly measure the CSI of the protein Titin.

Could you please share that with us? As discussed in another thread here, there are apparently no available worked examples of a CSI calculation, as described in No Free Lunch, for an actual biological component, let alone any that take into account known evolutionary mechanisms.

My interest in this is that I would like to understand CSI well enough to write software to quantify it. Thus far I haven’t been able to get sufficient detail to do so.

#50 tgpeeler

Thanks.

Would it be fair to describe intellectual committments as metaphysical beliefs that you assume to be true rather than seek to demonstrate their truth – as StephenB puts it – what you argue from as opposed to what you argue to?

If so, I would agree that atheists and indeed scientists in general have few intellectual commitments. It is part of the intellectual stance of an atheist and a scientist to be prepared to challenge even the deepest assumption. It is really hard to challenge logical laws but metaphysical beliefs such as “every event has a cause” can be challenged and indeed I hold them to be false. I think this is a good thing. After all 200 years ago many people would include in their intellectual committments such things as Euclidian geometry and a Newtonian vision of space time.

Zachriel:
“The information I provided gives us a rough idea of the *minimum* frequency of functional sequences in such a random pool.”

It is possible that I missed the relevant material in another comment of yours, but the information you provided that I quoted does no such thing. You left out answering how constrained is the functional pattern.

You merely replaced “Scientists regularly find ribozymes (catalytic RNA) in random sequence libraries.” with “… will contain a number of catalytically active molecules.” You did not answer the question of “specificity.” What is that number of catalytically active molecules and how many of those are relevant to living systems? Furthermore, how many will work at a specific cite, providing function which at least does not decrease survivability?

Zachriel:
“We know the specificity is relaxed as artificial evolution can increase their activity significantly. Indeed, that’s the very crux.”

Where is specificity relaxed? Artificial evolution increases what activity? Can you give an example using the English language, since that is what you have used to model evolution is the past. Thanks.

Zachriel:
“CSI is an ambiguous measure. This is Dembski’s formula for specified complexity:

? = –log2 [ BIGNUM · ?S(T) · P(T|H) ]

Notice that the calculation depends on the background knowledge of the Semiotic Agent, hence it depends on the Agent’s ignorance. ”

… as is the case with every function. It is dependent on the data collected. Garbage in, garbage out. If that were the reason for “disqualifying” CSI from scientific consideration, then we’d also have to disqualify measurements of the age and size of the universe from scientific consideration, since they are open to being either revised for accuracy (making the numbers or percentage of error slightly larger or smaller) or completely changed (discovering that the numbers are wrong by orders of magnitude) as new data comes in.

There is nothing any more ambiguous about measuring for CSI than for any equation. Every variable is based on real-world measurements that actually have a non-ambiguous value. Of course, some of the variables are based on complex measurements themselves and we may only be able to provide estimated values, but this doesn’t stop any other scientific endeavor such as measuring for the age and size of the universe, so why should it stop us measuring for CSI?

And, just in case you didn’t hear me during our last conversation or indeed in this one, *ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE BASED ON OUR IGNORANCE.* IOW, all measurements are amenable to being updated based on our ignorance being removed.

We will always be ignorant of something and even in our knowledge we could be incorrect — which again adds to our ignorance. That is why science is open to change and that is why CSI is rightfully a part of science.

Zachriel, how many ways do I have to spell it out for you to understand that very simple point?

Zachriel:
“Oddly enough, the calculation also depends on the wordiness of the Semiotic Agent as it is the class of shortest descriptions that are used in Dembski’s formula.”

… which is also the basis of K-Complexity. What’s the problem? Furthermore, in life, there is a completely objective description, f(pattern)=event, flowing from DNA to protein complex, the translation and transcription mechanisms (information processor) being the semiotic agent.

Nakashima @42,

It doesn’t seem that the question I asked would be answered in the paper that you directed me to since right at the opening they state, “The RNA World model for prebiotic evolution posits the selection of catalytic/template RNAs from random populations. The mechanisms by which these random populations could be generated de novo are unclear.”

The question I asked: “Has anyone shown that under realistic prebiotic conditions, a sufficiently sized pool of amino acids will form and then string together into any type of catalytic RNA?” [edit: "amino acids" should be nucleic acids]

Mustella @ 52,

I’m trying to find that post in which I measured CSI of Titin. I was following it on another computer and I don’t remember which thread it is in. Zachriel, if you see this, perhaps you can help out. Where were we discussing the CSI of Titin?

Mr CJYman,

Keep reading! Those sentences are the abstract of the problem, not the abstract of the solution.

Mark @ 53
“Would it be fair to describe intellectual committments as metaphysical beliefs that you assume to be true rather than seek to demonstrate their truth – as StephenB puts it – what you argue from as opposed to what you argue to?”

I think that is a very fair description. The question then immediately arises: What metaphysical beliefs are we justified to “assume to be true?” Or to have without question? i.e. What are our first principles? For myself, I think only those that are undeniable. Only those that by their negation create a logical contradiction. (e.g. existence, or being, previously mentioned.) In my view, God is a conclusion, not an assumption, for example. It creates no logical contradiction to say god does not exist or that He does. And in this case, as it is in all matters of opposing truth claims (as distinct from ‘different’ truth claims where both may be true or false), it is certain that one or the other is true and the other false. In those cases (without self-contradiction), I think we can only decide what is true by reason applied to the empirical evidence that we have. In other words, who has the biggest pile of evidence? One of the frustrating (all too obviously frustrating, I’m sure) things to me about the design/information conversation is that this particular discussion almost inevitably degenerates into “can to” “cannot.” Are odds of 10^-100 possible? How about 10^1500? Well you see my point.

But somewhere along the line it occurred to me (and still very few, if any, others) if the question of the origin of life is the question of the origin of information then what has to be explained in order for information to be explained? In other words, I think that to start computing the odds of information being created by accident or by law are premature because we haven’t yet explained how information arises in the first place. What are the pre-existing conditions for having information? So that’s when I made the (now) obvious (to me) connection between information and language and what language, at it’s most fundamental level, is. Now as far as I can tell, it is entirely reasonable to ask this question of the naturalist/materialist: How do you account for the existence of information (life) when your only explanatory tool is the laws of physics or what the laws of physics might look like in the future?

One thing seems certain. Since physics deals with the material world of forces and particles no matter how much more advanced the discipline may get, it will still always and only deal with the physical world. And since information is abstract, it is not now nor will it ever be something physics will speak to. So that right there seals the deal for me. It’s conceptually impossible for physics to have these answers. It’s as if you were searching for the rules of tennis in a golf rule book. It’s never going to happen. But as an added bonus, I broke it down to what I think is the most fundamental level of language, the essence of language, all language, and that is symbols and rules. And then I asked the same question. How does physics account for the existence of symbols? How does physics inform the rules of grammar and syntax of any language, including the language of mathematics, in which the laws of physics are written? Again, the short answer is that it does not and it will not and it cannot because that’s not what physics is about. And this gets back to the guts of the issue. The materialists deny the existence of things that obviously exist. It’s a mystery to me why it has such a hold on so many otherwise bright people. At any rate, that’s pretty much how I came to view this question, the question of the origin and propagation of life.

If you’ll allow me one quibble. I think that saying “assume to be true rather than seek to demonstrate their truth” is a pejorative way to say that. It implies, or rather, I at least, infer from that statement that somehow these beliefs are not actually true (they are) or that they are somehow inferior to empirical (scientific) “truth.” Perhaps I am being overly sensitive but I typically find that reason gets short-changed with regard to empirical data and I think that is a huge error. The scientific method uses both reason and empirical data to arrive at (provisional, mostly) truth. I haven’t worked out a way to say this exactly but I think that reason is the ultimate authority or sovereign of truth. In other words, nothing can contradict reason and be true. But what about facts? What about empirical data? Here comes the tricky part – facts aren’t subject to reason – facts are just facts. But it’s the story that the facts tell that involve the use of reason. It’s making the best inference from the data. Science by necessity does both but sometimes, it seems to me, reason (or metaphysics) doesn’t get its rightful due.

Mark Frank @53 again:
” It is part of the intellectual stance of an atheist and a scientist to be prepared to challenge even the deepest assumption. It is really hard to challenge logical laws but metaphysical beliefs such as “every event has a cause” can be challenged and indeed I hold them to be false.”

I’m fine with challenging assumptions as that’s what I’ve been doing non-stop for about the last 8 or 9 years, but that’s not what atheists (granted, in my limited experience, it should go without saying) typically do. It seems to me, from the theistic side of the fence, that atheism starts with an unfounded, unexamined assumption and then draws an inviolable conclusion from that. i.e. If naturalism is true then God does not exist. But is naturalism true? Atheists seem to be reluctant to seriously engage on that front.

Challenging first principles doesn’t seem intellectually bold or daring to me as much as foolish. How can one argue against the law of identity, that something is not what it is, and have a shred of intellectual credibility? Communication can’t take place unless words mean what they say and that they REPRESENT things, even imaginary things, in the universe. How can you challenge the principle of causality, for example? Are you saying that things happen, in this universe, outside of the bounds of physics (and I would add living agency)? That seems very intellectually ‘mushy’ to me. Mystical, almost. Anyway, I’d be seriously interested in your refutation of causality.

p.s. You might find Causal Asymmetries (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory) interesting.

tgpeeler @ 44:
In your response you have disregarded both of my arguments.

Firstly, I said that you are incorrect to state that the laws of physics should be sufficient to a materialist to explain everything.

This is patently incorrect, as I have explained via the concept of emergent properties. This is not trivial – you claim this ‘problem’ is central:

But here lies the rub. If a materialist is intellectually committed … to the idea that all that is real is material, that is matter and energy, or the physical world, or the natural world, or the things described by the natural sciences, or whatever the latest version of the nonsense is, THEN, the only explanatory resources they have are the laws of physics.

You quote Yockey in the same post and later claim I ignore him, but Yockey, like yourself, does not consider the concept of emergent properties. To reject this concept is to accept reductionism of the type that Dawkins was frequently guilty of in his scientitic writings.

Secondly I took issue with you saying that:

There is no physical explanation for why the genetic code is the way it is. It cannot be explained, it is impossible for it to be explained, by reference to physical laws.

My point is that there is absolutely a physical basis, as I explained. Denying its physical basis is patently incorrect.

How can you challenge the principle of causality, for example? Are you saying that things happen, in this universe, outside of the bounds of physics (and I would add living agency)?

No – I am saying the bounds of physics includes events that do not have causes. Inconceivable? More inconceivable than the idea that space might be bent by matter? Or that the interior angles of a triangle might have more or less than 180 degrees?

paulmc @ 60
“Firstly, I said that you are incorrect to state that the laws of physics should be sufficient to a materialist to explain everything.

This is patently incorrect, as I have explained via the concept of emergent properties. This is not trivial – you claim this ‘problem’ is central:”

Perhaps you would be so kind as to show how information is an emergent property of the random or lawful arrangement of matter. “Emergent” properties are the refuge of the one who is unable to account for what needs to be accounted for. Information? Oh, it’s “emergent.” O.K. I’ll bite. Show me. Show me how the laws of physics can begin to account for the symbols and rules that are necessary to encode information and thus explain life. The symbols are emergent? The rules are emergent? The arrangement of nucleotides is governed by the laws of physics? I don’t think so. I’m not 100% sure but I don’t think I’m the one missing the point here.

And this: “My point is that there is absolutely a physical basis, as I explained.”

Here is that explanation: “There is a physical explanation for why the genetic code is the way it is. Codons are not some abstract language but are literally physically related to the amino acids they “code” for – in the case of DNA via mRNA and tRNA. To refer to DNA as abstract or immaterial information in is misleading. It is tempting to look at DNA as a language – after all we use C, G, A and T/U to represent the bases – this is purely a human abstraction of their physical reality.”

This is actually kind of funny as you are making my point for me. I know that codons are literally related to the amino acids they code for. Why do you suppose that is? Why is one string of codons meaningful and another meaningless? The human abstraction (what other kind is there?) to recognize that the language and information exist does not mean that the language and information isn’t real. What you need to do is show how certain arrangements of codons code for certain amino acids and ultimately proteins based upon what physical law(s). This was Yockey’s point. I will repeat it. “If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” And I will repeat again. They don’t. To claim that “emergence” conquers this problem without providing further details doesn’t do it for me.

Speaking of intellectual commitments, I notice that I’m still the only one who’s made them. What are yours??

Mark Frank @ 61
“No – I am saying the bounds of physics includes events that do not have causes. Inconceivable? More inconceivable than the idea that space might be bent by matter? Or that the interior angles of a triangle might have more or less than 180 degrees?”

And I am saying give me some empirical evidence. Anything that is not logically contradictory is conceivable. And where did you come up with “the bounds of physics includes events that do not have causes”? And what does that have to do with anything that is under discussion anyway? I know I asked the question but it was in the context of denying first principles, of which sufficient cause is one. So more stuff out of thin air that doesn’t really mean or explain anything. I might as well say that physics embodies the idea of one hand clapping.

tgpeeler:

But somewhere along the line it occurred to me (and still very few, if any, others) if the question of the origin of life is the question of the origin of information then what has to be explained in order for information to be explained?

If you’ll pardon me, perhaps it didn’t occur to many because it doesn’t seem to make sense. At the very least you need to define your terms first before I can even try to make more sense of it: information and life.

As far as I know, life is a slippery concept and all definitions are somewhat arbitrary. Ergo, your claim implies that the same must hold for the concept of information.

Also:

Are you saying there was no information before life first appeared?

What about your earlier claim that there can be no information without reference to a mind? When life first appeared there were no minds around as far as I know. If true, does that imply that information first appeared when the first mind arrived at the scene?

By the way, here is one of my intellectual commitments: to further our knowledge (information – ho ho) of the natural world.

Zachriel: The information I provided gives us a rough idea of the *minimum* frequency of functional sequences in such a random pool.

CJYman: It is possible that I missed the relevant material in another comment of yours but the information you provided that I quoted does no such thing.

My comments have concerned the claim in the original post that chance assembly of long proteins “pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe.”

Of course it provides a minimum. We can take a random library and consistently find functional sequences.

CJYman: You left out answering how constrained is the functional pattern.

The original sequences have weak activity, and then are optimized by selection. You may want to reread Szostak’s paper. It follows that of the 10^60 possibles sequences, ~10^50 can bind to a given ligand. They also provide a rough estimate that, for a given function, there are probably only a few hundred different sequence families for a given binding site.

CJYman: What is that number of catalytically active molecules and how many of those are relevant to living systems? Furthermore, how many will work at a specific cite, providing function which at least does not decrease survivability?

That wasn’t the issue raised.

CJYman: Where is specificity relaxed? Artificial evolution increases what activity?

These experiments start with weakly interacting enzymes that are then optimized through rounds of amplification and selection. The function is defined by the experiment, and is usually of biological or medical significance.

The original experiments were directly related to ideas about abiogenesis.

CJYman: *ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE BASED ON OUR IGNORANCE.*

Measurements are meant to reduce our ignorance, not be directly proportional to it. A tree doesn’t get larger the more ignorant we are, but CSI does.

Zachriel: Oddly enough, the calculation also depends on the wordiness of the Semiotic Agent as it is the class of shortest descriptions that are used in Dembski’s formula.

CJYman: … which is also the basis of K-Complexity. What’s the problem?

K is noncomputable. It explicitly depends on the description language. And it doesn’t make pseudo-scientific claims.

CJYman: Where were we discussing the CSI of Titin?

Here:

CJYmanCJYman: – So, let’s look at Titin (34,350 amino acids [aa]). I am going to give as much of the benefit of the doubt to the critics when calculating probabilites.

The problem is that you use probability figures that are quite possibly wrong, but clearly believe the argument to be so strong as to overthrow well-established and strongly supported science. Specifically, you are substituting a random variable wherever there is a gap in human scientific knowledge. For instance, a plausible mechanism for chirality changes your calculation by a factor of a mere 2^34350.

IrynaB

You misunderstand me. Many people try to hide behind the “what is information, really?” curtain. It’s a flimsy one indeed. You can’t read about life/evolution/intelligent design without understanding that all writers agree that life and information are inextricably linked. It’s a brute fact. Do you want me to cite a bunch of authors from both sides of the debate? Will that help?

There can be no information apart from a mind. I think that’s pretty clear. When life first appeared in the universe it came from a pre-existing and eternal life. Even modern cell theory says that life only comes from life. All you have to do is take that to its logical conclusion. Since the first life could not come from non-life, the first life had to be eternal. It’s quite rational, really. It’s either that or you can create life from non-life and prove me (and Pasteur) wrong. Good luck.

As far as your intellectual commitment to further your knowledge of the natural world that’s not what I meant either and I suspect that you know that. I am speaking of ontological (what exists), epistemological (how do we know), logical (first principles and part of epistemology, actually), and ethical (moral law, right/wrong – exists or not, if so why? if so based on what?) commitments. What is non-negotiable for you in this sense? I think I’ve been pretty clear about it from my side.

IrynaB re 64

You say: “If you’ll pardon me, perhaps it didn’t occur to many because it doesn’t seem to make sense. At the very least you need to define your terms first before I can even try to make more sense of it: information and life.

As far as I know, life is a slippery concept and all definitions are somewhat arbitrary. Ergo, your claim implies that the same must hold for the concept of information.”

Regarding your confusion concerning my assertions about information and life that “do not make sense” here are some popular citations that may shed some light on this subject for you.

Francis Crick, Of Molecules and Men: “…we have, in effect, to translate the information from a four-letter language into a twenty-letter language, and this is by no means easy.” speaking of the genetic code/language.

FC, OMM: “…so that the language that is used in the nucleic acid polymers is universal.”

Francis Crick, Life Itself: “In spite of our differences we all use a single chemical language, or, more precisely, as we shall see, two such languages, intimately related to each other.”

FC, LI: “A protein is like a paragraph written in a twenty-letter language, the exact nature of the protein being determined by the exact order of the letters. With one trivial exception, this script never varies. Animals, plants, microorganisms and viruses all use the same set of twenty letters although, as far as we can tell, other similar letters could easily have been employed, just as other symbols could have been used to construct our own alphabet.”

Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: “You can treat the genetic code as a dictionary in which sixty-four words in one language (the sixty-four possible triplets of a four-letter alphabet) are mapped onto twenty-one words in another language (twenty amino acids plus a punctuation mark).”

RD, ROE: “… we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. … The machine code of the gene is uncannily computerlike …”

RD, ROE: “Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information.”

RD, ROE: “Indeed, the whole DNA/protein-based information technology is so sophisticated – high tech, it has been called by the chemist Graham Cairns-Smith – that you can scarcely imagine it arising by luck, without some other self-replicating system as a forerunner.”

RD, The Blind Watchmaker: “We have seen that DNA molecules are the centre of a spectacular information technology.”

Bernd-Olaf Kuppers, Information and the Origin of Life: “To start with, a brief introduction to modern evolution theory is given (chapter 1). A central and fundamental concept of this theory is that of “biological information,” since the material order and the purposiveness characteristic of living systems are governed completely by information, which in turn has its foundations at the level of biological macromolecules (chapter 2). The question of the origin of life is thus equivalent to the question of the origin of biological information.”

BOK, IOL: “The term “biological information” requires clarification, and this is the purpose of part II. It will be shown that three dimensions of information can be distinguished: its syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects.”

BOK, IOL: “The smallest catalytically active protein molecules of the living cell consist of at least a hundred amino acids. … This shows that already on the lowest level of complexity, that of the biological macromolecules, an almost unlimited variety of structures is possible. … It is therefore to be expected that the construction and the coordinated interplay in the cell of these molecular function-carriers is determined by a plan, that is to say, information.”

Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life:

“The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides the living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”

“The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter. If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.”

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”

“The genetic information system is the software of life and, like the symbols in a computer, it is purely symbolic and independent of its environment. Of course, the genetic message, when expressed as a sequence of symbols, is nonmaterial but must be recorded in matter or energy.”

“Life is guided by information and inorganic processes are not.”

Perhaps this will help clarify that information and life are related and how they are related. If you want all of the details, of course, you should read the books. There are many more but I have a tennis match tomorrow and need my rest.

Zachriel (and CJYman) at 66,

Hey, that was my first delurking at UD! I should have remembered you were talking about Titin.

CJYman, I’d very much like to continue the discussion of my questions about your calculation:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-341846

Perhaps we can get to a sufficient level of detail to code this thing.

tgpeeler at 67,

Many people try to hide behind the “what is information, really?” curtain. It’s a flimsy one indeed.

I strongly disagree. If we don’t have an explicit, rigorous definition of the term, we quite literally don’t know what we’re talking about.

I’ve read your posts on this thread and find them interesting, but in order to discuss them rationally I do need to know: What exactly is your definition of “information”?

#67 tgpeeler

Many people try to hide behind the “what is information, really?” curtain. It’s a flimsy one indeed. You can’t read about life/evolution/intelligent design without understanding that all writers agree that life and information are inextricably linked. It’s a brute fact. …..

There can be no information apart from a mind. I think that’s pretty clear.

The whole point is that information can take on a wide range of meanings. When e.g Dawkins is talking about information he means it in a way that can be produced without any living thing. There are meanings of information that require not just minds, but human minds. But they are different meanings.

Hence the importance of settling on a definition.

This is from M-W online:

facts, data b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct

By golly, I think M-W nailed it.

Message based on algorithm driven by General Relativity (gravity).
1. Drop object.
2. If object falls, type A
3. If object does anything else, type any key at random on keyboard.
4. Repeat until you get something different than A.

Result:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA…

tgpeeler at 73,

Hmm, I just dropped a helium balloon….

tgpeeler at 72,

You left out one of the definitions that’s important in science:

d : a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed

The quantitative aspect is essential. If the definition we’re using doesn’t allow us to explicitly identify information and measure the amount of it, we can’t use the tools of science to investigate it.

“Message” based on quantum event – decay of a radioactive element.

(This is assuming that it’s possible to map the time between the decay of individual particles to the characters of the English alphebet, say. In other words, T1 = a, T2 = b, etc… We can safely ignore punctuation marks and numbers for the purposes of this thought experiment.)

(Hypothetical, obviously) Result:
jaoiuasovuiavoizoauvoiutouizoiuoavaofgsazleriu

So what conclusions, if any, can we draw from these two thought experiments??

Mustela, tgpeeler has given the definition, and CSI is the perfect type of measurement for that type of information.

“Hmm, I just dropped a helium balloon….”

OK. Fair enough. So we have this algorithm when our object is a helium-filled balloon.

1. Let go of object.
2. If object rises, type A.
3. If object does anything else, type any key at random on keyboard.
4. Repeat until you get something different than A.

Result:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA…

CJYman at 77,

tgpeeler has given the definition, and CSI is the perfect type of measurement for that type of information.

That definition is completely subjective, as demonstrated by tgpeeler at 78 where he changes the definition based on the type of the object. It is not useful for scientific measurement.

Mustela @ 75
“The quantitative aspect is essential. If the definition we’re using doesn’t allow us to explicitly identify information and measure the amount of it, we can’t use the tools of science to investigate it.”

This is precisely what is at issue. I say the quantitative aspect is not necessary because, from a logical point of view, information cannot be created solely by physical law IN THE FIRST PLACE. So why do I have to measure what can’t be created? I am talking about a conceptual flaw here (in the naturalistic/materialist argument) that has, as far as I know, not been discussed and I think it needs to be. Granted, I’m nobody but so what? It’s the merit (or not) of the idea that counts.

It’s as if you say we can’t determine the possibility of building a perpetual motion machine because we can’t measure the energy consumed in running it and reconcile it with the energy created by the running of it (the math wouldn’t work because it’s impossible to do, say). The fact that some aspect of a PMM can’t be measured is irrelevant because thermodynamics says it’s impossible for one to exist in the first place. This isn’t an exact analogy but it’s essentially what I’m saying.

Let me try again. You can’t create information with physical law (I argue) so your objection that you can’t measure what can’t be created is not relevant. If you want to seriously object, show me an algorithm based on physical law that creates information. Just one will do and I’m out of Schlitz, as we used to say. If I’m wildly off base here (FOS) then it should be really easy to falsify my claim.

Mustela @ 79
“That definition is completely subjective, as demonstrated by tgpeeler at 78 where he changes the definition based on the type of the object. It is not useful for scientific measurement.”

I did no such thing! This is pretty funny. I either have ZERO communication skills (entirely possible) or YOU are not really thinking about what we’re discussing.

What my examples showed, both of them, is that information cannot be created by an algorithm based on physical law. That’s all. I changed no definition of information. Besides that, my previous point addresses your concerns anyway.

tgpeeler: Result: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA…

Are you saying that a repetitive pattern only conveys a trivial amount of information, and therefore, physical laws can’t generate information? Is that correct?

Intervals between solar eclipses as viewed from a given location are not regular. Weather is a chaotic system that is based on physical laws. Even a leaky faucet can create a chaotic pattern.

Clive Hayden: You have two options, either the information is a static pattern, as we see in chemistry, where no real information is given, or you have chaos, where no real information is given.

That didn’t seem to be tgpeeler’s position, which is what I was attempting to clarify.

“Real information” as opposed to “not real information”. What you are referring to is usually called semantic information. Semantic information is very difficult to unambiguously quantify, except within very limited situations.

Clive Hayden: Neither of which will you get from AAAAAAAAA or chaos.

People have often thought that chaotic patterns conveyed semantic information.

tgpeeler at 81,

What my examples showed, both of them, is that information cannot be created by an algorithm based on physical law. That’s all. I changed no definition of information. Besides that, my previous point addresses your concerns anyway.

Ah, I see the point you were trying to make. My apologies for my part in the confusion.

Now, I still disagree with you, for reasons that Zachriel has pointed out already, but I think I at least understand your point.

Mustela @ 84

Bless you for understanding! Now let’s continue to argue!! I’ll respond to Z here in a little while.

tgpeeler at 80,

Mustela @ 75
“The quantitative aspect is essential. If the definition we’re using doesn’t allow us to explicitly identify information and measure the amount of it, we can’t use the tools of science to investigate it.”

This is precisely what is at issue. I say the quantitative aspect is not necessary because, from a logical point of view, information cannot be created solely by physical law IN THE FIRST PLACE.

We need a rigorous definition of “information” before this discussion can bear fruit. Shannon information, for example, can be shown to be generated by physical processes, so if we use that definition your claim is refuted.

How would one go about identifying “information” according to your definition?

—tgpeeler: “If you’ll allow me one quibble. I think that saying “assume to be true rather than seek to demonstrate their truth” is a pejorative way to say that. It implies, or rather, I at least, infer from that statement that somehow these beliefs are not actually true (they are) or that they are somehow inferior to empirical (scientific) “truth.” Perhaps I am being overly sensitive but I typically find that reason gets short-changed with regard to empirical data and I think that is a huge error.”

This is absolutely, spectacularly, and decisively true—and well stated. Evidence doesn’t point to first principles; evidence is interpreted in their light. As important as evidence is, reason’s first principles are more important still, because it is only through them that evidence can be reasonably interpreted. Yet Darwinists who visit this site typically question those very same principles, often after having being informed about them for the first time.

As a result, they muddy the debate waters in their discussions about science by allowing their skepticism about the non-negotiable nature of causality to leak into their analysis. If one pushes their claims about what naturalistic forces can do to the limit [and their skepticism about design to the limit], one finds, more often than not, that most of their errors can be traced back to their implicit denials of causality.

We notice, for example, their proclivity to appeal to the quantum phenomenon in an attempt to show that some physical events can come into existence without causes, as if such a thing were logically possible—as if the principles of quantum mechanics themselves could have been established on such an irrational basis.

Apparently, it never occurs to them that the evidence from quantum mechanics, like all other scientific approaches, depends as much on the law of causality as any other kind of evidence. Yet it is that same evidence that they point to in an attempt to show that causality is negotiable. Remarkable. [That there are so many popular scientists who fall into that same trap is yet more evidence of the sad state of their incomplete and one-sided education.]

If one follows the reasoning of the Darwinists who post here, one comes to realize that it is this denial of the law of causality that informs almost everything that they write. Explain to them that “something cannot come from nothing,” and you will get responses like these:

“Why can’t something come from nothing?”

“Who says that physical events cannot come into existence without a cause?”

“Provide me with some empirical evidence to show me that YOUR principles of right reason are valid.”

“The law of causality is “trivial” or is a “tautology.”

“Causality has not been properly defined?” [This after having stated categorically that it isn’t always needed]

“Reason’s first principles do not apply to the real world.”

“Why can’t matter investigate itself?”

…and so it goes.

How does one argue science with a mind set like that?

Mustela @ 87

“We need a rigorous definition of “information” before this discussion can bear fruit. Shannon information, for example, can be shown to be generated by physical processes, so if we use that definition your claim is refuted.”

Aha, another miscommunication on my part. Physical “processes” are necessarily involved in the creation of information but that’s not what I am talking about. What I’m talking about is the manipulation of the physical world (or, as you say, processes) by the mental world (which a materialist denies the existence of) as opposed to the world of physics, to create information. That’s the distinction I mean to make.

Shannon information, BTW, as I understand it, only deals with information at the statistical level. His concepts are used to cram data through pipes but really have little, if anything, to say about syntax or semantics (meaning). Any string of zero’s and one’s can contain “information” but that information is still contingent upon there being IN PLACE, between the sender and the receiver, a language. Otherwise, no communication. That language (symbols and rules) is what physics is unable to account for. Thus, the materialist enterprise fails. Or so I say. More later…

Zachriel: People have often thought that chaotic patterns conveyed semantic information.

Clive Hayden: You mean like seeing the Virgin Mary in some burned toast? Is that what you mean? What “people” and what “semantic” information are you referring to? Do your “people” see semantic information supplied by chaos on the level of these few sentences I have written here?

This is tangential to the problem of quantifying semantic information. But people often ascribe semantic information to the positions of the planets, coincidence, catastrophic events, lottery numbers.

Clive Hayden: Do your “people” see semantic information supplied by chaos on the level of these few sentences I have written here?

Some clearly do.

StephenB: How does one argue science with a mind set like that?

By carefully considering their arguments and determining the base assumptions that often underly such disagreements. For instance,

StephenB: We notice, for example, their proclivity to appeal to the quantum phenomenon in an attempt to show that some physical events can come into existence without causes, as if such a thing were logically possible—as if the principles of quantum mechanics themselves could have been established on such an irrational basis.

You are assuming here that rationality requires the acceptance of cause-and-effect, but that depend on your definition of rationality. If by rationality you mean deductive reasoning from stated premises, then that would not encompass cause-and-effect, which is an experiential finding. If your use of terminology is unclear or simply different from how others use the term (or worse, if you slide between meanings unconsciously), then the argument will be frustrated.

As for quantum phenomena, there is no particular reason that a particular lepton spontaneously pops into existence. If we have a lump of radium, there is no particular reason why this atom rather than that atom should decay at a particular time. In this sense, quantum events are contrary to naïve notions of cause-and-effect.

Apparently material objects do just pop into existence, just like they appear to tunnel across impenetrable barriers. That doesn’t make quantum mechanics irrational. It just follows different rules than common sense would dictate.

tgpeeler: What I’m talking about is the manipulation of the physical world (or, as you say, processes) by the mental world (which a materialist denies the existence of) as opposed to the world of physics, to create information.

Your definition is unclear and contains what you are trying to define. Are you saying that the pattern planets trace in the sky is not information independent of the observer? Is it only information if you write it down?

“Explain to them that “something cannot come from nothing,” and you will get responses like these: ”

Hi Stephen,

Furthermore when we analyze their responses we find they are doing two things. 1) Thay are giving their REASONS why REASON does not apply. 2) One can further breakdown their responses as a list of causes why causality need not be absolute. Cannot one say that alll their resposes can be reduced to “we reject the principle of causality beCAUSE…”

So they use reason to argue that reason can be abandoned and causality to argue that there need not be causality. Talk about nonsense!!! And they do all this with a straight face.

This would be laughable except they are putting a stake in the heart of science, the very thing they value so highly. Which means BTW they they are the ones who are anti science.

Vivid

—vividbleau: “Furthermore when we analyze their responses we find they are doing two things. 1) Thay are giving their REASONS why REASON does not apply. 2) One can further breakdown their responses as a list of causes why causality need not be absolute.”

Vivid: Well stated, and not overstated.

StephenB @ 89

Thanks for a breath of fresh air. One really can’t argue science (or anything else, I’ve tried) with people who refuse to make fundamental intellectual commitments and stick with them, or change them when reason and evidence show them the light of day. That’s why I called them out in my original post (#33) on this thread. And I notice that IrynaB, who reacted to my “insult” STILL hasn’t had the stones to do what I said they/she wouldn’t do in the first place!! TFF. Of course, the fact that she (?) would give an insult as a reason not to engage in a discussion of truth shows where her reasoning skills are. I call anyone who rejects reason an intellectual degenerate. Granted, that’s harsh, but I think we need to be harsh. OMG, just look around. The national insanity is so pervasive on so many fronts. Sigh… what’s a reasonable person to do?

Zachriel @ 82

“Are you saying that a repetitive pattern only conveys a trivial amount of information, and therefore, physical laws can’t generate information? Is that correct?

Intervals between solar eclipses as viewed from a given location are not regular. Weather is a chaotic system that is based on physical laws. Even a leaky faucet can create a chaotic pattern.”

That’s not exactly what I’m saying. Although it is true that a repetitive pattern can only convey a limited amount of information (what kind of message could be encoded into a sequence of As?) that’s not what I’m arguing because that’s not the point. To even ask that question assumes a sender, a channel, a symbol set and rules for governing the use of those symbols to encode information, and a receiver who understands the symbols and rules to decode the message.

I am not arguing that since physical laws can only produce rigid order (think crystals or snowflakes) or chaos (think volcano eruption) they can’t produce information, although THAT IS TRUE. I am saying that physical law cannot account for or produce or create or explain information because it has nothing to say about symbols and rules, that is, language. And since all information is encoded in a language of one kind or another that means physics can’t explain, create, or account for information.

How do you know that “cat” refers to a certain kind of mammal? How do you know that “act” refers to something done, to do something, or a segment of a play? Well you know because a set of symbols exists, in this case, the English alphabet (alpha beta from the Greek) and the rules that govern the use of these symbols exist, and you and I both know those symbols and those rules. But physics has NOTHING TO SAY about these (or any) symbols or the rules.

I agree that physics can produce order and chaos but it requires a mind (Mind) to produce information. This is really a quite simple argument. But since it drives a stake in heart of naturalism and overturns any naturalistic evolutionary story, well let’s just say that people resist that. They don’t argue effectively against it. They don’t falsify my claims by creating an algorithm based on physical law that can create information. They don’t give counter-examples or even make counter-arguments. Read this thread and you can see that.

Zachriel @ 84

“People have often thought that chaotic patterns conveyed semantic information.”

And how would this happen? Could you give us an example of what this would look like? Who are these “people”? Do they live around here? I’d like to meet them. Good luck. If I had a million dollars to bet this would be the one I’d make. That you can’t demonstrate this in any coherent way, shape, or form.

#97 tgpeeler

I am saying that physical law cannot account for or produce or create or explain information because it has nothing to say about symbols and rules, that is, language. And since all information is encoded in a language of one kind or another that means physics can’t explain, create, or account for information.

How do you know that “cat” refers to a certain kind of mammal? How do you know that “act” refers to something done, to do something, or a segment of a play? Well you know because a set of symbols exists, in this case, the English alphabet (alpha beta from the Greek) and the rules that govern the use of these symbols exist, and you and I both know those symbols and those rules. But physics has NOTHING TO SAY about these (or any) symbols or the rules.

It is absolutely true that language requires a mind. So if you want to define information as something requiring language then information requires a mind. But that simply moves the question to “is DNA a language” (I don’t mean it is like a language – to me “language of the genes” is like “language of the rocks” – a metaphor).

For example, what does a string of DNA refer to?

What does a string of DNA refer to? It may create a protein – but it doesn’t refer to that protein.

Scattered throughout this thread is an argument that appears to go like this.

1) I believe certain things to be self-evidently true e.g. everything has a cause.

2) Anyone who does not believe these things is irrational.

3) Therefore, any requests they may make for evidence or clarification of these beliefs is irrational.

4) Furthermore they are intellectual wimps for not putting forward their own set of self-evident beliefs.

—-”Scattered throughout this thread is an argument that appears to go like this.

—-”1) I believe certain things to be self-evidently true e.g. everything has a cause.”

Translation: I don’t accept the law of causality. It limits my options.

—-”2) Anyone who does not believe these things is irrational.”

Translation: Anyone who calls attention to that fact that I reject reason’s first principles is using ad hominem arguments

—-”3) Therefore, any requests they may make for evidence or clarification of these beliefs is irrational.”

Translation: Evidence need not be interpreted according to reason’s first principles.

—-”4) Furthermore they are intellectual wimps for not putting forward their own set of self-evident beliefs.”

Translation: I wish there was another set of first principles that would allow me to accept causality when it serves my purpose and dismiss it when it doesn’t.

Hi Steve, TGP, Jerry (et al):

Passing through. (Needed to borrow a handy defn of ID. Busy elsewhere.)

I see the issues of utter implausible and the problem of first principles are still around. Looks like there is another problem at work: on the part of our Darwinist friends!

I note, en pasant, that the real issues to be explained are not just he existence of complex interlocking collaborating biomolecules, but the system as a whole. Cf the Int’l Union of Biochem and Molecular Bio’s integrated reaction scheme of cellular metabolism and the integrated, purposeful complexity of a petrochem plant; which last is actually SIMPLER!

Both easily surpass the info content of a chain of 1,000 yes/no decisions to get to such delicately specific integrated functionality! (If you doubt me, ask your friendly local chemical engineer –Hi Dr J-S, if you are out there watching! (You are as brilliant as you are lovely) — to estimate the price for a design of a plant to do each of these reaction networks, and the onward cost to build.)

But the whole observed cosmos across its thermodynamic lifespan would not credibly be able to go through more than 10^150 Quantum states (or 10^139 on Meyer’s more exact estimate). 1,000 bits — the info capacity [Shannon metric is about this] of 1,000 y/n decisions — specifies a config space of 1.07*10^301 states. So, the cosmos viewed as a search would not be able to scan 1 in 10^150 of the accessible states, i.e the search rounds down to zero scope. So, odds of finding islands of such funciton are not materially different from zero. (Cf Shapiro and Orgel’s recent exchange on this in the OOL context, here! Boiled down: NEITHER RNA world nor metabolism are reasonably explicable on chance + necessity only, so the persistence in dismissing the obvious design inference is because of a priori materialism under false colours of science, not evidence.)

This is the meat on the bones of the inference from FSCI to ART-ificial or intelligent — as opposed to supernatural! — causal action in the context of observed life forms from the cell on up.

Further, TGP is right to highlight that DNA and the associated processing system are a flexible program [think viruses . . . ], digital information system, one in the context of a self-replicating automaton. So, algorithms, instructional and data structure codes, and thus language PRECEDE the origin of cell based life, i.e. are causally foundational to it. Thence, symbols and rules of meaning.

On inductive inference to the best and only observationally known explanation, such originates in intelligence, i.e. mind.

So, on evidence, we are back where Plato saw ever so long ago in The Laws, Book X, back in 360 BC: Mind is prior to and the basic cause of the living body.

Extending to the evidence on the multidimensionally fine tuned integrated complexity of the cosmos to facilitate such C-chemistry based life [cf. simple PPT show here], Mind is causally prior to the cosmos we live in too.

And, those who reject and resist predictably end up in reductio ad absurdum, as the above thread abundantly demonstrates. (“Daddy: De emperor struttin’ ’bout buck nakkid! Why he doin’ dat for?”)

G’day all

Have fun!

GEM of TKI

PS: Expanding through another instructive exchange of thoughts:

__________

A: Lewontin, NYRB, Jan 1997:

>> . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . Sagan’s argument is straightforward. We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of physical relations among material entities. The vast majority of us do not have control of the intellectual apparatus needed to explain manifest reality in material terms, so in place of scientific (i.e., correct material) explanations, we substitute demons . . . . Most of the chapters of The Demon-Haunted World are taken up with exhortations to the reader to cease whoring after false gods and to accept the scientific method as the unique pathway to a correct understanding of the natural world. To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . .

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. >>

B: Johnson, First Things, Nov 1997:

>>For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” 

. . . .   The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. When the public understands this clearly, Lewontin’s Darwinism will start to move out of the science curriculum and into the department of intellectual history, where it can gather dust on the shelf next to Lewontin’s Marxism. [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77, pp. 22 – 25.] >>

_______________

See wot I’se mean bout de emperor?

So long . . .

vividbleau: Furthermore when we analyze their responses we find they are doing two things. 1) Thay are giving their REASONS why REASON does not apply. 2) One can further breakdown their responses as a list of causes why causality need not be absolute.

It’s not clear who “they” are, but evolutionary biology is well within the norms of cause-and-effect relationships, so it’s rather a moot point.

Zachriel: People have often thought that chaotic patterns conveyed semantic information.

tgpeeler: And how would this happen? Could you give us an example of what this would look like? Who are these “people”? Do they live around here? I’d like to meet them. Good luck. If I had a million dollars to bet this would be the one I’d make. That you can’t demonstrate this in any coherent way, shape, or form.

Astrology. Divination.

Your local currency is of no value to us, so you may keep your million dollars. Or spend it on your poor brethren.

Clive Hayden: Do your “people” see semantic information supplied by chaos on the level of these few sentences I have written here?

Zachriel: Some clearly do.

Clive Hayden: So what?

As mentioned, it was tangential, and meant to show the difficulty of quantifying semantic information. People can find meaning in almost anything! It’s one of their most endearing traits. Frankly, it’s surprising that anyone took issue with the statement.

tgpeeler: Of course, the fact that she (?) would give an insult as a reason not to engage in a discussion of truth shows where her reasoning skills are. I call anyone who rejects reason an intellectual degenerate.

Heh. Quite. You are being ironic, right?

-

We've checked the DeSnark® desnarkification device, and it seems to be working within norms. We're still unsure why Zachriel's comments are being delayed. Please accept our apologies.

tgpeeler: But physics has NOTHING TO SAY about these (or any) symbols or the rules.

Mark Frank: It is absolutely true that language requires a mind. So if you want to define information as something requiring language then information requires a mind. But that simply moves the question to “is DNA a language”

What Mark Frank said. The entire argument is semantics and just shifts the burden of proof.

tgpeeler: I am not arguing that since physical laws can only produce rigid order (think crystals or snowflakes) or chaos (think volcano eruption) they can’t produce information, although THAT IS TRUE.

I am saying that physical law cannot account for or produce or create or explain information because it has nothing to say about symbols and rules, that is, language.

If we jot down the pattern that planets trace across the sky, we call that information. That’s fine. The same with the patterns in DNA or anything else. That only tells us the source of our tittles. It does nothing to help us determine whether the patterns the planets trace are the result of a mind or just due to contingent circumstance.

kairosfocus: Both easily surpass the info content of a chain of 1,000 yes/no decisions to get to such delicately specific integrated functionality!

{snip extensive quote-minds}

It’s well-established that evolutionary processes can integrate information from the environment. Nor do such processes have to explore all 4^gazillion sequences, but can find complex solutions by incremental change.

tgpeeler at 90,

Mustela @ 87

Aha, another miscommunication on my part. Physical “processes” are necessarily involved in the creation of information but that’s not what I am talking about. What I’m talking about is the manipulation of the physical world (or, as you say, processes) by the mental world (which a materialist denies the existence of) as opposed to the world of physics, to create information. That’s the distinction I mean to make.

Hmm, I need a rigorous definition of what you mean by “information” even more now.

All mental processes of which I am aware take place in a physical substrate, namely a brain. You seem to be skipping ahead to the end game, asserting the existence of a disembodied mind that affects the physical world. Long before that point you need to define what you mean by “information”, show that it exists in real biological organisms, and show clearly that it cannot be generated by known evolutionary mechanisms.

Shannon information, BTW, as I understand it, only deals with information at the statistical level. His concepts are used to cram data through pipes but really have little, if anything, to say about syntax or semantics (meaning). Any string of zero’s and one’s can contain “information” but that information is still contingent upon there being IN PLACE, between the sender and the receiver, a language.

Are you defining information to exist only when a mind comprehends something about the physical world? There’s probably a valid definition that can be generated from that basis, but I don’t see how it would suggest that known physical processes can’t generate the physical structures that are interpreted by our minds.

Otherwise, no communication. That language (symbols and rules) is what physics is unable to account for. Thus, the materialist enterprise fails. Or so I say. More later…

I look forward to it.

GEM of TKI

Great to “see” you. I enjoy your way with words and look forward to following the links you provided. A cogent summary of “things.” Thanks.

p.s. The Lewontin quote is one of my all time “favorites.”

Mark Frank @ 100

“It is absolutely true that language requires a mind. So if you want to define information as something requiring language then information requires a mind. But that simply moves the question to “is DNA a language” (I don’t mean it is like a language – to me “language of the genes” is like “language of the rocks” – a metaphor).”

Let me get more specific: “So if you want to define information as something requiring language then information requires a mind.”

If “I” want to?? How about Crick, Dawkins, Kuppers, Yockey, to name a few? There is no question about this. See post #68. What about language being symbols and rules do you not understand? This is the thing, it’s called the law of identity. A thing is what it is. Language is language and you can’t change the definition when it suits you so you don’t have to abandon an intellectually untenable position. DNA expresses a language. Sorry about that.

Mark Frank @ 100

“It is absolutely true that language requires a mind. So if you want to define information as something requiring language then information requires a mind. But that simply moves the question to “is DNA a language” (I don’t mean it is like a language – to me “language of the genes” is like “language of the rocks” – a metaphor).”

Let me get more specific: “So if you want to define information as something requiring language then information requires a mind.”

If “I” want to?? How about Crick, Dawkins, Kuppers, Yockey, to name a few? How about Merriam-Webster (on-line)? “(5): a formal system of signs and symbols (as FORTRAN or a calculus in logic) including rules for the formation and transformation of admissible expressions” There is no question about this. This is fundamental to ALL languages because that is what a language IS. Symbols and rules. See post #68 for other opinions about DNA being language and biological information being information. What about language being symbols and rules do you not understand? This is the thing, it’s called the law of identity. A thing is what it is. Language is language and you can’t change the definition when it suits you so you don’t have to abandon an intellectually untenable position. (Well, you CAN but then you remain mired in a lie rather than coming to the truth.) DNA expresses a language. Sorry about that. If you think that there can be information apart from language then be my guest to provide an instance of that. You’ll quickly see the inanity of attempting to communicate information apart from a language.

Hi Mustela Nivalis:

Try the UD Glossary and the Discussion of weak arguments and their correctives (top of the page, RH column).

From the Glossary:

Information: Wikipedia, with some reorganization, is apt: “ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].”

So-called Shannon Information is in reality a measure instead of information storage or carrying capacity; bearing in mind the relative frequency of symbols, noise and the related probabilities.

In the functional sense of messages, information indeed involves:

1 –> symbols [such as ASCII and alphanumeric characters used in this post], where per Wiki again (quoting the opposition to show inconsistencies in their thinking as well as set a good baseline for communicating never hurts . . . ):

A symbol is something such as an object, picture, written word, sound, or particular mark that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention. For example, a red octagon may be a symbol for “STOP”. On maps, crossed sabres may indicate a battlefield. Numerals are symbols for numbers. All language consists of symbols. The word “cat” is not a cat, but is an arbitrary symbol representing the idea of a cat. A certain symbol might represent a town, city or a village of some sort.

2 –> The physical expression of such symbols by modulating a contingent phenomenon [air pressure, frequency of light, patterns of light and darkness or colour on a sheet of paper of computer screen, voltages etc]

3 –> Rules of patterning the symbols for syntax and semantics . . . i.e. good grammar or the equivalent and meaningfulness.

4 –> Difference-making, i.e. the particular state of the signals makes a difference to some activity or process. [e.g. this message responds to a context of discussion and carries a meaning that makes sense to both the machines involved in the internet at one level and at the human level it is a meaningful English language communication.]

It is a well demonstrated point that the only known observed source of functionally specific complex information [FSCI, the relevant subset of Orgel's Complex Specified Information (1973)] is intelligences. On grounds discussed above, it is an inductively strong inference that FSCI is a signature or characteristic sign of intelligence.

So, on seeing FSCI manifested in the DNA of life forms, and digital, algorithmic and data structure information, we have excellent reason — apart from Lewontinian a priori materialism (and read the rest of what Phillip Johnson had to say!) — to conclude that life is designed. Moreover, there is related excellent reason to infer from the empirical evidence of FSCI increments to get to the basis for the major body plans, these too are designed.

G’day.

GEM of TKI

PS: TGP, thanks for the kind words. You have raised a significant emphasis in pointing to the nature of information as embracing symbols and associated rules that facilitate communication.

PPS: MN, I use examples due to the clarifying power of concrete examples; i.e I am appealing to the power of significant family resemblance [definition by example], and onward to the relevance of analogy to all serious human reasoning; never mind selctively hyperskeptical huffing and puffing against such analogies when they are inconvenient to evolutionary materialists. Cf Wiki’s discussion of analogy.

PPPS: Onlookers, I trust the above shows some of why I have usually taken time to develop remarks in some details, to anticipate and address common misunderstandings and objections.

#107

See post #68. What about language being symbols and rules do you not understand? This is the thing, it’s called the law of identity. A thing is what it is. Language is language and you can’t change the definition when it suits you so you don’t have to abandon an intellectually untenable position. DNA expresses a language. Sorry about that.

Words such as sign, language, information, symbol, have much more elastic meanings than you give them credit for. That’s why we keep on asking for more rigorous definitions which you refuse to be drawn into.

Consider

Sign

Clouds are a sign of rain
This is the first sign of madness
This sign must mean roadworks

Symbol

The clenched fist is the symbol of the Black Panther movement
The use of troops is a symbol of the government’s determination to win the miners’ strike
+ is the symbol for addition

Language
Only an experienced tracker can read the language of the bush
Computers only understand machine code
The dance of the bees is a simple language for conveying where honey is

A concept can refer to multiple overlapping threads none of which are essential and different ones apply at the same time. Read Wittgenstein on Family Resemblance

tgpeeler: Let me get more specific: “So if you want to define information as something requiring language then information requires a mind.”

If “I” want to?? How about Crick, Dawkins, Kuppers, Yockey, to name a few?

Francis Crick, Of Molecules and Men: “…we have, in effect, to translate the information from a four-letter language into a twenty-letter language

FC, LI: “A protein is like a paragraph written in a twenty-letter language

Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: “You can treat the genetic code as a dictionary

And so on (with qualifiers emphasized). More importantly, we *know* that Crick and Dawkins do not mean that a mind is involved in genes or proteins, so it is *you* who is clearly misreading their intent.

tgpeeler at 108,

I think we may be closing in on your definition of “information” based on an implied equivalence in your response to Mark Frank. He said:

It is absolutely true that language requires a mind. So if you want to define information as something requiring language then information requires a mind. But that simply moves the question to “is DNA a language” (I don’t mean it is like a language – to me “language of the genes” is like “language of the rocks” – a metaphor).

Let me get more specific: So if you want to define information as something requiring language then information requires a mind.

Your response included:

This is fundamental to ALL languages because that is what a language IS. Symbols and rules. See post #68 for other opinions about DNA being language and biological information being information.

DNA is not made up of symbols and rules. It is made up of chemicals that operate according to known natural processes. Humans can use the metaphor (as Mark Frank points out) of language to aid in understanding some aspects of its behavior, but the map is not the territory and the metaphor is not the process.

You can’t logically go from “Human languages are made up of symbols and rules.” to “Since we can represent some aspects of genetics with symbols and rules, DNA is a language.” You certainly can’t build on that analogy to assert that since human languages are used by human minds, DNA is a product of a mind.

If we can agree on a rigorous definition of “information” then we can probably make some progress in the discussion.

kairosfocus at 109,

While I find your FSCI interesting, I’m focusing now on trying to understand CSI, as described in No Free Lunch, to a sufficient level of detail that I can implement it in software.

Do you have an example of a calculation of CSI for a biological artifact that takes into consideration known evolutionary mechanisms?

Mustela @ 105

“Hmm, I need a rigorous definition of what you mean by “information” even more now.”

Hmm, I need a rigorous definition of what you mean by “rigorous” even more now. No, really. How long can you continue to play the “define information” game? We’re not Bill Clinton here. We know what is “is.”

“All mental processes of which I am aware take place in a physical substrate, namely a brain.” True.

“You seem to be skipping ahead to the end game, asserting the existence of a disembodied mind that affects the physical world.”

No. I am starting from the BEGINNING, as first principles demand, and reasoning to a conclusion. The argument is valid and the premises are true therefore the argument is sound. That is to say, the conclusion is NECESSARILY true.

“Long before that point you need to define what you mean by “information”,”

Asked and answered.

“show that it exists in real biological organisms,”

What will suffice for evidence for you? I’ve explained it rationally. I’ve cited evolutionary biologists (and a physicist who specialized in information theory). No one on the planet who knows a thing about DNA would argue that it doesn’t contain information, i.e. expresses a language. That is until the real implications of what that means are pointed out, then the scramble begins to redefine information and language so as to accomodate the intellectually bankrupt assumptions of naturalism.

“and show clearly that it cannot be generated by known evolutionary mechanisms.”

Done. Multiple times. But here’s a quick review. There are only two evolutionary mechanisms. One, ‘natural selection,’ and two, genetic mutation. ‘Natural selection’ is merely physics, according to evolutionists and according to a rigorous analysis of what it claims to be. But it’s not physics because you’ll find that physicists never talk about “natural selection” as being a force in nature. (Go ahead, ask one.) There are four forces that physicists talk about (EM, gravity, strong, and weak) and ‘natural selection’ is not one of them. So that makes me wonder, what IS IT exactly, then?? Dawkins realizes that “ns” is merely physics. He says in “The Blind Watchmaker” that “All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.” Well, WTF is that “very special way”? He never says because he can’t say. And what does that actually mean, anyway? How does nothing deploy anything? So if one carefully examines ‘ns’ then one clearly sees that it is merely one of the biggest smoke screens of all time. If the naturalist assumption that all can be explained by physics is true (it isn’t, as I’ve argued) then ‘ns’ should be a part of physics. But it isn’t. So what is it? It’s a lie is what it is. I’d be happy to expound further on this but it’s sort of irrelevant to the point at hand. The second “mechanism” of evolution is genetic mutation. So they assume language, they assume information, and they assume (most hilariously of all) that accidents can improve the existence of information, whose origin they have been completely unable to come to terms with in the first place. It’s as if they seriously think that a bunch of random typographical errors can improve a dissertation. I mean, how RIDICULOUS is that??? Very. This is “intellectually respectable”? Not where I come from.

Let me make another comment or two about “ns.” When Darwin, one of the greatest intellectual frauds in history (along with Marx and Keynes but those are other stories) was dreaming up “natural selection” as a way to avoid recognizing the obvious, that living things are designed (refer back to the Dawkins quote above, despite “All appearances to the contrary”) he was trying to explain the existence of physical structures. Wings, beaks, eyes, etc… But by 1953 or whenever it was that the structure of DNA was discovered, biologists SHOULD HAVE immediately recognized that physical structures didn’t need to be explained. Nay, it is the INFORMATION that is contained in the genome of every living thing that accounts for those structures that screams out for explanation. WHENCE the source of all this information???? “Natural selection,” even if it was a real phenomenon that exercised causal power in nature, is irrelevant. The entire Darwinian/naturalist enterprise to explain life in terms of physics is literally a fool’s errand. It will end badly, as all fool’s errands do, for those who stubbornly cling to the lie.

If you are so sure that I’m wrong, just provide one counter-example. It should be easy to do. Here’s hoping for your “ah ha” moment. The moment when you realize that you’ve been fed a bill of goods for how ever many years you’ve been studying/thinking about this.

Mark Frank @ 110

“Words such as sign, language, information, symbol, have much more elastic meanings than you give them credit for. That’s why we keep on asking for more rigorous definitions which you refuse to be drawn into.”

I am not refusing to be “drawn” into this. No kidding that words have elastic meanings. But I’m not changing the meaning of “information” or “language” or any other word. I have defined those terms and I use them consistently and more importantly, in their appropriate sense for this conversation. To use words (terms) equivocally is to commit a logical fallacy and that is destructive to the search for the truth.

“Consider

Sign

Clouds are a sign of rain
This is the first sign of madness
This sign must mean roadworks”

Consider: that what I have claimed and argued for is in no way affected by your example. So what that different words can be used to refer to the same thing or that the same word can be used in a different context? That is trivially true but it misses the point.

“Symbol

The clenched fist is the symbol of the Black Panther movement
The use of troops is a symbol of the government’s determination to win the miners’ strike
+ is the symbol for addition”

OK. And your point is? In each of these cases, I GET YOUR POINT. And what that means is that you have just used a set of symbols in accordance with a set of rules to communicate a message and that I understand that symbol set and those rules so that I can “get it.”

“Language
Only an experienced tracker can read the language of the bush
Computers only understand machine code
The dance of the bees is a simple language for conveying where honey is”

EXACTLY. In each of these cases, my point remains. The language of the bush, which I certainly couldn’t read, because I don’t understand what a bent blade of grass (a symbol) may represent (the direction my quarry is taking) is because I don’t KNOW THE LANGUAGE. But the language has symbols (bent grass, footprints, etc…) and rules (those things mean different things in context) else information would not be communicated. It’s the same thing with the honey bee dance. There are symbols (various “dance steps”) and rules (certain steps in combination mean go here or go there) so that communication can take place. Nothing you’ve said impacts any of the arguments I’ve made. Indeed, you’ve merely pointed out some particulars of the generality I’ve been arguing for. Thanks.

“A concept can refer to multiple overlapping threads none of which are essential and different ones apply at the same time. Read Wittgenstein on Family Resemblance.”

Granted. So what?

tgpeeler at 113,

How long can you continue to play the “define information” game?

It’s not a game. Until you define your terms, this discussion is literally meaningless. Please make explicit your definition of “information” so that we can determine whether or not it exists in biological organisms and whether or not it can be generated by known evolutionary mechanisms.

“Long before that point you need to define what you mean by “information”,”

Asked and answered.

No, it hasn’t been answered. If it had been, you could simply restate the definition.

“and show clearly that it cannot be generated by known evolutionary mechanisms.”

Done. Multiple times.

Again, no you haven’t. First, since you have not yet defined what you mean by “information”, it is logically impossible for you to show that it couldn’t be generated by known evolutionary mechanisms. Second, you haven’t actually tried to do so in any of the posts I’ve seen.

The rest of your 113 ignores previous comments by other posters about emergent properties and the limitations of reductionism, so I’ll leave those until I understand your definition of “information”.

tgpeeler: So how does one encode information, anyway? With language, of course. And what is a language? Why it’s a set of symbols accompanied by a set of rules for the arrangement of those symbols. So the chain is now complete. Life – information – language – symbols and rules.

There is a correspondence between codons and amino acids. We might call this a code (or symbol or language), but the use of the term doesn’t imply a secret Intelligent Agency. It simply refers to the correspondence itself.

tgpeeler: No one on the planet who knows a thing about DNA would argue that it doesn’t contain information, i.e. expresses a language.

Information already has a precise definition and metric in mathematics. Instead, you are equating information with language.

If we record the intervals between drips of a leaky faucet, is this information? What is the leaky faucet saying?

-
Interesting. The moderation intervals have a similar fractal dimension to the leaky faucet. Hmmm.

Mustela @ 112:
“Do you have an example of a calculation of CSI for a biological artifact that takes into consideration known evolutionary mechanisms?”

I have some time for a quick comment to hopefully help set a bit of the record straight.

In the equation for CSI, P(T|H) is the probability of arriving at the event given the chance hypothesis. I do understand that originally, Dembski stated that this would include evolutionary processes. However, this is where I disagree with what Dembski has said and it seems that his position on the matter has also changed during his research with Dr. Marks. I (and possibly Dembski himself, now) disagree with his original statement that P(T|H) can include evolutionary mechanisms since it is now hypothesized that chance will not produce evolutionary algorithms. If you disagree, then merely provide an example of an EA in which all conditions where produced absent any intelligent bias toward a target or the solution to a specific problem. IOW, random inputs controlled the variables of the laws and conditions, with no possibility of foresight to a goal of form or function being utilized.

That is the reason why I have equated P(T|H) with a uniform probability distribution — statistical randomness is the best characterization of chance. Of course, you can throw some random laws into the mix and get localized order and thus highly ordered CSI, which is why the explanatory filter must also be used in conjunction with CSI to weed out law — “mathematical descriptions of regularities that emerge from the physical/material/measurable properties of matter and energy.”

I discuss this some more in the thread “Polonyi and Ontogenetic Emergence” starting at comment #8.

In the end, organized (as opposed to merely ordered — defined by law) CSI is a reliable indicator of intelligence.

The difference between “order” and “organization” is also discussed at the thread mentioned above in comment #8.

Information: The attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects.

CJYman: merely provide an example of an EA in which all conditions where produced absent any intelligent bias toward a target or the solution to a specific problem. IOW, random inputs controlled the variables of the laws and conditions, with no possibility of foresight to a goal of form or function being utilized.

An evolutionary algorithm presupposes an environment (e.g. a fitness landscape) and replicators competing for limited resources—by definition. Consequently, saying “random inputs control the variables of the laws and conditions” doesn’t make sense.

CJYman at 116,

Mustela @ 112:
“Do you have an example of a calculation of CSI for a biological artifact that takes into consideration known evolutionary mechanisms?”

In the equation for CSI, P(T|H) is the probability of arriving at the event given the chance hypothesis. I do understand that originally, Dembski stated that this would include evolutionary processes. However, this is where I disagree with what Dembski has said and it seems that his position on the matter has also changed during his research with Dr. Marks. I (and possibly Dembski himself, now) disagree with his original statement that P(T|H) can include evolutionary mechanisms since it is now hypothesized that chance will not produce evolutionary algorithms.

Hypothesized by whom, and on what basis?

If known evolutionary mechanisms are not taken into account, CSI is not relevant to biology and hence cannot disprove modern evolutionary theory.

If you disagree, then merely provide an example of an EA in which all conditions where produced absent any intelligent bias toward a target or the solution to a specific problem. IOW, random inputs controlled the variables of the laws and conditions, with no possibility of foresight to a goal of form or function being utilized.

You can’t shift the burden of proof that easily. We know something about the laws of physics and chemistry in our universe and we have observed a number of natural mechanisms that result in evolution (that is, a change in allele frequency in populations over time). If CSI is to be applicable to biology, it must take known physics, chemistry, and evolutionary mechanisms into account.

That is the reason why I have equated P(T|H) with a uniform probability distribution — statistical randomness is the best characterization of chance.

Actually, it’s a reflection of lack of knowledge, and in this case it’s knowledge that we actually have about the domain under consideration (biology). Since I come from a software background, I’ll offer you a famous AI koan by way of explanation:

Sussman attains enlightenment
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.

At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

We know enough about evolutionary mechanisms that we don’t need to close our eyes.

Of course, you can throw some random laws into the mix and get localized order and thus highly ordered CSI, which is why the explanatory filter must also be used in conjunction with CSI to weed out law — “mathematical descriptions of regularities that emerge from the physical/material/measurable properties of matter and energy.”

The laws aren’t random, though, they’re the physics and chemistry of our universe. They can’t be ignored if CSI is to be biologically relevant.

StephenB at 117,

Information: The attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects.

Thanks for taking a first stab at a rigorous definition.

This has a couple of unfortunate problems. The first is the phrase “inherent in and communicated by”. This combines too many concepts that could result in assuming a conclusion. If information is inherent in a sequence, it can be measured without actively communicating with the entity doing the measurement. The whole notion of communication almost presumes the existence of a sender and receiver, which is one of the issues under contention.

The second problem is that this definition gives no way to measure information. I’m looking for a definition that would please Lord Kelvin:

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.

Can we beat this definition into something mutually agreeable?

Language abstractly describes concepts and entities separate from the medium of the language itself.
For example, how many characters do you see here in quotes: “9″

There’s one character, not nine. But it represents the abstract concept of nine. Not nine of any literal thing, but the idea of it. So does “2 + 7.” How is the concept of “nine” embodied in that character? It isn’t. There’s no connection, except that we define it.

The descriptions encoded in language are information.

This handful of characters

Only an experienced tracker can read the language of the bush

only contain information about an experienced tracker if you understand the language. Otherwise there is absolutely nothing to connect the words to the concepts. They are not physically embodied in the medium or the symbols.

The insurmountable challenge for Darwinism is there is no natural law or process that produces the abstraction of information through language. I’m sure if there were an example someone would have coughed it up by now.

The answer to that challenge? Wave it away by splitting hairs over the meaning of “language” and “information,” or producing sentences that use irrelevant dictionary definitions.

It’s nothing but evasion.

Zachriel:
“An evolutionary algorithm presupposes an environment (e.g. a fitness landscape) and replicators competing for limited resources—by definition. Consequently, saying “random inputs control the variables of the laws and conditions” doesn’t make sense.”

Of course it does, if you are attempting to get from no EA to an evolutionary algorithm. Your statement is equivalent to saying that trying to put the components together to make a car makes no sense since a car is by definition composed of its specific components.

Mustala:
“If known evolutionary mechanisms are not taken into account, CSI is not relevant to biology and hence cannot disprove modern evolutionary theory.”

Where in my comments have I ever attempted to disprove modern evolutionary theory? Every one of my comments here assume it as a given.

Mustela:
“We know enough about evolutionary mechanisms that we don’t need to close our eyes.”

Uhuh … we know that there is not a single example that you can provide that shows an evolutionary algorithm resulting from only law and chance absent the foresight to tune initial conditions toward a target of form or function. Remember, as it pertains to life and evolution I am in no way an interventionist, I assume (although I and many non-ID scientists do not agree with) a darwinian type of evolution, and I believe that some type of abiogenesis must have happened in the past.

Please utilize this information as you read through my comments again. If you are unclear on what I mean about something please ask.

#119

The language of the bush, which I certainly couldn’t read, because I don’t understand what a bent blade of grass (a symbol) may represent (the direction my quarry is taking) is because I don’t KNOW THE LANGUAGE. But the language has symbols (bent grass, footprints, etc…) and rules (those things mean different things in context) else information would not be communicated.

But that language is not created by a mind. It is created by the unconscious movements of an animal. So if language includes that sense of language – language does not require a mind after all.

CJYman at 129,

Mustala:
“If known evolutionary mechanisms are not taken into account, CSI is not relevant to biology and hence cannot disprove modern evolutionary theory.”

Where in my comments have I ever attempted to disprove modern evolutionary theory? Every one of my comments here assume it as a given.

The point of CSI is to demonstrate that a particular construct could not exist without intelligent intervention. Proving that CSI exists and that it unequivocally indicates intelligent intervention would overturn much if not all of modern evolutionary theory.

If you don’t think that CSI would do so, what is your view on it?

CJYman at 130,

Mustela:
“We know enough about evolutionary mechanisms that we don’t need to close our eyes.”

Uhuh … we know that there is not a single example that you can provide that shows an evolutionary algorithm resulting from only law and chance absent the foresight to tune initial conditions toward a target of form or function.

I don’t understand this statement. One interpretation I can come up with is that you seem to be assuming your conclusion, namely that evolutionary mechanisms are not natural processes. Another is that you are reasserting the “search for a search” claims, which ignore the fact that we are dealing with only one “search space” (leaving aside for now whether or not that is a valid way of modeling reality).

Evolution happens when you have imperfect replicators and limited resources. Those conditions will lead to differential reproductive success. The mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory do not contradict what we know about physics and chemistry. Unless you’re using “law and chance” in some idiosyncratic way, we’ve observed numerous examples of what you say we haven’t.

Remember, as it pertains to life and evolution I am in no way an interventionist, I assume (although I and many non-ID scientists do not agree with) a darwinian type of evolution, and I believe that some type of abiogenesis must have happened in the past.

I’m confused about your support for ID, then. What do you think happened?

Please utilize this information as you read through my comments again. If you are unclear on what I mean about something please ask.

I’m asking!

The “language” of the bush is not a language. If an blade of grass is bent by an animal, the bent blade of grass is a physical effect of the animal’s action.

If I write or say that an animal bent a blade of grass, that is language. There is no physical connection between my words and the bent blade of grass. There doesn’t even need to be an actual blade of grass, only the idea of one and that it might be bent. The words only represent that because I know they do.

The notion that unintelligent things formulate abstract languages to describe themselves or other things or write instructions, and then store them, communicate them, or carry them out is too preposterous to be taken seriously unless someone has some seriously impressive hard evidence.

Z @ 105

“Astrology. Divination.

Your local currency is of no value to us, so you may keep your million dollars. Or spend it on your poor brethren.”

Hee hee. Too bad, though. I said “coherent.” The prize hasn’t been awarded yet. Astrology and divination are about as rational as evolutionary theory. You’re right about a million US dollars though. Hardly worth anything these days and still headed south.

#134

The “language” of the bush is not a language. If an blade of grass is bent by an animal, the bent blade of grass is a physical effect of the animal’s action.

I guess that proves the importance of defining these things. tgpeeler thinks it is a language. You don’t.

Zachriel: People have often thought that chaotic patterns conveyed semantic information.

tgpeeler: And how would this happen? Could you give us an example of what this would look like? Who are these “people”? Do they live around here? I’d like to meet them. Good luck. If I had a million dollars to bet this would be the one I’d make. That you can’t demonstrate this in any coherent way, shape, or form.

Zachriel: Astrology.

tgpeeler: I said “coherent.”

And it’s clear from context you were questioning whether people believed such things, your use of the word “coherent” referring to the *demonstration* of the existence of people who hold such beliefs. In what should be unnecessary detail:

tgpeeler: And how would this happen?

People tend to perceive patterns even when presented with randomness.

tgpeeler: Could you give us an example of what this would look like?

Astrology.

tgpeeler: Who are these “people”?

People throughout the history of civilization.

tgpeeler: Do they live around here?

Your local newspaper probably publishes a horoscope.

tgpeeler: I’d like to meet them. Good luck.

And so on, clearly waving your hands about whether “People have often thought that chaotic patterns conveyed semantic information.” Clearly they have and do.

Mustela Nivalis

I am not really taking part in a blow by blow discussion.

I suggest that you note FSCI is easily measured in functional bits, the familiar form we see all around us: bits at work.

It is easy to show the number of bits of information capacity in the DNA chain, and to see that the 300 – 500 K minimum addresses a config space so vastly beyond the search capacity of the observed universe that origin of life is not a credible product of chance + necessity in whatever form of Darwin’s warm little pond you please.

Furthermore, the increments to get to main body plans easily go beyond the 1,000 bit threshold discussed above so these too are not credibly due to chance + necessity without intelligence.

Debates on how to address Dembski’s generic models of CSI to life forms then become moot. (But note that he Durston et al group have come up with some metrics that do relate to living forms, in FITS, based on the H-metric of average info per symbol applied to proteins etc.)

G’day

GEM of TKI

Mark Frank: I guess that proves the importance of defining these things. tgpeeler thinks it is a language. You don’t.

Tgpeeler claims that mind is entailed in the definition of information, a deduction. The usual ID argument is inductive, that of any sources of “information” we can discover, they are invariably due to mind. Therefore, the unexplained case is probably also due to mind. This argument is specious, of course, but it enough to note that StephenB and tgpeeler are using different definitions, so the existence of semantic confusion on this point is not due to “intellectual degeneration” or “pervasive insanity.”

MF:

You know full well the import of the use of symbols; as opposed to physical consequences of activities or events.

Rocks tumble down hillsides all the time. Such rocks do not credibly fall into patterns that read; Welcome to Wales, on the border of Wales. (Cf. here — again.)

In short, kindly stop indulging in (inevitably self-referentially incoherent) selective hyperskepticism; even as you use symbolic information systems to argue your case.

GEM of TKI

PS: There is an actual definition of information up-thread, which addresses the issues, by excerpting the Glossary. Predictably it was ignored by objectors.

CJYman: Of course it does, if you are attempting to get from no EA to an evolutionary algorithm.

Okay. We’ll reread the comment.

CJYman: … it is now hypothesized that chance will not produce evolutionary algorithms. If you disagree, then merely provide an example of {the origin of} an EA in which all conditions where produced absent any intelligent bias toward a target or the solution to a specific problem. IOW, random inputs controlled the variables of the laws and conditions, with no possibility of foresight to a goal of form or function being utilized.

As no one claims that the origin of natural evolutionary mechanisms are due to chance alone, I’m not sure your point. Evolutionary algorithms are abstract models. As such, they are *constructed* to simulate various abstractions of evolutionary processes. Natural replicators are posited to be the result of complex relationships between constituents.

Clive Hayden: This is your answer to how either AAAAAAAAAAAA or chaos produces semantic information? That some folks see information in something like astrology?

People ascribe meaning to all sorts of things. People often believe they won the lottery because they were picked by fate. Let’s reread my original statement.

Semantic information is very difficult to unambiguously quantify, except within very limited situations.

That’s because the quality and quantity of information being conveyed varies by observer and by what is being conveyed. Astrology makes empirical claims that have been shown to be unreliable.

Clive Hayden: Do you think these people valid?

If they believe they survived a catastrophe for a greater purpose, who are we to disagree? But suffice it to say that from a scientific vantage, their survival is just a statistic. If they say they can predict lottery numbers by studying the entrails of birds, I rather doubt it.

Clive Hayden: I mean, you would have to in order to support your position that semantic information can come about by a static or chaotic system.

Valid how? What does valid mean? Someone may pass a tree where they once picked apples with their father, long since dead, and that tree may evoke a reservoir of memories, regrets, love, aspirations. That meaning has validity to them. To most anyone else, it’s just an old tree.

tgpeeler:

And I notice that IrynaB, who reacted to my “insult” STILL hasn’t had the stones to do what I said they/she wouldn’t do in the first place!! TFF. Of course, the fact that she (?) would give an insult as a reason not to engage in a discussion of truth shows where her reasoning skills are. I call anyone who rejects reason an intellectual degenerate.

Your macho posturing doesn’t impress me. Does it ever work for you? In my experience it is mostly men with fragile egos who resort to it. It’s very unattractive.

I notice you still haven’t supplied a definition of information such that you can actually back up your claims. Please do so, and then let me ask you again:

(a) Why is information immaterial?

(b) Why was there no information before the emergence of life?

By the way, did you win your tennis match?

Zachriel:
People ascribe meaning to all sorts of things. People often believe they won the lottery because they were picked by fate.

We’re not discussing something hypothetical. Are you actually suggesting that there is no information in DNA, but we make it up? How do you think the components of cells are manufactured, and, by extension, the systems that make up living creatures? Frogs and birds are just lumps of clay, but we stare at them until we see animals?

Or are you ducking and weaving, bending over backwards to avoid addressing what every middle-school biology student knows, that DNA contains information encoded in a language?

Sometimes I think this is pointless. But for the moment, I’m curious to see how long this denial can go on. And it’s great for any onlookers to observe.

Why is information immaterial?

The lyrics to Hey JudeThe instructions for creating a specific proteinThe largest known prime numberHow to jump start a car

What are they made of?

ScottAndrews @ 147

Or are you ducking and weaving, bending over backwards to avoid addressing what every middle-school biology student knows, that DNA contains information encoded in a language?

Or are you and tgpeeler ducking and diving and bending over backwards to avoid committing to one definition of information?

You difficulty is understandable since there is an embarrassment of riches from which to choose. Perhaps you remember a post from William Dembski on October 9th in which he quoted a non-exhaustive list, compiled by Seth Lloyd, of over forty definitions or measures of information and complexity?

Which one of those is being discussed here?

The lyrics to Hey JudeThe instructions for creating a specific proteinThe largest known prime numberHow to jump start a car

What are they made of?

The lyrics are written down or on CD’s or on hard disks or in people’s brains or encoded in electromagnetic waves that are leaving the earth at the speed of light. If you destroy all copies of the lyrics and kill all the people with the lyrics in their memory and wipe out the radio waves, do the lyrics still exist? I don’t think so.

lyrna argues that information is the product of a mind:

The lyrics are written down or on CD’s or on hard disks or in people’s brains or encoded in electromagnetic waves that are leaving the earth at the speed of light. If you destroy all copies of the lyrics and kill all the people with the lyrics in their memory and wipe out the radio waves, do the lyrics still exist? I don’t think so.

No mind, then no writing them down.

No mind, then no CDs or hard disks.

No mind, then no broadcast waves.

No mind, then no lyrics to begin with.

ScottAndrews: Are you actually suggesting that there is no information in DNA, but we make it up?

The problem is that there are several definitions of information being used on this thread, so there is no way to answer that question unambiguously. However, there is certainly Shannon Information. And this information is copied and translated within cells.

ScottAndrews: Or are you ducking and weaving, bending over backwards to avoid addressing what every middle-school biology student knows, that DNA contains information encoded in a language?

One definition given above is that information is the representation in symbols. That’s fine. But that says nothing about the telic origin of what is being represented by those symbols. We can write down the content of DNA, or we can write down the pattern of a leaky faucet. They are both information.

Clive Hayden: The question was how does static or chaotic systems create semantic information?

Meanings are *ascribed* to patterns. That’s why I suggested (#64) the term “semantic information” for how you were using the unqualified term “information”—to avoid confusion with other such uses.

Semantic information is difficult to rigorously define, much less measure, and is often subjective.

Z @ 107

“If we jot down the pattern that planets trace across the sky, we call that information. That’s fine. The same with the patterns in DNA or anything else. That only tells us the source of our tittles. It does nothing to help us determine whether the patterns the planets trace are the result of a mind or just due to contingent circumstance.”

You completely miss the point. You ASSUME life in the first place before the “pattern of planets” or anything else can determine information. You are assuming what we are trying to explain. Let’s put it this way. If there was no life of any kind in a universe, would information exist in that universe? The answer is no. If all you have is matter in motion and physics you have no information. If you have no one to generate or to understand that information then you have no information. If you have no language that the originator can use to encode information and that the receiver can use to decode then you have no information. Does this help?

Let me put it this way. In any model of communication of information, you at least have a sender, a channel, and a receiver. If you don’t have those things you don’t have the communication of information. What I am talking about is the sender, or originator, part of this model. The discussion is about what is required to create information in the FIRST place. The naturalist/materialist says that physics plus eons of time is sufficient to do that. The “logic” goes like this. All that exists is natural/material. The laws of physics govern the behavior of all material entities (sub-atomic particles in energy fields). Life exists. Therefore, physics must have done it. This is flawed because the basic premise is false. The material world is NOT all that exists. The very fact that we speak of information being encoded into a physical substrate proves that. Otherwise we are encoding material into material. The information in these posts is encoded in the letters we type but it is not THE LETTERS we type. Until people grasp that fundamental point this is pretty pointless. If you insist that physical laws can generate information then just give me an example. Construct some simple algorithm based on the analog world of general relativity or the digital world of quantum physics that will create a meaningful paragraph or even a sentence. Then when you can’t do that, because you can’t do that without using some sort of symbol set and having rules about using those symbols, and physics has nothing to say about either of those things, then you may reflect on the fact that the “simplest” forms of life are more complex and information rich than anything mankind has ever built and wonder how that came to be merely through the operation of physical laws on matter and energy. Oh, and you may also want to consider where the physical laws originated and how is it that they are so finely tuned so that the chemistry and biology can work so that we can have this or any other conversation in the first place.

tgpeeler: You ASSUME life in the first place before the “pattern of planets” or anything else can determine information. You are assuming what we are trying to explain.

I’m not trying to explain anything. I’m trying to get you to state a clear definition of how you are using the term “information.”

tgpeeler: If there was no life of any kind in a universe, would information exist in that universe? The answer is no… If you have no one to generate or to understand that information then you have no information.

Of course, the problem is that you have pushed the definition back to the concept of “understanding.” At the least, this means an observer.

tgpeeler: The discussion is about what is required to create information in the FIRST place.

The rest of your argument is circular. You *define* information as the relationship between an observer and patterns in the universe. The patterns found in primordial life may be comprised of carbon chemistry, replication, trees falling in the wood, but they don’t meet the definition of Tgpeeler Information.

So? The origin of information occurs whenever you allow it in your definition. Indeed, primordial life has no Tgpeeler Information. There is no scientific mystery about meeting an arbitrary definition.

Mustela @ 120

I refer you to post # 72. Reading on from there, I see you think I left something out, about information being measurable. I replied that it’s not about being measurable it’s about what is required to create it (post #72) in the first place. There are many ways to measure information, see Shannon. But that’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is the origination of information. I’ve made it abundantly clear what is required to generate information and neither the laws of physics nor any emergent properties that may arise from physical laws (hydrogen and oxygen are both gases but in combination they are liquid – the “wetness” being an emergent property) can do that. What is necessary, conceptually, to create information is a language and a language, at it’s most basic, is a system of symbols and rules. All information needs a language to be encoded else it can’t be encoded. And the receiver needs to understand that language else it can’t be decoded. This doesn’t really seem all that difficult, actually.

Clearly, biological information exists. If it does not, then modern biology is hopelessly lost even more so than I think it is. If biological information exists then there must be a biological language. And indeed there is. Or are, actually. There are at least two sets of codes (see Crick) and truth be told, I suspect that there is so much more going on that no one has figured out yet but at any rate, we have a genetic language. It’s not a metaphor, it’s a real language. And such, by definition, by the law of identity, since that what a language IS, it has symbols and rules.

But if that doesn’t do it for you, you tell me what information is and where it comes from and we’ll go from there. I’ll be seriously impressed if you can do that without resorting to symbols and rules that I understand.

tgpeeler: If biological information exists then there must be a biological language.

Tgpeeler information exists in biology, just like it exists in planetary orbits or in the number of grains of sand on the beach—because there are patterns that observers can perceive. Tgpeeler Information of biology existed before the discovery of DNA, even before the discovery of evolution and common descent.

OT-

New peer-reviewed ID friendly paper from (non-ID) origins theorist, David Abel.

The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2009, 6:27 doi:10.1186/1742-4682-6-27

The paper attempts to establish a metric at which Life Origins just-so-stories can be commited to the dustbin where they belong.

Wow, a scientist applying discipline to imagination. How refreshing.

Exerpt from new Abel paper:

“Our skepticism about defining a precise, objective Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) stems from a healthy realization of our finiteness [1], subjectivity [2], presuppositional biases [3, 4], and epistemological problem [5]. We are rightly wary of absolutism. The very nature of probability theory emphasizes gray-scales more than the black and white extremes of p = 0 or 1.0. Our problem is that extremely low probabilities can only asymptotically approach impossibility. An extremely unlikely event’s probability always remains at least slightly > 0. No matter how many orders of magnitude is the negative exponent of an event’s probability, that event or scenario technically cannot be considered impossible. Not even a Universal Probability Bound [6-8] seems to establish absolute theoretical impossibility. The fanatical pursuit of absoluteness by finite subjective knowers is considered counterproductive in post modern science. Openmindedness to all possibilities is encouraged [9].

But at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science [10]. Falsification is critical to narrowing down the list of serious possibilities [11]. Almost all hypotheses are possible. Few of them wind up being helpful and scientifically productive. Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability.”

- – - – - –

And what are the sources of citations 6-8 given above??

Dembski- No Free Lunch

Dembski – Design Inference

Meyer- Signature in the Cell

David Abel must be a brave man. Just making such citations could be the end of his publishing career.

- – - – - -

Apparently sensing the danger to come from the materialist priesthood, Dr Abel adds a disclaimer to try and save himself from being tarred and feathered:

“Citing a few mathematical technical contributions found in prior peer-reviewed literature does not constitute an endorsement of the cited authors’ personal metaphysical belief systems. Philosophic and especially religious perspectives have no place in scientific literature, and are irrelevant to the technical UPM calculation and UPP presented in this paper.”

tgpeeler @ 155

Clearly, biological information exists. If it does not, then modern biology is hopelessly lost even more so than I think it is.

Biology got along very well before information theory came along and no, it is not at all clear that biological information exists.

Calling everything information is massive projection, or even anthropomorphism. It takes something that exists as a semantic or cognitive property and projects it out to all that exists. It makes observers the sole reality. In biology, the concept of information has been abused in just this way, but it’s a peculiarly twentieth century phenomenon. And that’s not coincidental – in 1948, Shannon and Weiner both presented radical and influential conceptions of information – one based on communication [1], and the other on control [2]. Previously, in the 1930s, Alan Turing had developed the notion of a computer, and in 1950 [3] he started the ongoing interest in computation as a form of cognition. So, three senses of “information” got conflated in popular (and technical) imagination, and shortly afterwards, the term was applied to genes, but (and this is often forgotten) just in terms of causal specificity – genes “coded for” proteins by a physical process of templating.

But people have gotten all enthusiastic for “information” (bearing in mind the etymology of enthusiast as “in-godded one”), and as a result lots of rather silly claims has been made – not all by physicists by any means – about information in biology.

It is even less clear what you mean by “biological information” since you have consistently avoided giving us the definition you are using. Is it Shannon’s, Kolmogorov complexity or one of the forty-odd other meanings listed by Seth Lloyd?

First let’s point out that what is information depends very much on the model of information that you employ – Shannon, Weiner or Turing. That is, do we mean communication (in bits) or control, or computation? Each of these has a useful sense in which we can talk about genes. We can say genes are transmitted (with error rates, or mutations) because we can apply the Shannon model with some degree of fit. We can say that genes are cybernetic (the sense in which “evolutionary gene” was proposed by George Williams in 1966 [4]) because to some extent they control phenotypes in a feedforward way. We can say the genes are “computers” in… well in what way at all? Turing showed, for example, that with a gradient of diffusion you could explain patterns in development, but the fact that he did this on a computer (if he did – he might just have done it by hand, the smart bugger) doesn’t mean the embryo computes. The embryo just does what its genes, environment and epigenetic properties “tells” it to, that is to say, causes.

But merely because we can employ a model or a formalisation doesn’t mean that the system we are modeling or formalising is a formal system itself. Consider game theory – nobody thinks that genes rationally assess their interests and then make choices in interactions with other genes. It just happens that the math is useful to model the evolution of fitnesses irrespective of the cognitive abilities of genes and organisms. So we had better set up some close and clear criteria before we start projecting to ensure we do it legitimately.

As for this:

If biological information exists then there must be a biological language. And indeed there is.

Is there?

What most non-specialist people think of as information is the semantic information we are exchanging on this blog. That involves intelligent agents who send and receive information about subjective mental concepts and constructs via a shared language of symbols.

Whatever is in the genome is not like this. There are no intelligent agents talking back and forth in GATCs and those biological molecules are not symbols for anything, they are functional.

Nor is there any need for a language to convey or acquire information. Since the blogs are full of Climategate, think of tree-rings. I can look at the rings on the cross-section of a tree-trunk and see – tree-rings. A dendrochronologist can look at those same rings and learn a great deal from them. Is the information in the tree-rings themselves or in the change of mental states produced by them in the mind of the observer?

If anything, information theory is useful as an analogy or model for some of what happens in the genome but to argue that information is an intrinsic property of genes is arguably a map/territory conflation.

If you want another analogy think of keys on a keyring. In old heist movies, the bad guys would sometimes need to copy a key to get into some building or a safe. One of them would manage to take an impression of the original key in clay and a copy would be made from the impression. That’s what happens to our genes. An RNA “impression” of the DNA original is used to make copies.

So, do we get rid of the “watchmaker” analogy and think of the designer as a master locksmith?

Or are the watchmaker, locksmith and information models just that: useful analogies in their way but not the same as what is actually happening at the genetic level which is functionally distinct and unique to itself?

I got overwhelmed by all the different definitions or features of information floating around I wrote a small piece trying to pull them altogether.

Maybe that will help.

Clive Hayden: When we talk about information in the DNA …

Until we agree as to what the term “information” means, it doesn’t advance the discussion to constantly refer back to it.

Clive Hayden: the hypothesis of chemical static reactions …

I have no idea what that means.

Clive Hayden: So how do you explain the code in DNA?

There is currently no comletely satisfactory scientific answer to that question.

Clive Hayden: If you say that there is actually no code, …

Substituting another word with multiple meanings doesn’t resolve the confusion.

What we have is a *correspondence* between codons and amino acids. There are a number plausible theories as to how this correspondence evolved, but because the evidence is tenuous and shrouded in the distant past, there is as yet no definitive answer. However, stereochemical affinities for some codon assignments is supported.

So how do you explain the code in DNA?

Experimental evidence tells us that the “code in DNA” is a reflection of the affinity of particular RNA sequences for their corresponding amino acids.

In other words, Meyer is wrong when he asserts that there is no possible, let alone experimentally-supported, “naturalistic” explanation for the genetic code.

Bravo to Seversky @ 160! The question is not whether physical system X contains information. Rather, the question is whether it’s useful to model X in terms of information. Such models can provide insight in some cases, but may be misleading in others.

To John Wilkins’ comments cited by Seversky, I add Peter Godfrey-Smith:

We think that the reification of “the informational gene” is problematic; it is a mistake to suppose that there is both a physical entity — a string of bases — and an informational entity, a message. It is true that for evolutionary (and many other) purposes genes are often best thought of in terms of their base sequence (the sequence of C, A, T and G), not in terms of their full set of material properties. This way of thinking is essentially a piece of abstraction (Griesemer 2005). We rightly ignore some properties of DNA and focus on others. But it is a mistake of reification to treat this abstraction as an extra entity, with mysterious relations to the physical domain.

Godfrey-Smith surveys the issues surrounding informational modeling of biology here, showing, if nothing else, that subject is fraught with semantic and logical pitfalls.

Mark Frank:

“So if you want to define information as something requiring language then information requires a mind. But that simply moves the question to “is DNA a language”
”

Mark do written messages require language?

Vivid

#166

Do written messages require a language?

No. For example, they might comprise a series of improvised drawings.

So what?

#167

From Webster defining language

“2)a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings”

How would your example not fall under this defintion?

Vivid

Mark,

I read your paper. I think you are completely mistaken.

All the information we have of our cosmos is the product of perception.

If you look at a common source for the definition of information, you are likely to find the post-modern description that “information” is the state of a thing of interest. This description is completely misleading and demonstrably false. In an apparent attempt to capture the essence of what information is, this description completely removes it instead.

Information is NOT “the state of something of interest.” If information is the state of something of interest, then it must be materially contained within that something. Yet, there is no information in an atom of carbon. There is the structure of its nucleus, the orbits, and the various subatomic particles – but there is no information. I looked on the periodic table; information is not listed.

It is an unnecessary reduction to say that information is the state of something of interest. The state of something is simply the existence or reality of that thing. It is incorrect to suggest that existence and information are the same; x is not y. Existence could be one thing and information could be another. One is dependant on the other, but they are not the same.

So, if information is not the state of something of interest, then (in a bold return to former logic) information is instead about the state of something of interest. It does not exist materially within the thing of interest, but does quite obviously exist.

This leads to the origin of information.

If information does not exist materially within in the atoms of the universe, then it must come to exist by some another means. And if information is then understood to be about something of interest, then it seems beyond debate that it comes into being as the product of perception. The only reason we are informed about the atomic structure of a carbon atom (or anything else) is because we first perceived it, and then we used our ability to reason in order to test those perceptions for their dependability.

So, I think it is completely reasonable and defensible to say that information is the product of perception. However, I think that the very act of perception brings its own realities into the picture, and that the definition of information is incomplete without addressing those issues.

Every bit of the information we have of our material universe was first perceived and then converted to symbols. This premise follows somewhat obvious reasoning. If I observe something in the material universe, say a raincloud, and I then remember it even a moment later, it should become quite obvious that there are a couple of things that have taken place. I have a sensory organ that perceived the raincloud. That sensory organ then transmitted to my brain a signal to be recorded within my memory. That signal was sent and recorded by some manner of symbolic means (because it certainly wasn’t stored in my brain in the form of a water-laden gaseous cloud). This simple observation, given in whatever specific vernacular one chooses to use, is self-evident.

This is how living organisms perceive the material world around them. This is how information about the reality of the universe is created – whether that means a human discovering the geological layers of mountains, or an earthworm finding its way off the edge of a concrete sidewalk.

Information is created when it is perceived and transformed to symbols. Living agents are the only thing to have this capacity.

So the premises are these:

a) information is not a material constituent in the matter of the cosmos

b) information comes into existence only through perception

c) perception occurs by means of symbols

e) universal experience indicates that perception and symbols are associated with only a single phenomena, a living agent

Listen to all these “poof there it is” arguments. Unaccepted definitions notwithstanding, an information “code” is the only reasonable explanation for the entity that translates the DNA’s four character sequences into the twenty character language of proteins.

Upright Biped:

Information is created when it is perceived and transformed to symbols. Living agents are the only thing to have this capacity.

So we finally have an answer to the question whether a falling tree makes noise when there is nobody around to hear it.

Speaking of trees. Plants also perceive information and transform to symbols. Do plants have minds? According to some religions they do, but I disagree with them there.

One more question: if all life on earth is wiped out tomorrow at noon, does the Hubble space telescope suddenly stop storing information about its observations?

Just trying to use reductio ad adsurbum to show how strange your ideas are to me.

StephenB:

Unaccepted definitions notwithstanding, an information “code” is the only reasonable explanation for the entity that translates the DNA’s four character sequences into the twenty character language of proteins.

It’s not an explanation, it’s a description.

lyrna,

“So we finally have an answer to the question whether a falling tree makes noise when there is nobody around to hear it.

If we know that a falling tree makes noise, it would be because we have perceived experience of it.

Plants also perceive information and transform to symbols. Do plants have minds? According to some religions they do, but I disagree with them there.

The common denominator is the one I addressed. They are all agents.

One more question: if all life on earth is wiped out tomorrow at noon, does the Hubble space telescope suddenly stop storing information about its observations?

Hubble is a product of the information man recorded and used to build it. It would have never come into being if man had not perceived and recorded informat5ion of the cosmos, and used that information to manipulate matter into a telescope in orbit.

Just trying to use reductio ad adsurbum to show how strange your ideas are to me.

No, I believe you are not using reducio ad adsubum, but are reduced to it.

I take my clue from the fact you did not address any of my argument in a forthright manner.

Your first comment was a joke about a joke (about trees). Your second comment was strawman. Your third comment was the by-product of uncritical thinking.

And your final comment was an excuse.

—-Iryna: “It’s not an explanation, it’s a description.”

No, it’s an explanation. The description resides in the word, “translate,” not in the word “code.” An information “code” is the only reasonable explanation for the entity that translates the DNA’s four character sequences into the twenty character language of proteins, and that transformation is real. Darwinists have no answer for this phenomenon so they fuss all day long over definitions of the word, “information.” That way they can evade the issue by pretending that information doesn’t exist at all. It’s either an information code or “poof.” Darwinists prefer the latter explanation.

Upright BiPed, is it really that hard to spell my Christian name correctly? It’s Iryna.

I am taking exception to your claims:

a) information is not a material constituent in the matter of the cosmos

b) information comes into existence only through perception

c) perception occurs by means of symbols

e) universal experience indicates that perception and symbols are associated with only a single phenomena, a living agent

What happened to d) by the way?

My biggest problem is with your a). As far as I know, all information is material. Where is this non-material information you speak of?

b) This seems like a bizarre claim. When exactly does information start to exist in the perception process?

c) Perception only occurs by means of symbols? What does that even mean? What’s your definition of symbols?

e) Tautology. Experience is defined as a property of living agents, so no surprise there.

You know, I have the feeling that you are entirely unexperienced in the quantitative aspects of science. Otherwise you wouldn’t come up with such naive ideas about information.

StephenB:

No, it’s an explanation. The description resides in the word, “translate,” not in the word “code.” An information “code” is the only reasonable explanation for the entity that translates the DNA’s four character sequences into the twenty character language of proteins, and that transformation is real.

No, it’s not an explanation.It’s just a description of how sequences of nucleotide triplets are converted into sequences of amino acids.

Darwinists have no answer for this phenomenon so they fuss all day long over definitions of the word, “information.” That way they can evade the issue by pretending that information doesn’t exist at all. It’s either an information code or “poof.” Darwinists prefer the latter explanation.

I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but to claim that Darwinists deny the existence of information is a ridiculous lie. Shame on you.

lryna,

My biggest problem is with your a). As far as I know, all information is material. Where is this non-material information you speak of?

We know that an atom of carbon has a certain number of sub-atomic particles in a certain structure. We have this information because we perceived it, and then tested those perceptions to be a dependable reflection of the realities of carbon. This is the information that informs us as to the nature of a carbon atom. If information is a material constituent part of the carbon atom, then where is it? If the information is not a material constituent part of the carbon atom, then information must be about the carbon atom instead.

As I said, to equate existence with information is an incorrect reduction. If we hadn’t tested our perception of a carbon atom, and instead had it all wrong, we would then be pressed to say that the “information was wrong”. But if information is a material part of the existence of the atom in reality, then how could the information be wrong? It couldn’t be. Instead, it would be our perception which was wrong. If that is the case, then is the source of information come from the reality of the atom, or from our perception?

This seems like a bizarre claim. When exactly does information start to exist in the perception process?

I stated that information comes into existence only through perception. Perception is when. Is this then a “when within when” question?

If it is, then it’s probably a fair question. I do not personally know.

Perception only occurs by means of symbols? What does that even mean? What’s your definition of symbols?

Did you see the World Trade Center being attacked? Do you think you have a pair of big tall buildings in your head, or a symbolic representation of them imprinted in your memory? One represents the other; there is no way around it (even if we don’t fully understand how it works).

Tautology. Experience is defined as a property of living agents, so no surprise there.

My claim is that universal experience tells us that perception and symbols are associated only with single phenomena, a living agent. You may falsify that claim by presented evidence to the contrary.

—-IrynaB: “No, it’s not an explanation. It’s just a description of how sequences of nucleotide triplets are converted into sequences of amino acids.”

I know that you are used to accepting the fantasy that transformations like that just happen without a cause, but here is a clue–they don’t.

—”I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but to claim that Darwinists deny the existence of information is a ridiculous lie. Shame on you.

I thought it was obvious that I was using information in the context of an information code. The question, as characterized by Stephen Myers, is as follows: “How does the sequence of bases on the the DNA direct the construction of protein molecules. How do specific sequences in a four-character alphabet generate specific sequences in a twenty-character alphabet?” Francis Crick concluded that the cell is using some kind of code.

That is the point I have been making, and it couldn’t be simpler. Do you agree with it or not? If not, then please provide your own explanation.

#168 Vivid

From Webster defining language

How would your example not fall under this defintion?

I think of a language as a system of signs which is in common use by a group of people. My example was of one-off signs made up on the spot. If you wish to define “language” as any sign, symbol, gesture or mark which is used intentionally then I agree that written messages require a language.

Maybe you are going to argue that DNA is a language? As I tried to explain in my short document “language”, “sign” and “symbol” all share a common ambiguity in their meaning. They may or may not include unintentional communication. The key question is: is the proposed information medium intentional? A written message by a person is. DNA is not.

Mark

#179

Was it Yockey who stated that DNA and a written message is not an analogy but the two were matematically identical? Anyone know what I am referring to? That there is no difference between a written message and DNA?

BTW how do you know that the written message in DNA is not intentional?

Vivid

#180

Was it Yockey who stated that DNA and a written message is not an analogy but the two were matematically identical?

He may have said it. But was he right?

BTW how do you know that the written message in DNA is not intentional?

Because I don’t have to know anything about the intention of the creator of the message (if there is one) to understand the message. All I need to understand is how it correlates with amino acids, proteins etc. Contrast this with any piece of text which by itself tells us nothing – it might be part of a fictional story – we have to understand the context and why the author wrote the text.

“Because I don’t have to know anything about the intention of the creator of the message (if there is one) to understand the message.”

well said…

If I may:

Mark Frank:

Because I don’t have to know anything about the intention of the creator of the message (if there is one) to understand the message. All I need to understand is how it correlates with amino acids, proteins etc. Contrast this with any piece of text which by itself tells us nothing – it might be part of a fictional story – we have to understand the context and why the author wrote the text.

Mark is absolutely correct in underscoring this disanalogy between transcription of DNA into proteins and the operation of language. As described by Paul Grice, the discernment of speaker intent by the listener is a crucial component of human langauges and symbol systems. Searle succinctly captured Grice’s insight:

Grice saw correctly that when we communicate to people, we succeed in producing understanding in them by getting them to recognize our intention to produce that understanding. Communication is peculiar among human actions in that we succeed in producing an intended effect on the hearer by getting the hearer to recognize the intention to produce that very effect….I can, for example, tell them that it is raining just by getting them to recognize my intention to tell them that it is raining. (Searle, “Mind, Language and Society” pp. 144-145)

This passage underscores the intimate relationship between human communication and human theory of mind. Nothing in the operation of DNA is analogous to this dimension of human communication, and for that reason (among many others) the analogy is inappropriate and misleading.

Vivid is right @180, and, as an added point, Mark’s response @181 is not logical. Vivid asked Mark how he could know that the written message was not intentional. Mark responded by saying that he can understand the message without knowing the creator’s intent. So what? First, and most obvious, understanding the message does not rule out the apriori intent of the author. That was Vivid’s point. Second, if part of the author’s message was, “this is evidence of my handiwork,” then the reader can hardly understand the message without acknowledging the reality of the messenger, whose apriori intent was to be acknowledged as the messenger.

By the way, UD readers might be interested to know that the postmodernist movement, in conjunction with the Darwinists’ war on reason and tradition, holds that a reader can reject an author’s intent even in a piece of literature by “deconstructing” the text and injecting his own meaning and preferences into the author’s words. Does that sound familiar? It should. That is exactly what Darwinists do with the evidence for design—they deconstruct it. When reason’s first principles are abandoned, all hell breaks loose.

—-Voice Coil: “This passage ][from the atheist John Searle] underscores the intimate relationship between human communication and human theory of mind. Nothing in the operation of DNA is analogous to this dimension of human communication, and for that reason (among many others) the analogy is inappropriate and misleading.”

Quite the contrary. The operation of DNA say’s MORE than human communiction could ever say. There are at least two distinct messages: [A] To the reader of nature, the message says, “observe the evidence of my handiwork.” [B] To the organism, it says, “Here is what I want you to do, here is how I want you to do it, here is when I want you to do it, and here is how I want you to coordinate your activities with those of other elements, all of which have had their instructions communicated to them as well.

Re #181

In retrospect I realise my response was too hasty. I was using “intentional” in a slightly specialist sense and did not stop to think that there was no way Vivid could know that. I apologise.

Of course we cannot know for certain that any phenomenon including DNA is unintentional. It is always possible that an omnipotent force of unspecified motives made things that way for reasons of their own. I meant “intentional” in the sense that the meaning arises from the intention of the creator of the message. This is what Paul Grice famously wrote about and what Voicecoil rightly refers to in #183. It is the fundamental distinction between meaning that derives simply because of a correlation between message and subject matter (clouds mean rain) and meaning that derives from recognising the sender’s intentions. DNA has meaning in the first sense but not the second.

StephenB:

By the way, UD readers might be interested to know that the postmodernist movement…

This has no bearing upon Grice’s insight. Indeed, Grice characterized speaker and listener as engaged in a cooperative activity by means of which the speaker assists the listener in recovering speaker intent. That speaker intent may, at times, depart from the meanings of the actual words uttered, but be recoverable nonetheless. Grice offered the example of a philosophy professor sending a letter of recommendation on behalf of a student that says, merely, “The candidate is prompt and has excellent penmanship.” The recipient, who assumes that the writer is being cooperative and therefore intends to communicate something about the candidate’s abilities, begins a search for meaning and rightly concludes that the message conveys something other than the literal meaning of the words, namely that the candidate is bad at philosophy. The comprehension of ordinary utterances similarly assumes that speakers are being appropriately brief, perspicuous, relevant, and truthful, and utilizes those assumptions to recover meaning that is otherwise often underdetermined.

This has nothing to do with post-modern deconstructions of texts. And nothing remotely resembling this recovery of speaker intent is evident in the transcription of DNA into proteins. Hence the analogy to human language and human communication is inappropriate.

To the organism, it says, “Here is what I want you to do, here is how I want you to do it, here is when I want you to do it, and here is how I want you to coordinate your activities with those of other elements, all of which have had their instructions communicated to them as well.

It would follow from this analogy with human language that defects in embryological development may arise because the organism has misconstrued the intentions that lie behind a sequence of information contained in the DNA. A rather bizarre anthropomorphization.

I did a google search and got this.

“There is an identity of structure between DNA
(and protein) and written linguistic messages.
Since we know by experience that intelligence
produces written messages, and no other cause is
known, the implication, according to the abductive
method, is that intelligent cause produced DNA and
protein.
The significance of this result lies in the security
of it, for it is much stronger than if the structures
were merely similar.
We are not dealing with anything like a superficial
resemblance between DNA and a written text.
We are not saying DNA is like a message. Rather, DNA
is a message. True design thus returns to biology.
(Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretic Biology)”

If the above was actually stated by Yockey ( I did get it from the internet) then DNA, like a written text, is a message. It is not analogous to a message it is a message. This brings me back to my question can a message be transmitted without language?

Mark in # 179

“If you wish to define “language” as any sign, symbol, gesture or mark which is used intentionally then I agree that written messages require a language.”

It is not necessarily my wish how to define language evidently it was Websters wish to define it in that way.

Mark in #181

“Because I don’t have to know anything about the intention of the creator of the message (if there is one) to understand the message”

Wow this is the ID position. I am sure further clarification will be forthcoming.

Voice in #183

“Mark is absolutely correct in underscoring this disanalogy between transcription of DNA into proteins and the operation of language As described by Paul Grice, the discernment of speaker intent by the listener is a crucial component of human langauges and symbol systems. Searle succinctly captured Grice’s insight:”

Two things. If Yockey is right DNA is no different than a written message and makes the point that it is not an analogy. As to “the discernment of speaker intent by the listener is a crucial component of human langauges and symbol systems.”

Is it not evident that if something is a written message there must be intent? And can we not discern the intent of the message produced by DNA? I mean the intent of the message is to direct the molecular machinery of the cell. Can there be any clearer intent?

Voice #183

“Nothing in the operation of DNA is analogous to this dimension of human communication, and for that reason (among many others) the analogy is inappropriate and misleading.”

According to Yockey the above is correct since we are not talking about analogies.

Vivid

#188

Yockey is wrong.

There is a useful study of the improbability of life arguments and their leading proponents
here.
It includes a discussion of Hubert Yockey’s claims which includes the following:

Of course, even Yockey’s other assumptions are questionable. He argues for a 4-bit code. Yet he himself admits that replicating proteins are known that function on a 3-bit code (p. 19), and he admits that, after all is said and done, a replicating protein chain as large as 100,000 amino-acids long could be hit upon in the known age and expanse of the universe, if we assume a 2-bit proto-gene (p. 22). [My emphasis]

vividbleau: I did a google search and got this.

We are not dealing with anything like a superficial resemblance between DNA and a written text. We are not saying DNA is like a message. Rather, DNA
is a message. True design thus returns to biology. (Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretic Biology)

That’s Charles Thaxton. He quote-mines and mangles Yockey’s intended meaning.

Yockey: It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.

Yockey is referring to Shannon Information.

Yockey has also said “Introducing a requirement for an Intelligent Designer is ad hoc and invalid.“

Yockey believes he has proven that “the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem.” He is right that any theory which depends on extreme improbabilities should be rejected. He is wrong that lack of clear intermediaries between chemistry and life means that a scientific solution is impossible.

—-Voice Call: “It would follow from this analogy with human language that defects in embryological development may arise because the organism has misconstrued the intentions that lie behind a sequence of information contained in the DNA. A rather bizarre anthropomorphization.”

This is just another version of the bad design = no design argument. It doesn’t work for a number of reasons. There is no reason to believe that the transformations involved reflect perfect communication or perfect design. Consult the FAQ.

—Voice Coil @187: ” This has no bearing upon Grice’s insight.”

Are you sure you are following this discussion. My response @184 had nothing to do with Grice, which can be found @185.

Zach #191

Thanks Zach. When I saw the part about the ID part that made me suspect because I knew Yockey is not an ID’st. I would not take Thaxton to task since I was the one that put the two together in order to not be quote mining LOL.

I take it that this part is Yockey correct?

“It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.”

Vivid

StephenB:

This is just another version of the bad design = no design argument.

Not so.

By “defects in embryological development” I mean in a single individual, such as non-genetic developmental misfires (cleft palate, spina bifida, etc.) I am not saying anything about the quality of the (imaginary) “design” of a species.

If you are going to analogize the transcription of DNA to human communication by means of language, then you must allow that some failures of transcription are analogous to human misunderstandings.

Ergo, in the instance of such developmental defects, to apply your analogy, DNA may “tell” the organism “Here is what I want you to do,” but the organism misconstrues the intentions of DNA in making particular that particular utterance.

Which is ridiculous – and illustrates a crucially important breakdown of the analogy between the transcription of DNA into proteins and human speakers communicating by means of language. There is nothing analogous to speaker intent, because there is no speaker, there is no speaker intent, and there is no listener who attempts to discern speaker intent in the process of transcribing DNA into developmental events.

#191

“Yockey is referring to Shannon Information.”

And this is a bad thing? Not accurate according to Shannon Information? Contradicted by Fisher Information?

Vivid

vividbleau: When I saw the part about the ID part that made me suspect because I knew Yockey is not an ID’st.

Yes, you did qualify your citation. The other quoted section is attributed correctly.

Hubert P. Yockey, Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981.

But just because Yockey expresses a view, doesn’t necessarily mean the conclusion should be accepted on its face, especially when it is contrary to most other researchers in the field. That “the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem,” is simply not a reasonable conclusion. Yockey’s proof depends on premises subject to empirical revision.

#198

FWIW my interest in Yockey on this thread has nothing to do with his position that the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem.

Thanks for your reply.

Vivid

Zachriel: Yockey is referring to Shannon Information.

vividbleau: And this is a bad thing?

Not at all. It can be a very useful model. It just means that the term “message” has a precise mathematical definition.

Thaxton’s abduction depends on equivocation of “message” when he says, “intelligence produces written messages, and no other cause is known.” Furthermore, he is rejecting the alternative explanation a priori, the very thing he is attempting to show. Finally, it is directly contrary to Yockey’s view—Yockey finds objections to the evolution of information in genomes to be without merit—so, Thaxton is clearly quote-mining.

In any case, Thaxton can abduct whatever he wants. But it still has to be verified by independent means. The hypothesis has to entail specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.

—Voice Coil: “By “defects in embryological development” I mean in a single individual, such as non-genetic developmental misfires (cleft palate, spina bifida, etc.) I am not saying anything about the quality of the (imaginary) “design” of a species.”

Again, that it is a bad-design = no design argument all dressed up as a bad communication = no communication argument.

—”If you are going to analogize the transcription of DNA to human communication by means of language, then you must allow that some failures of transcription are analogous to human misunderstandings.”

You seem to forget that humam communication is a derivative and less perfect type of communication than that passed on to nature from the creator. The former is completely dependent on the latter. Of course, you don’t agree that the latter is a fact, but we are discussing logical and likely possibilities, not agreed upon facts.

—-”Ergo, in the instance of such developmental defects, to apply your analogy, DNA may “tell” the organism “Here is what I want you to do,” but the organism misconstrues the intentions of DNA in making particular that particular utterance.”

Bad design = no design strikes again.

—-”There is nothing analogous to speaker intent, because there is no speaker, there is no speaker intent, and there is no listener who attempts to discern speaker intent in the process of transcribing DNA into developmental events.”

The discernment, so to speak, is built in. If it wasn’t, the instructions for building the proteins would not be followed. Besides, you are depending solely on Searles analogy which I don’t agree with. He [and Grice] have not covered all the different types of human communication, especially those that mimic the creator’s communication with nature. That is because, as atheists, they are looking for ways to dismiss the similarities.

Also, you have completely ignored the point about the creator wanting to reveal himself in his handiwork. That, too, is communciation.

Sorry, I mean John Searle.

—Voice Coil: “There is nothing analogous to speaker intent, because there is no speaker, there is no speaker intent, and there is no listener who attempts to discern speaker intent in the process of transcribing DNA into developmental events.

Information theory allows for but does not require that the information code should be conscious of the message that it sends to the organism or the fact that the creator designed it. That is why one can speak of information in terms of the message the creator sends to nature in the form of a code, or the message the code sends to the organism, or the message the creator sends to humans about the existence of the code.

“Because I don’t have to know anything about the intention of the creator of the message (if there is one) to understand the message”

Wow this is the ID position. I am sure further clarification will be forthcoming.

I thought the ID position was the you detect that something was designed without knowing anything about the creator of the object or the creator’s intentions.

“Message” in this context simply means carries information in the Shannon sense of being correlated with something else. It is trivial that you can know if A is correlated with B without knowing how A was created. For example, A might cause B.

StephenB:

Again, that it is a bad-design = no design argument all dressed up as a bad communication = no communication argument.

Not so. And not my intent.

I’ve applied your model (DNA “tells” the organism how to develop in a manner analogous to human communication, including the conveyance and discernment of speaker intent) to a particular case: non-genetic, developmental birth defects.

You say that the successful transcription of DNA into the developmental unfolding of an individual organism is analogous to human communication, complete with the conveyance of speaker intent.

It follows that DNA transcription may sometimes fail in a manner very much like the failure of human communication: misconstrual of speaker intent by the listener. Applied in the instance of non-developmental birth defects, it follows that developmental misfires (resulting in, say, a limb deficiency) may occur because the organism “misunderstood what the DNA meant” and therefore misconstrued DNA’s “speaker intent.”

Perhaps you have no difficulty imagining that embryos can “misconstrue” or “misunderstand” what their DNA “meant to say,” and therefore develop incorrectly.

I find that ridiculous, and that it underscores the inapplicability of your analogy between DNA transcription into developmental events and human communication.

The discernment, so to speak, is built in. If it wasn’t, the instructions for building the proteins would not be followed.

Unless the process is not, after all, analogous to human communication. Then “discernment of intent” and similar intentional states are not required.

you have completely ignored the point about the creator wanting to reveal himself in his handiwork.

That’s right.

Vis mine at 206:

“Applied in the instance of non-developmental birth defects” should read, “Applied in the instance of non-genetic, developmental birth defects.”

—Voice Coil: “Not so. And not my intent.”

I don’t doubt that it was not your intent, but it still qualifies as a bad design = no design argument.

—”It follows that DNA transcription may sometimes fail in a manner very much like the failure of human communication: misconstrual of speaker intent by the listener. Applied in the instance of non-developmental birth defects, it follows that developmental misfires (resulting in, say, a limb deficiency) may occur because the organism “misunderstood what the DNA meant” and therefore misconstrued DNA’s “speaker intent.”

It can also mean that the instructing element sent the wrong message, which can, among other things, be a function of bad design, corrupted design, or optimum design. Again, I ask you to consult the FAQ.

—-”I find that ridiculous, and that it underscores the inapplicability of your analogy between DNA transcription into developmental events and human communication.”

You find it ridiculous for three reasons: First, you do not yet recognize your bad design = no design argument in its present form. Second, you do not acknowledge that human communciation has both a functional component and a meaning-centered component. From a functional perspective, all that is required for human or non-human communication is a sender and a receiver. [Translation: Searle and Grice are wrong]. Third, perhaps for personal reasons that I will not speculate about, you will not acknowledge the likelihood that the designer’s apriori intent can play a role.

Wow. Disappear for a couple of days and look what happens.

Re vividbleau @ 180.

Here’s what Yockey said, on page 6 of “Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life” published in 2005. The one with the Blue and Green cover. (It’s an expensive book, but well worth it. Need I say again that Yocky is an ardent proponent of evolutionary theory and drew different conclusions from his data than I do.)

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”

So maybe all someone has to do to falsify my claim is show how Shannon information, since everyone seems ok with that definition, can be generated apart from a language of some kind, i.e. a set of symbols and rules.

More later.

tgpeeler at 209,

I pointed out to you in a previous discussion here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-340936

that Thomas Schneider ev shows how Shannon information can be generated from even very simple known evolutionary mechanisms.

Your “language of some kind” qualification is a red herring — Shannon information can be generated absent an intelligent agent.

Amazon Product Description:

Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life presents a timely introduction to the use of information theory and coding theory in molecular biology. The genetical information system, because it is linear and digital, resembles the algorithmic language of computers. George Gamow pointed out that the application of Shannon’s information theory breaks genetics and molecular biology out of the descriptive mode into the quantitative mode and Dr Yockey develops this theme, discussing how information theory and coding theory can be applied to molecular biology. He discusses how these tools for measuring the information in the sequences of the genome and the proteome are essential for our complete understanding of the nature and origin of life. The author writes for the computer competent reader who is interested in evolution and the origins of life.

StephenB:

I don’t doubt that it was not your intent, but it still qualifies as a bad design = no design argument.

I disagree, as my point is more subtle. I haven’t successfully conveyed it to you. I’m content to leave it there.

It can also mean that the instructing element sent the wrong message, which can, among other things, be a function of bad design, corrupted design, or optimum design.

I haven’t asserted that it follows from your analogy that ALL failures of expression of DNA reflect failure to discern something like “speaker intent,” and resulting misconstrual of that intent. Only that it follows from your misapplied analogy that some would: that it would be sensible to say that some non-genetic developmental errors (birth defects in humans) reflect a failure of the developing organism to correctly discern the “speaker intent” behind the information contained in DNA.

And that is ridiculous.

You find it ridiculous for three reasons: First, you do not yet recognize your bad design = no design argument in its present form.

Not so, as above.

Second, you do not acknowledge that human communication has both a functional component and a meaning-centered component.

Sure I do. I freely acknowledge the semantic and grammatical elements of human communication, as well as the functional/physical channels through which information is conveyed. But human communication also includes the elements that Grice identified, considerations that are at the forefront of current theorizing vis the topic (e.g. see Michael Tomasello’s recent work.) Indeed, conveying and discerning speaker intent is crucial because one must necessarily recognize the agency behind human acts of communication to fully grasp what is communicated. Agency and intentionality are absent from the transcription of information in DNA, and the discernment of agency plays no role in the transcription of that information into developmental events. Hence your analogy is inappropriate (and manifestly responsible for considerable confusion).

Third, perhaps for personal reasons that I will not speculate about, you will not acknowledge the likelihood that the designer’s apriori intent can play a role.

Thank you for refraining from speculation vis personal motivations.

—Voice Coil: “Only that it follows from your misapplied analogy that some would: that it would be sensible to say that some non-genetic developmental errors (birth defects in humans) reflect a failure of the developing organism to correctly discern the “speaker intent” behind the information contained in DNA.”

It does not follow that all organisms would be equally affected by a bad design, a corrupt design, or an optimum design. Indeed, a compromised or optimum design can effect different organisms in different ways and in greater or lesser degrees. Your example is but one of billions of examples of nature’s design, or nature’s code, or the “speaker’s instructions,” if you will, producing a less than perfect product. Sorry, but you are still using a bad design argument.

StephenB:

Your example is but one of billions of examples of nature’s design, or nature’s code, or the “speaker’s instructions,” if you will, producing a less than perfect product. Sorry, but you are still using a bad design argument.

Not so, because it does not follow from the conclusion that the transcription of DNA into proteins does not entail the conveyance and recovery of speaker intent that DNA transcription was not designed. A transcription mechanism that displays no intentionality at all in its operation (nor recovery of intended meanings) may nevertheless have been designed. Indeed, that may be an exquisitely functional and adaptive arrangement. Because the absence of intent and discernment of same (analogous to human communication) in the functioning DNA does not exclude design, it is not an instance of a “bad design argument.”

Further, I have not (and would not) argue that non-genetic developmental defects are inherently inconsistent with design; building organisms is complex, with many environmental and other contingent variables, and perhaps even the most optimal design is certain to misfire in some circumstances.

What I DO argue is that non-genetic developmental misfires, which are common, instead serve to underscore a nonsensical component of your analogy: that if the expression of DNA is like expression in human communication, then failures of that expression can be like human misunderstandings that result from misperceptions of speaker intent.

Which is ridiculous.

Mustela Nivalis @ 210

You pointed to Dr. Schneider’s computer simulation, which has no parallel to any biological scenario. And you think this is evidence for what exactly?

—-Voice Coil: “Not so, because it does not follow from the conclusion that the transcription of DNA into proteins does not entail the conveyance and recovery of speaker intent that DNA transcription was not designed.”

A code is a set of instructions. The cell uses a code such that the sequence of bases on the DNA directs the construction of protein molecules and the specific sequences in a four character alphabet generate specific sequences in a twenty character alphabet. Those instructions are communicated to the organism through a medium. The code has been designed to communicate instructions to the organism and the organism has been designed to follow those instructions. To that extent, it resembles human communication because humans can communicate assembly directions to other humans and communication is a good description of what is going on. The code is running a kind of factory and it is using a communication process to coordinate every aspect of it. The cell has an information processing system; processing information is another word for communication.

—-“Inasmuch as “speaker intent” A transcription mechanism that displays no intentionality at all in its operation (nor recovery of intended meanings) may nevertheless have been designed. Indeed, that may be an exquisitely functional and adaptive arrangement. Because the absence of intent and discernment of same (analogous to human communication) in the functioning DNA does not exclude design, it is not an instance of a “bad design argument.”

No one, except you has said anything about “intentionality,” which is an exclusively human [or superhuman] attribute. You are assuming that the analogy requires that all aspects of human communication are being applied to the code, which is obviously not the case. It is, indeed, ridiculous to attribute intentionality to a code or an organism. Since I have not done so, this may be a good time to abandon that misguided characterization. Apparently, Searle and Grice want to say that intentionality is an issue, but, as I have indicated, they are incorrect and insofar as you continue to impose their metaphor, so are you. The word strawman comes to mind. Again, communication allows for the possibility of intentionality, but it does not require it. If it did, you would have a point; as it is, you don’t.

—-“What I DO argue is that non-genetic developmental misfires, which are common, instead serve to underscore a nonsensical component of your analogy: that if the expression of DNA is like expression in human communication, then failures of that expression can be like human misunderstandings that result from misperceptions of speaker intent.”

That is because you continue to misread the analogy and liken the misfire to a misunderstanding or a misperception on the part of the organism. Organisms cannot misunderstand anything and codes cannot understand what they are communicating. What we have is a sender and a receiver—period. I am not discussing the problem of language at all since that is a problem all of its own.

—-“Which is ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is assuming that nature can direct its own operations while having no direction. That’s a pretty good summary of your position. Obviously, you cannot even begin to defend it, which explains why we spend all our time talking about my position.

StephenB:

You are assuming that the analogy requires that all aspects of human communication are being applied to the code.

My position is that human communication crucially reflects, and is distinguished by, the expression and recovery of speaker intent, over and above sentence encoding and decoding. I originally argued, “The discernment of speaker intent by the listener is a crucial component of human langauges and symbol systems…nothing in the operation of DNA is analogous to this dimension of human communication, and for that reason (among many others) the analogy is inappropriate and misleading.”

Speaker intent is, obviously, an instance of intentionality (in Brentano’s sense), and the correct discernment of of speaker intent requires an understanding of others’ intentional states, or a theory of mind. Regardless of the extent to which the expression of DNA may be otherwise analogous to sentence encoding and decoding, the absence of this crucial element renders the analogy between DNA and human communication (both by means of language and gesture) a failure, and a misleading one at that.

You said in response to the quoted portion of the above paragraph,

Quite the contrary.

And therefore appeared to dispute my assertion. But now you state:

It is, indeed, ridiculous to attribute intentionality to a code or an organism.

And absent intentionality, the analogy of DNA and human communication fails, as the expression and recovery of speaker intent (an intentional state) is absolutely central to human language expression (and no less to the use and comprehension of human gestures). Which is what I have been saying all along.

BTW, Vivid disagrees with you. In 188 we have:

If Yockey is right DNA is no different than a written message and makes the point that it is not an analogy. As to “the discernment of speaker intent by the listener is a crucial component of human langauges and symbol systems”…Is it not evident that if something is a written message there must be intent? And can we not discern the intent of the message produced by DNA? I mean the intent of the message is to direct the molecular machinery of the cell. Can there be any clearer intent?

So for Vivid the information in DNA is “no different than a written message,” and reflects an “intent” (an intentional state of the sender) he would like to recover.

That is the sort of assertion I and disputing.

—-Voice Coil: “My position is that human communication crucially reflects, and is distinguished by, the expression and recovery of speaker intent, over and above sentence encoding and decoding. I originally argued, “The discernment of speaker intent by the listener is a crucial component of human langauges and symbol systems…nothing in the operation of DNA is analogous to this dimension of human communication, and for that reason (among many others) the analogy is inappropriate and misleading.”

I would like to start winding this down. It’s all a matter of definitions. I define communication, including human communication, in terms of a sender—medium—receiver model. You define it in terms of conscious apriori intent. Since organisms do not have consciousness, they cannot fit what I perceive to be your rigid definition of senders or receivers of communicated information. My definition allows for apriori intent, while yours insists on it. In the same sense, your apparent perception about how information codes work, about which you have been silent, seems to defy not only any notion of design but of causality as well. I defined “information” much earlier in this thread. I would like for you to provide your definition of “information.” That would help.

—-Voice Coil: “So for Vivid the information in DNA is “no different than a written message,” and reflects an “intent” (an intentional state of the sender) he would like to recover.”

Insofar as Vivid seems to be describing a phenomenon in which the “message” reflects a plan and an end in mind, I would agree with him. The intentional state being a metaphor not for human consciousness but rather a description of a directive process informed by the end which it seeks. You agree that the code does “direct,” don’t you? Do you not also agree that it can’t direct without some faculty, call it whatever you will, that has an end in mind. That is very close to what we humans refer to as “intent.” Surely, you do not hold that the process requires no direction.

StephenB:

My definition allows for apriori intent, while yours insists on it.

I am simply saying that human communication, and particularly human language, is uniquely characterized by the features I describe above (no need to repeat), in addition to more general features of communication we may identify. Those unique features of human language and communication are absent from the expression and utilization of information contained within DNA. Therefore it is misleading to liken DNA to a “language” and its expression to “a written message” reflecting “intent” if by that you mean a something analogous to human communication that utilizes these uniquely human features (as others clearly DO intend, above.)

It’s not that complicated.

On the previous entry, rather than use the term, “end in mind,” which is a little clumsy, we can simply characterize the process as one which directs toward a specific objective. That would be analogous to human intent, though not synonymous with it.

BTW, Vivid disagrees with you. In 188 we have:

You gotta love it !!!

Ahhh no…. Voice I do not disagree with Stephen. The intent I am referring to is the intent of the code ( think blueprint. Does a blueprint have consciousness?

Vivid

The blueprint does not but blueprint originator certainly does. And that seems to be the guts of the issue. What IS that originator? A Mind? Or the laws of physics?

—-Voice Coil: “I am simply saying that human communication, and particularly human language, is uniquely characterized by the features I describe above (no need to repeat), in addition to more general features of communication we may identify. Those unique features of human language and communication are absent from the expression and utilization of information contained within DNA. Therefore it is misleading to liken DNA to a “language” and its expression to “a written message” reflecting “intent” if by that you mean a something analogous to human communication that utilizes these uniquely human features (as others clearly DO intend, above.)”

Yes, I understand your position in a general way, which is why I disagree with it. Yet when I probe it further by asking what I perceive to be clarifying and qualifying questions, you simply ignore them and reiterate what you said without addressing my points.

Clearly, the code resembles human communication insofar as we are talking about some kind of unconscious intent because we are talking about a process that strives for an end.

Again, it would help if you would explain whether or not you agree with me about the fact that the code acts as a “director” or an “instructor.” Do you agree with those characterizations? Do you agree that the code directs in the sense that it provides instructions? If you agree, you should be able to see the similarity between that and human communication. If you disagree, then please tell me what you think the code is doing.

—-tgpeeler: “The blueprint does not but blueprint originator certainly does. And that seems to be the guts of the issue. What IS that originator? A Mind? Or the laws of physics?”

Yes, that’s exactly right. I don’t want to pile on Voice Coil, but I have raised that very issue. He is not open to discussing it. It is not a matter of small import that the code’s designer consciously intended it to play the role that it plays.

Tgpeeler:

The blueprint does not but blueprint originator certainly does. And that seems to be the guts of the issue. What IS that originator? A Mind? Or the laws of physics?

StephenB:

Yes, that’s exactly right. I don’t want to pile on Voice Coil, but I have raised that very issue. He is not open to discussing it. It is not a matter of small import that the code’s designer consciously intended it to play the role that it plays.

You guys know I can hear you, right?

RE StephenB @ 225

Yes, the message of the language of life is, well, life, in all it’s intricate, amazing forms. Unfortunately, unlike you, I do want to pile on. I can’t help it. I spent too many years training to break stuff and kill people and I haven’t recovered my kinder and gentler nature. Sometimes the real me (I know, it’s ugly) comes out. I know it’s not the right thing to do but every now and then my BS meter gets pegged and I just can’t take the insanity any longer. In that spirit, the following is written.

Out of virtually an infinitely (I speak hyperbolically) large number of possible combinations, only a few express themselves as living things. And lo and behold, there seems to be a set of macromolecules, that when combined in certain combinations, according to certain rules, not defined by or addressed by the laws of physics, (although the laws of physics explains the fact that they do combine rather nicely) express themselves as living things that can reproduce, adapt to their environment, process energy, heal themselves, etc, etc, etc… And in the case of human beings, we are also self-aware, reasoning (sometimes), sensing, feeling (emotionally), choosing, moral agents.

There seem to be two great narratives in conflict here. The one is the Christian narrative which I will leave alone and the other (there are even more “others” that will also be left aside) is the naturalistic story of the universe and life.

It has been interesting to me that the vast majority of this “conversation” has been about the ID/Theist/Christian side and very little has been making the case for the opposing view. Indeed, on the few occasions I solicited “information” (I use the word with some trepidation as some people still claim not to know what it is or that a language is necessary to create it) about what the naturalist position is. i.e. it’s intellectual commitments. I have been met with a deafening silence with regard to that question. So in the spirit of understanding, I have decided to tell my own version of the naturalist story and see what happens. I think I know it, but maybe not. If not, I am open to being corrected. So here goes…

Once there was no universe (nature) and then there was. We can’t really account for that and for some reason we feel no compelling intellectual impulse to do so. We do know though, for an absolute fact, that God, whatever he might be or that might mean, did not do it. We call this naturalism, that all that exists is nature. And that all that exists can be explained by our best scientific, or physical, theories. There is nothing beyond nature. No God, no souls, nothing “spooky” that interferes in the natural order of things. Well, there is the minor problem of the laws of physics (and where in the hell did they come from?) and how is it that they are so finely tuned? (according to Roger Penrose in “The Emperor’s New Mind” to 1 in 10^10^123. That’s right, the EXPONENT is 10^123.) But anyway, just like the universe, they just ARE and so we need not inquire any further into why they are or even if there may be a rational explanation for why they are. Indeed we can dismiss all efforts to think about that problem thanks to the brilliant bit of philosophy expounded by Richard Dawkins. (… culminating in the vacuous existential question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”) Indeed, how vacuous could one be? To want to account for the very existence of the things we are trying to understand in the first place. hee hee. Those Christians are such fools. Anyway, so here we have this universe, the physical aspect of it, we know now, is governed by these very simple and elegant laws (that are somehow discernible and discoverable by us) and that are also “written” literally, in the language of mathematics. An amazing system of symbols and rules that somehow describes how the physical universe actually works!! How cool is that? Something that is completely abstract. Something that cannot be sensed in any way and yet we know about it AND IT EXPLAINS THINGS. Hmmm. Well, you say, how is it that mathematics exists? It’s just another brute fact about nature and needs no further explanation. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Vacuous.

The other thing that perhaps I should make crystal clear is that since physics explains the physical world we feel certain that must mean that all that exists is physical! See how easy this is?! First we declare that ALL that exists is nature. Then we observe that since God is “supernatural” that he MUST NOT exist. How simple is this?? Some people call this circular reasoning but what do they know?

So anyway, here we are with an expanding universe described by these physical laws, written in the language of mathematics, and now, all of a sudden, there is life. Wow. So how to account for that? Hmmm. It’s quite simple, actually. If you recall, we have decreed (a priori) that all that exists is nature and that all that exists can be explained by science. Therefore, science (physics) can explain everything. Plus, we have about 13.7 billion (with a B) years to work with so time plus physics MUST be the answer. It’s completely rational. If time and physics account for everything (and they do, we said so) then life, being part of everything, MUST be accounted for by time and physics.

So somehow this first life got started. We know it got started because we’re here, after all. How foolish to say that it always existed. If it always existed it would have to be God or something like that and we’ve decreed that God doesn’t exist so that’s that. Now, this first life MUST have been very simple. I mean, we know this because complex things just don’t sort of spontaneously assemble themselves (look around for god’s sake, can you imagine an airplane just appearing out of thin air?), but they MUST have, because, remember, here we are. So anyway, we start simple and then we have this beautiful mechanism called natural selection, one of the greatest intellectual achievements of mankind, or so Francis Crick says, and he should know, being that he figured out the structure of DNA, but that’s another story (the one where he and Watson stiffed the woman scientist – but who cares about that – survival of the fittest, you know), so now we have natural selection AND billions of years. Who needs more than that? So this “natural” rachet keeps improving our first simple life and over billions (with a B) years here we are. It’s really that simple. Oh, there are a few details to fill in. Biological information for one thing. Not the original stuff, of course, (remember there are some things we can just ignore.) but everything that comes after. So we have mutations (or birth defects, they are sometimes called) and genetic drift and hox genes and emergence and there you go, case closed. Easy as pie. And if you disagree with this you are stupid, wicked, or insane. Ah Richard, he’s such a kidder! What? He wasn’t kidding? Well, he’s right so whatever. And these pesky concepts like design, purpose, morality, agency, teleology, you know, everything that makes human beings, well, human beings, these things that APPEAR to be as real and as plain as the nose on your face, these things DON’T REALLY EXIST!!!! HA HA. NO REALLY, THEY DON’T. Any questions? No? Good. We’re done here.

But sir, if I may, could I just ask one or two questions? They’ll be short and simple.

First, if I could create a golf ball sized mass out of thin air wouldn’t you think that odd? I mean, what WOULD you call that? And let’s say that we look closer and it’s actually a little biosphere, with tiny little creatures, all running around, apparently aimlessly, yet the more we look, the more purposeful it seems. Oh, you’d need verification? Well how much more would you need to see? Would I need to do it again? I mean, I already did it once, after all. Oh, so you might call THAT a miracle. But you won’t call the creation of the entire universe a miracle? Oh that’s just declared to be out of the conversation. Well fine. But I have another question. What if I just animated some chemicals? You know, what if I had a nano-manufacturing facility and I could assemble these strings of genetic code, as many as I want. Oh wait, you say I also need a cell wall? And I need a membrane for the cell nucleus? And a cell nucleus too? And ribosomes, and golgi apparatuses, and mitochondria, and vacuoles, and lysosomes, and endoplasmic reticula (rough and smooth, by the way,) and motor proteins, and sodium and potassium and other pumps in the cell membrane so that energy can be taken in and used and the refuse discarded and something called the Krebs cycle and on and on and freaking on. And I have to do this all at the same time?? You mean cells will die instantly without the mitochondria? You mean that there has to be some PLAN to put all of this together?? Oh, I don’t need a plan, it just happens by accident? Jeez, I haven’t even started and this is looking a little more complex than I thought, but anyway, suppose I could do this? Poof. Alive. Reproducing. Adapting, the whole works. And all without any animating impulse or direction from me. What would you call this? I mean, doesn’t your own cell theory (it does, I looked) say that life only comes from life? (OK, it says that all cells come from pre-existing cells, same thing.) So how again did you get around that? Oh, I remember, you just declared it so and that was it.

OK. I see now how this works. I see that you insist that yours is the only intellectually responsible way to proceed and that your way cannot be questioned so there we have it.

Merry Christmas.

p.s. This is obviously painting with broad strokes. But, this is the story, no error.

tgpeeler @ 227

First, if I could create a golf ball sized mass out of thin air wouldn’t you think that odd? I mean, what WOULD you call that?

Pretty cool, actually

And let’s say that we look closer and it’s actually a little biosphere, with tiny little creatures, all running around, apparently aimlessly, yet the more we look, the more purposeful it seems.

You know, for some reason, that reminds me of a little scene from Men In Black. You remember the one. Where J opened a locker and inside was this little civilization which worshiped him every time he looked in.

Now suppose there were some proverbial Mad Scientist who did something like that. He creates a ball of clay and populates it with tiny creatures.

The thing is, he doesn’t do it to increase the sum of human knowledge or help conquer disease or anything noble like that. No, he does it so the little creatures can spend their short, pitiful lives bowing down and worshiping him because he can snuff them out of existence any time he chooses. That’s it. That’s the only reason the whole thing was created.

Now what kind of sad, narcissistic, petty little geek does that make him?

And how does it differ from the Christian concept of God?

Another question.

Many here find it inconceivable that something could come from nothing by any sort of natural process, yet they have no problem with their god doing exactly the same thing.

Why is that, I wonder?

Vis tgpeeler’s at 227:

Prompt, with excellent penmanship.

I see no one on this thread was willing to lay out their intellectual commitments except for Mr Peeler. And of course, Stephen has already done do many times.

Typical.

tgpeeler @ 227

Well, tg, as you can probably surmise, your description of the Darwinist fantasy is music to my ears. You have characterized a bizarre phenomenon accurately and summed it up quite eloquently in as few words as possible. I continue to be amazed at the multivaried strategies that our adversaries use to avoid reasoned dialogue. If you are a Darwinist, you must follow the following rules for survival:

Does design manifest in nature? Well, then, call it an illusion. Does the universe appear to have been caused? Well, then, away with the laws of causation. Does the discovery of information in a DNA molecule frustrate your inclinations to promote secularist materialism? Well, then, claim not to know what information means, or better still, keep clamoring for new explanations in a wide variety of contexts, and pretend to be baffled by the inevitable variety of answers.

More important, always stay on offense. Continue to ask ID to account for itself and keep saying that the explanations, however articulately expressed. are simply not adequate. Rehearse and recite the phrase, “I am not convinced”— “I am not convinced”—“I am not convinced.” It requires no intellectual exertion at all and it keeps the other guy off balance, causing him to abandon the best arguments and to start scrounging around for new and better ways to say something that has already been adequately expressed. On the other hand, never, and I mean never, provide a reasoned explanation for your own position. Whenever anyone asks you a follow up question, just ignore it. If that doesn’t work, continue to ignore it. If that doesn’t work, leave the thread and go back on offense in another venue. Rinse and repeat.

Most important of all, always ignore context. If someone writes five or six paragraphs, go out of your way to obsess over a qualifying word or phrase while avoiding the main theme. Rather than trying to grasp the big picture, always seek consolation on the periphery and try to redirect the discussion along those lines. That way, you create the illusion that you are responding to substance even though you have dismissed all the really important points. How sweet it is.

Seversky @ 228

You know, if I thought there was a chance in hell that you would actually consider what I had to say I’d tell you.

Merry Christmas

p.s. Let’s say that you, nah, I’ll make this personal. Let’s say that I was homeless, jobless, without education, means, family… I have nothing. I am sleeping on the street, freezing my a$$ off, eating scraps, barely eking out an existence. Then one day a fine gentleman comes along and offers me an ATM card that gives me access to an account that has more money in it than I can spend. So he gives me the card and gives me the pin, 1,2,3,4 so I can remember it, and says all you have to do, anytime you need food or clothing or shelter or transportation or whatever, all you have to do is put that card into any ATM in the city and you can get all the cash you want. Any time of day or night and there is no limit. Also, you can clean up and come to my home anytime and there will always be someone there to visit with you, to talk about things that are important to you.

I die broke, starving, freezing, homeless, and alone. Now who’s fault is that? Is it the Gentleman’s fault who gave me the solution? Or is it my fault because I rejected him because I didn’t want to use that particular pin. I didn’t think it was right that he made me use ATMs. I thought he should just give me cash or gold coins. I thought he was unfair and evil because he made me do it his way and I wanted to do it my way.

It has always amazed me that people blame all kinds of things on God as they are rejecting the idea of real good and evil (how DO you get that out of physics?) and God himself. How does that work again? When it suits me I say the world has evil in it. When it suits me I reject the concept of evil. And then I turn around and reject God because of this evil that (allegedly) exists that I (allegedly) reject (because I know GD good and well that there is evil in this world and that man is responsible for it) as a matter of principle (when I am angry at God because things aren’t going my way). I am amused at Dawkins’ insistence that absolute morality is devastatingly undermined by evolution yet somehow it is evil to teach children about God or Intelligent Design. Somehow it’s evil to even believe in God!!! Hmmm. Aah, there’s no shortage of hypocrisy in the human race. I’ll grant you that. I’ve got my fair share, that’s for sure. I imagine you do too.

Here’s a quote from Richard Dawkins in “River Out of Eden.”

“… Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

But he also says in “The God Delusion” (yes, I’ve actually read his books) that:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, fiicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Isn’t the hypocrisy plain for all to see? If there is no evil, just blind pitiless indifference then why should he get all exercised about the alleged shortcomings of Jahweh? I mean, if God doesn’t exist then what’s all the fuss about evil? Why get angry when things don’t work out like I want? If Dawkins is correct (he’s not even close) then be intellectually consistent and get over it. 6 million Jews in the oven? No problem. No such thing as evil. Slavery? No problem. No such thing as evil. It’s just blind physical forces and genetic replication, don’t you know?

I don’t get it. If there is no evil then there is no evil. But there is evil and we know there is evil because good exists and because we have an exquisitely honed ability to identify wrongs that have been done to us even as we have little idea of the wrong we do to others. Funny how that works out. For me, at least, probably not for anyone else. Maybe. So how to explain good. That seems to be the real problem. The problem of evil is simple. Human beings are relentlessly rebellious and hell-bent to do things their own way. The problem is, when we reap the whirlwind, rather than face up to the problem (our own thought patterns and behavior) and the consequences, we just blame a non-existent God. Yep. That sounds real reasonable to me. There’s some intellectual integrity for you. Not.

Dawkins: “The illusion of purpose is so powerful that biologists themselves use the assumption of good design as a working tool.”

Dawkins: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

These are from the same book, “River Out of Eden.”

How odd that a universe without a shred of “purpose” in it somehow manifests “purpose” to such an extent that “BIOLOGISTS THEMSELVES” assume that “purpose” exists. I mean, really. Please. How FFunny is that??? How does anyone take these people seriously? No, really. HOW?????

Oh hell, as long as I’m being mean to Dawkins, here’s another howler.

“Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. ”

So, read this carefully. Evolution is not in actual fact always gradual, but it HAS to be gradual, else it doesn’t explain anything!!! Are you sh, kidding me??? This is rubbish. It’s not always gradual but it has to be else we can’t explain anything so it is gradual. Even though it isn’t. hee hee. What a kidder. I could make a career out of this guy if I was a stand up comedian.

StephenB @ 231

AMEN. You nailed it.

Stephen #231

I sure my view of information upthread was probably an unnecesary distraction, but the incessant droning “what is information” just gets to be too much sometimes.

mea culpa

#233

“Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. ”

So, read this carefully. Evolution is not in actual fact always gradual, but it HAS to be gradual, else it doesn’t explain anything!!

Did the words “when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects” somehow drop out of your field of vision?

Perhaps it will help if I rephrase what Dawkins wrote as:

Evolution need only be gradual when it is explaining the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects.

“Evolution need only be gradual when it is explaining the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects.”

You means like in the Cambrian and before – where it very apparently wasn’t?

—-seversky: “Many here find it inconceivable that something could come from nothing by any sort of natural process, yet they have no problem with their god doing exactly the same thing.”

To say that God brought the universe into existence is not the same thing as saying that the universe came from nothing. God is not nothing.

Upright biped @231. I have never known your comments to be distracting or irrelevant. Quite the contrary. You shed more light than most.

#235

Upright Biped

A discussion of information seems very relevant as it is main plank of the case for ID.

This thread, via R0b’s comment at #165, has introduced me to Peter Godfrey-Smith’s articles. I should thank you for starting the discussion and R0b for supplying the links.

It is shame to conclude it by dismissing attempts to identify subtle differences in the meaning of the word and their implications as “incessant droning”.