RoR: Forum

No Hoyle, but a variant of plasma cosmology.

Post 81

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 9:11pm

The Grammarian,

You still haven't shed the slightest evidence of an intelligent being (other than a human) at work creating beings, DNA, RNA, or anything. You continue to attempt to point out unexplained portions of evolution. You set up straw men and knock them over.

You say: "There is no known possible cause for life as we know it, other than ID."

I say: "ID is a possible cause, but there is no reason to consider it as true. Evolution is a possible cause, there are reasons to consider it true, and there is no contrary evidence."

How reality works, it is also what I mean when I say the word �evolution�:
1. Atoms exist. Molecules exist. Molecules are made of combinations of atoms. There is a virtually unlimited number of combinations that the virtually infinite number of atoms can be arranged to form molecules.
2. Some molecules can copy themselves. One primitive form of copying is lengthening and breaking. There are other ways molecules are copied.
3. There are occurrences of practically random removal, addition, and switching parts of molecules with other atoms and molecules.
4. Each molecule will be copied or changed in different contexts. Some changes lead to molecules that are unable to copy (aka death). Averaging over time, a given molecule has a probability of being copied P(copy) and a probability of becoming uncopyable P(death) in a given context.
5. At each moment through time, there will be a set of molecules, and each unique molecule will have a frequency. By unique, I mean they have a different position, but the same atoms, atom locations, and bonds.
6. In a given context, different molecules will be copied/changed at different rates, which arises from their P(copy) and P(death). Molecules with a P(copy)/P(death)>1 will will increase in frequency, and molecules with a P(copy)/P(death)<1 will decrease in frequency. P(copy)/P(death) corresponds to an expected copy rate.
7. Given 1-6, new and unique molecules are made constantly, each of which will also have a unique expected copy rate in a given context.
9. At each moment through time, molecules of different expected copy rates will continuously change the molecule frequency distribution. Some molecules (and some changes) will flourish, some will survive, and some will not in a given amount of time.
10. Changes compound upon previous changes. Compounded changes are just like the changes in #3, except that they can result in a larger range of expected copy rates. 1-9 applies to compounded changes as well, most notably #6, so some compounded changes can result in very high molecule frequencies.

1-10 is how reality works. What of it can you deny? You can only deny that certain changes are unlikely in a given time frame. Then I say that there is a lot of time, so things that are unlikely in a small amount of time become likely over a long period of time. Finally, you say �but that's impossible! ID is the only explanation! Look, X is impossible by means of 1-10!� and I walk away.

Post 82

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 11:36pm

Your first paragraph in post 48 is largely an Argumentum ad Experientiam: http://solohq.com/Articles/Stolyarov/Argumentum_ad_Experientiam.shtml (I never thought I be pointing someone to one of GSII's articles, but this one is good.

Your point is nonsense, as is the above linked article (good grief Stoly! If a guy tries to trump you with his direct experience of a situation then pump him for more information by asking pithy, penetrating questions such as "What do you mean?" or even more daringly, "Why?" Don't waste your energy and our precious time by mimicking Rand in trying to invent a class of logical fallacy to atone for your missed opportunity at one-upsmanship!")

Fact is, Dawes, (and I bare my psycho-epistemology for all to see and judge) I have a hard time when a 29 year old kid with LOTS to learn takes the attitude of "Let me tell you a thing or two 'bout 'jectivism, Mister! We here believe this, and if you wanna be heer yu'ud better chek them premisses and make sure they conform to da rite kinda 'pistemology!"

Oh, pleeeeeeese . . . !

Jason seems like a good kid who is able to get away with certain mistakes because he can hide behind his youth. I have no problem with that. You, on the other hand, hide behind your moustache, and that's another matter entirely.

The bacterial flagellum is not like a miniature outboard motor (with a rotor and a stator) it IS an outboard motor (just look at photographs of one taken with scanning electron microscopes), and it functions exactly like a macroscopic man-made one. What we know about machines, of whatever size, is that they don't invent themselves; they don't come about by chance.

You are trying to make so fallacious an argument here that I'm not going to respond other than to laugh my ass off.

See Stoly's article (can't find the link right off, but I'm sure I will) titled "Argumentum ad Asinum" or "Argument by Ass" for a fuller treatment of this important and hitherto overlooked logical fallacy that you committed just now. In lieu of that, the rest of your post below will serve as an example, as I will show.

HUMOR: You see, this stick doesn't just look like a walking stick, it is a walking stick. We know that walking sticks don't create themselves! Gimpy guys invented them, so obviously trees where created by design.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The situation in Darwinism is more like this:

NOT SO HUMOROUS: You find a beautiful wooden walking stick with an elegantly curved handle, at the end of which is an exquisite ivory carving of an American bald eagle. Small diamonds are inset in the eyes of the carving. You say "Wood is a natural product that comes from trees, which are themselves natural products -- products of Darwinian stochastic processes. Since the tree was randomly produced, it stands to reason that this piece of wood from the tree was randomly produced. I certainly won't let the trite fact that it looks designed fool me into thinking that it actually was designed. A famous evolutionist once said that biology is the study of entities that appear as IF they were designed, but were IN FACT not designed. So I'm not going to let the appearances fool me. Sure, a plastic cane is undoubtedly designed by intelligence; but a wooden one? From a tree? So I'm going to ask some tough evolutionary questions about this wallking stick and about trees:

(1) What sorts of DNA mutations, occurring under what sorts of "selection pressures" could have led a tree with randomly angled branches to produce a smooth, perfectly curved branch as I presume formed the handle? (2) What sorts of mutations, occurring under what sorts of "selection pressures," could have turned the original fruit of this tree (probably a small, proto-plum) into a hard, smooth, white, shiny, material that very closely resembles ivory? (Note to self: apply for NSF grant to map genomes of proto-plum trees and elephants and search for all common sequences. What adaptive advantage does inserting elephant tusk genes into plum genes give to the tree? Obviously, it has to do with survival -- all evolutionary change does -- but what specifically? Note to self: apply for NSF grant to search for possible missing link between tree and elephant . . . wait . . . wait . . . I've found it! I know what the link is between "tree" and "elephant"! They both have trunks!")

Yep. The form of many Darwinian arguments is that asinine. And most Darwinists have neither youth nor moustaches to hide behind.

Post 83

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 1:37am

To me, this all seems like many are looking at this issue pragmatically, not principly, refusing to recognise that the universe is an integratedness - totally, thuroughly. Thus what appears to be inconsistancies are immediately proscribed as such, and rejoiners are pounced on with distorted caracatures.

Post 84

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 2:55am

Grammerian -- First of all I tip my hat to you for a writing long post and at least attempting to argue your case.

Thank you.

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove to me by telling me that you know the color of Robert Hessen's bathroom,

It's a subtle argument, I admit; but I had actually posted on the color of the towels in his newly constructed bathroom -- not the color of the bathroom itself.

You know, in some cities, Jason, they hang people for missing details like that.

but I'll skip over that and get to the important elements of your response.

I'm inebriated and ready. Shoot.

There is an immensely important difference between the inference an archeologist makes when he finds an arrowhead or some likely human designed object and "ID theorists" inferring that the universe has been "designed" because of discoveries about its structure. We have physical evidence that humans exist

So? And if we didn't have such evidence, how and why would that force us to doubt the inference that they exist, based on the evidence? Most of the time you don't see the smoking gun, my boy; you just need to see the dead body and the bloody footprints. You infer the rest.

and probably physical evidence that humans existed in the location where the likely designed objects in question have been located. So it is in fact reasonable to infer that a human being was the designer.

"Reality" is one thing; our knowledge and experience of reality is another thing. The latter conforms itself to the former; not the other way around. If we have no direct perceptual experience of an entity, we make do with indirect percepts -- inferences. "Design" is an inference. It's a characteristic mark of ALL intelligence; not just human intelligence.

It is usually reasonable to infer human intelligence, when finding designed artifacts. In fact -- and you've forgotten this point -- animals of all species display intelligence. Bird nests, beaver dams, and bee hives, for example, all display characteristic marks of having been designed by intelligence: a high degree of specified information, together with the ability to create functional structures, essentially, ex nihilo. Don't quibble over the particular way in which many animals appear to exercise intelligence (a way we often call "instinct," which is a fancy way of labeling something we just don't understand). It's intelligence, just the same.

We have lots of perceptual evidence that humans modify natural objects for their own purposes and we can compare these objects to those that naturally occur in nature and make a good inference.

And furthermore we have no reason to think that these marks of intelligence -- these modifications of natural objects -- are unique to human intelligence. They are marks of intelligence per se. Humans modify natural objects; birds modify natural objects; beavers modify natural objects; bees modify natural objects; ants modify natural objects; etc. When we compare a heap of twigs to a mysterious and elegantly constructed bird's nest, we see immediately that the first is a product of random forces, the second, a product of intention. Again, forget about how that intention is "packaged"; whether in the form of concepts or so-called "instinct." It's irrelevant as far as this point is concerned.

And if we lack perceptual evidence of the identity of the designers, we are stuck with making a not-so-good inference. So what? A not-so-good inference is better than no inference, and it's better than a completely mistaken one based on what appears to be your premise: if we can't perceive the designer and shake hands with him, then for some reason or other it is philosophically "invalid" to infer his existence based on what we know about intelligence in general; i.e., that it is the only one of the 3 causal factors that we know of capable of producing "complex specified information," irreducibly complex structures (even simple ones, like mousetraps), and creation of meaningful information "ex nihilo," meaning "out of otherwise meaningless or non-functional junk."

I don't know why you should feel this way. It's not required by Objectivism, or anything else. Is it a job requirement at your bank, or something?

Anyway, I take it you're not a space buff. You aren't excited by space research, right? You probably feel that SETI -- the "Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence -- started by NASA some years ago is not only a waste of the taxpayers' money, but logically and philosophically absurd. After all, you argue, we only have direct perceptual experience of human intelligence, and have NO evidence at all to suggest intelligence other than human intelligence (and, grudgingly, animal intelligence). So why bother shooting probes into space with embarrasing pictures etched into them, or pointing expensive radio telescopes toward various star clusters in the hopes of picking up intelligible signals; i.e., marks of design being purposely beamed out into the universe? What a waste! What a fraud! First of all, if the marks make sense, then they're obviously of human origin, because we ONLY have experience with intelligible signals made by humans (therefore, reality must conform to our experience of it, rather than the other way around).

What are you going to do if SETI actually begins to pick up a signal, as in the movie "Contact", comprising the first 100 prime numbers? Are you going to claim it's random? Of course not; the message is too LONG to be random. One or two primes in a row might be accidental; but 100? No way (this is an example specified complexity; it's complex and hits a unique target: the set of primes between 1 and 100). Would you claim that it's of human origin? (Either humans are signalling us from the beyond or the claim is a fraud, because, as you never tire of insisting, we only have experience with human intelligence). I hope not.

The nanotechnology we find in the cell and in living organisms in general -- the bacterial flagellum and the vision cascade, for example -- are exactly analogous to receiving a highly structured, complex, and specific signal from space. The chances of getting a signal comprising the first 100 primes by some sort of random process is infinitesimal. The fact that Dawkins may claim that there is a "non-zero probability" of this event happening by chance is NOT GOOD ENOUGH as an explanation; it's not good enough qualitatively, and it's not good enough quantitatively. The same can be said for the creation of a functional protein with a length of 300 amino acids. The chances of just THAT protein coming together, is 1/20^300, which is larger than the universal probability bound of 1/10^150. The number may be real and "non-zero" but it's physically meaningless.

We are able to infer human design only because we know that the modifications that took place on a particular object do not occur naturally.

(1) How do we know that? Do we, perhaps, perform experiments? Is that what you're thinking?  So, in order to KNOW for certain that there is nothing in the nature of ink-dots on lined paper that by nature forms a series of marks that we recognize as "Beethoven's 9th Symphony" we, perhaps, perform trillions of "splatter" experiments; spraying ink-dots onto lined paper in various random ways. If we fail to come up with Beethoven's 9th -- let alone a simple 4-bar tune we can hum -- then we have, to your satisfaction, proved that "Beethoven's 9th" could not have been a product of "nature" but of "human intelligence"?

(2) Why only human intelligence? Any ornithologist can tell you whether a heap of twigs is the product of chance or whether it's a nest. In fact, most persons can do it, not just those specially trained in the mysterious ways of birds.

To infer that the WHOLE OF EXISTENCE is the product of an intelligent designer is a claim to knowledge that would require an entirely different set of guidelines and first and foremost it would require that we establish evidence of an intelligent designer capable of such a feat.

Obviously not. You started with a comparison of things, from which we then -- later -- infer the existence of a designer (an architect or a blue jay). Things --[inference]--Designer. That's the schema of the reasoning.  Now, for no reason, you assert that when we deal with the universe as a whole (and, I assume, biological systems), we are not to start with a comparison of things, but we must a priori establish the existence of the designer, and then work our way back to a comparison of things! Designer-[inference]-things. Why? Says who? The form of reasoning stays the same, whether we 're reasoning from "nest-[inference]-designer(yes/no)" or "romantic novel-[inference]-designer(yes/no)" or "bacterial flagellum-[inference]-designer(yes/no) or "finely-tuned nuclear resonances inside stars-[inference]-designer(yes/no).

None of this is to say that we will or must answer "yes" or "no" to any of the above; only that the form of the argument remains constant. It's nothing but prejudice (if you were less innocent, I'd call it intellectual bigotry; I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) that makes you reverse yourself on the big issues like those having to do with origins. You are trying to align reality to your philosophy (or what you believe your philosophy to be), rather than adjusting your philosophy to fit reality. "If we haven't actually met and shaken hands with a specific kind of designer -- one capable of making nano-machines out of protein molecules that rotate thousands of time per minute and can stop on a proverbial dime -- then we may not infer the existence of such a designer by evidence he leaves behind. We have to see him. When it comes to origins, we're all from Missouri; you gotta show me."

You can refute Darwinism, but that doesn't get you any closer to being able to call your hypothesis "Intelligent Design Theory".

Sure it does. There are only 3 metaphysical causes of things in the universe: (1) randomness; (2) strict determinism; (3) purpose. If you have more you'd like to add, you should go ahead right now and add them. We know that the genome is a fabulous little miracle of digital information compression -- exactly like a software program. How did the software program get in the nucleus of the cell? Can chance generate a functional algorithm? (answer: no) Can chance generate several functional algorithms and then integrate these algorithms into larger functional units (called "organisms") (answer: no). Does chance have any effect at all on software programs? Yes. If you take your software disk and play frisbee with it at the beach, sand, sea, and wind, will degrade it. Computer "worms" and "viruses", while not exactly random work in much the same way as randomness on an algorithm: they destroy the specificity of the steps.

Can strict determinism generate information? No.  It can move information from one place to another (billiard balls; electrical currents over telephone wires) but it doesn't create the information. Must we be trite, Jason, and say "Oh, we don't have experience with deterministic laws as they might exist in another galaxy; we only experience strict determinism in our own solar system." If F=MA in Pittsburgh, isn't F likely to equal MA in Andromeda? Yes, I think so (so do most people).

Can purpose generate information? You betcha! That's what it does best! All kinds of information: important information, worthless information, high-grade, low-grade, noble, vulgar, relevant, and pointless. Must we be trite, Jason, and say, "Oh, we only have experience with human (and animal) intelligence on earth; we have no way of knowing what intelligence could possibly be like in some other galaxy, assuming it even exists." If a stream of information encoding the first 100 primes is broadcast by WABC radio and received in Albany, NY, isn't it just as meaningful -- just as much a sure, certain, mark of intelligence -- if it's received in Brooklyn, from an unknown broadcaster? (Yes, it is. Whence it's being broadcast and by WHOM is irrelevent to the question of whether or not it's a sign of intelligence). If a macroscopic object comprising a metal stator, rotor, finely-notched gears, a power source, and an obvious purpose -- locomotion -- is immediately understood to be a product of intention (not because we imagine anything about its designer, but because we pay attention to the thing itself and see that it's a highly specific kind of thing, with a specific purpose, and that nature doesn't provide us with such things), then shouldn't a microscopic version of the same object comprising a protein rotor, a protein stator, finely-notched protein gears, a biochemical power source, and an obvious purpose -- locomotion -- be considered a product of intention (not because we can imagine anything about its designer, but because we pay attention to the thing itself and we see that it is a highly specific kind of thing, requiring highly specific parts that are in fact useless by themselves)?

I think so.

If you post again on this subject, you should avoid the whole issue of who or what the designer is, as it's obviously unanswerable and is therefore nothing but a red herring.  Materialists cannot answer what was the first "material cause" that started all other material causes, and it obviously makes no difference; you can still study things and the various material causes that affect them without any knowledge of what "started the whole thing moving."  The specific "name" or identity of a designer is irrelevent to considerations of whether he/she/it employs intelligence and leaves the usual marks of intelligence that ALL intelligent beings leave qua intelligent beings: complex specified information. That's the test: complex specified information.

If it's only complex but not specific, it could very well be a product of chance (splatter paintings are complex but non-specific).

If it's specific, but not complex, it could very well be a product of rigid determinist law (crystals have an unvarying boring structure; they grow according to rigid deterministic laws. True, the way in which the atoms are configured in a crystal are highly specified -- i.e., a certain atom MUST occupy precisely THIS spot in order for the crystal to maintain its structural integrity as a crystal -- but its predictable regularity marks it as an unlikely candidate for having been produced by intelligence.

If it's both complex and specific, it could ONLY have come about by intelligence, and there's nothing in the nature of complex specified information that requires that it be a mark ONLY of human intelligence. It's a mark of intentionalisty, purpose, and intelligence, per se.

Post 85

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:25am

Post 81

Tuesday, August 16 - 9:11pm

The Grammarian,

You still haven't shed the slightest evidence of an intelligent being (other than a human) at work creating beings, DNA, RNA, or anything.

I never claimed I could identify a designer. I merely claim to be able to distinguish "marks of design" from "marks of nature." A mark of design is an infallible clue to the existence (though not the identity) of a designer.

You continue to attempt to point out unexplained portions of evolution. You set up straw men and knock them over.

You say: "There is no known possible cause for life as we know it, other than ID."

I say: "ID is a possible cause, but there is no reason to consider it as true. Evolution is a possible cause, there are reasons to consider it true, and there is no contrary evidence."

Yes, but you see that is incorrect. Darwinian evolution is NOT a possible cause: it is not possible mathematically and there is no observational evidence for any of its claims. No fruit-fly has even been observed to change into any related species (such as a wasp) after having gone through radiation-induced mutation. These experiments have been going on for many decades now and the results are the same.

If a theory makes a prediction and there is NO evidence to suppor the prediction, then that lack of evidence is the same thing as "contrary evidence." I have no idea what you mean by "contrary evidence." If Darwinians say "species evolved slowly over billions of years and through many intermediate forms" then those forms will be in the fossil record. If they are NOT in the fossil record, and if all agree that the record is not "incomplete" or "broken" in any way, then the theory predicts something that did NOT happen in reality: there were no gradual intermediate forms and there's nothing to see in the fossil record. Darwins are wrong on the account, and that's a major strut of their theory; it's not just a minor detail or a mere "aspect" of it.

Darwinism has met its match, I'm afraid, in biochemistry and information theory. The first demonstrates the existence of nano-technology within the cell and shows the meaninglessly small probabilities of the component parts having come together by chance. The second deals with a new entity in the field of biology -- information -- and the problem of how something that is the biological equivalent to a software program got written and encoded into the cell in the first place. It also brings up the hoary problem -- a new problem -- of how biological features could develop -- such as the shape or form of an organism -- in the absence of a specific software program instructing it do so. Shape is clearly constrained in some way, and therefore requires highly specific information; it's beginning to look like the information governing form is NOT encoded in DNA.

You forget that scientific theories can be abandoned, not because of "contrary evidence" but because enough NEW kinds of questions arise that the original assumptions of the theory are unable to answer.

I've posted several times that the problem of (1) where complex specified information came from in the first place; and (2) how complex specified information could increase from simpler species to more complex species without something/someone putting NEW information into the genome. It can't happen by chance, because information only degrades in the presence of randomness. It can't happen by some deterministic law, because such laws can only move information, not create it or increase it. If you know of any metaphysical causes other than chance, determinism, or purpose, you should post it.

Post 86

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:43am

http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/fdsmall.htm

Examples of nano-technology within the cell:

The Bacterial Flagellum:

The ATP Molecule:

http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmechanism.htm

Post 87

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 6:47am

Ah Grammarian, I thought I recognized you? How do you feel about Islam?

Ethan

Post 88

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 7:36am

This is far more interesting:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/tripletcode020805.html

Post 89

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 7:45am

Grammarian --

First of all I don't appreciate the rude comments regarding my age. That has nothing to do with the merit of the arguments I am presenting -- and you being old and wise should know that. I debated whether to even write a response since you failed to deal with the core arguments I made last time but I indicated that I would in my last post so here it is.

"And if we lack perceptual evidence of the identity of the designers, we are stuck with making a not-so-good inference. So what? A not-so-good inference is better than no inference, and it's better than a completely mistaken one based on what appears to be your premise: if we can't perceive the designer and shake hands with him, then for some reason or other it is philosophically "invalid" to infer his existence based on what we know about intelligence in general; i.e., that it is the only one of the 3 causal factors that we know of capable of producing "complex specified information," irreducibly complex structures (even simple ones, like mousetraps), and creation of meaningful information "ex nihilo," meaning "out of otherwise meaningless or non-functional junk."

"Materialists cannot answer what was the first "material cause" that started all other material causes, and it obviously makes no difference; you can still study things and the various material causes that affect them without any knowledge of what "started the whole thing moving." The specific "name" or identity of a designer is irrelevent to considerations of whether he/she/it employs intelligence and leaves the usual marks of intelligence that ALL intelligent beings leave qua intelligent beings: complex specified information. That's the test: complex specified information."

You seem to be endlessly fascinated with nature and its inner workings. So much so that you make the error of becoming overly impressed with it in the same way that you might be impressed by a new technological invention. The fundamental error you make over and over is the assumption that the "causal orderliness" and complexity you seem to know so much about in some way naturally presupposes and on its own provides you with the necessary evidence to infer a "designer". The easiest counter argument is that the universe simply operates all by itself based upon the law of identity and the law of causality and that it ALWAYS HAS. The orderliness you are seeing and the various cause and effect occurrences (no matter how unique or improbable certain occurences may be) are simply the result of the fundamental nature of existence. Existence and the things which happen within it don't NEED any designer it just operates the way it operates. The inferences you make based upon your knowledge of various interesting instances of cause and effect relationships and unique entities that result from them are entirely frivolous (as I illustrated very clearly in my last post) and are in fact totally unnecessary.

To illustrate this point I�ll play along with you. If this is the grand "design" that you seem to think is so obviously evident that it requires that we accept the existence of "some" designer couldn't the same argument be made in reference to this unknown designer? This designer, based upon its amazing intelligence, uniqueness, complexity and orderliness MUST itself be a "design" and would have to be the result of some unknown "super designer". The same could be said of this even more amazing "super designer" it would have to be even more complex and intricate. It would be such an amazing and unique entity that based upon your own line of argument it couldn't have simply occurred because of natural causes. It also requires that we infer the existence of a "SUPER DUPER" designer. Of course based upon your line of argument we would have to go on inferring designer after designer forever. Interestingly enough -- we would still be back at the same point. There would still be no ULTIMATE designer or any ULTIMATE conscious purpose "guiding" existence or any element of it.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 8/17, 8:59am)

Post 90

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 8:13am

Ah Grammarian,

You still haven't shed the slightest evidence of an intelligent being (other than a human) at work creating beings, DNA, RNA, or anything. You continue to attempt to point out unexplained portions of evolution.

#10 indicates there will be a tree of life. Each "branch" is a change in a molecule. Some of the branches will increase in probability of copying over a time period in a context, and these branches will flourish in that context. Some of the changes (branches) increase the complexity of the molecule (try precisely differentiating the molecule from all other molecules with binary data, this is an increase in information!) and the probability of copying.

So there you have it! Increases in information without intelligence!
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 8/17, 8:59am)

Post 91

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 8:36am

Grammarian,

I found your claims sort of interesting, since I hadn't heard this "complex specified information" stuff before.

You wrote:

all experience -- not to mention all theories that treat information quantitatively, such as Shannon's -- prove that information deteriorates in the presence of randomness . . . unless it is purposely put back in.

Information will degrade in the presence of randomness (otherwise known as "noise").

The only problem is, you don't have "all the time in the world." The number 27^100 to produce a specified sentence -- let alone one that is meaningful in English -- is so astrononomically large, that by putting a "1" over it, it may as well be ZERO. One mathematician, William Dembski, from considerations of physics, has set 1/10^150 as a "universal probability bound"; i.e., any event that had less chance of occurring than one-in-10^150 cannot have happened by chance.

This is very misleading. Letting 1 and 0 denote success and failure, respectively, the following sequence depicts repeated trials with a very small probability:       0000000000000000000 . . . ..0000000000000000000000001
But so does:                               1000000000000000000 . . . ..0000000000000000000000000
               or:                               0100000000000000000 . . . ..0000000000000000000000000
Each of these sequences is equi-probable. All the failures need not come first as you suggest. So your claims that "it may as well be ZERO" and "[it] cannot have happened by chance" are fallacious. Improbable does not mean impossible.

The bacterial flagellum is not like a miniature outboard motor (with a rotor and a stator) it IS an outboard motor (just look at photographs of one taken with scanning electron microscopes), and it functions exactly like a macroscopic man-made one. What we know about machines, of whatever size, is that they don't invent themselves; they don't come about by chance.

Your analogy does not mention a key difference. Homeostasis, metabolism, and reproduction are essential properties of all organisms. (First two individual level, 3rd species level.) These are *internal* purposes, and there is no evidence they have been put there by an external, intelligent being. The purpose of an outboard motor is clearly *externally* placed by an intelligent being.

Post 92

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 12:15pm

For a given sized packet, more randomness in it implies less information. However, this does not imply that for a given packet, a small random addition or change to it decreases the information. It may increase it (or stay the same).

Sure. I fully admit, as does any statistician, that there is a non-zero, calculable probability monkeys making random additions of text to a blank page of paper might increase the information density on the page by typing intelligible sentences, and that these sentences might randomly be assembled into paragraphs, and the paragraphs randomly assembled into chapters, and the chapters randomly assembled into sequences, and the sequences into a full novel like "Atlas Shrugged." If you believe that it actually DID happen that way, then I have bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

This is very misleading. Letting 1 and 0 denote success and failure, respectively, the following sequence depicts repeated trials with a very small probability:       0000000000000000000 . . . ..0000000000000000000000001
But so does:                               1000000000000000000 . . . ..0000000000000000000000000
               or:                               0100000000000000000 . . . ..0000000000000000000000000
Each of these sequences is equi-probable. All the failures need not come first as you suggest. So your claims that "it may as well be ZERO" and "[it] cannot have happened by chance" are fallacious. Improbable does not mean impossible.

This is true. It's also irrelevant. See my post to Ms. Isanhart re archers. If we blindfold an archer and spin him around till he's dizzy and request that he shoot off 20 arrows into the side of a barn (which we've divided, like a chessboard, into a grid, with 100 equal squares). The arrows will land randomly in different squares: one here, another over there, etc., right? What you're doing with your math above is like drawing a target around the randomly-distributed arrows and saying "Look! The archer hit the bullseye!" The chances of hitting any one square (all things being equal) is 1/100; the probability of just that random distribution of 20 arrows is 1/100^20. Compare that to the example of a professional archer who shoots 20 arrows into a specified target -- let's say the center square on the barn-grid -- from a distance of 100 meters, and she hits that specific square flawlessly, dead center, with all 20 arrows. Do you understand the difference between the two situations? The probability of her doing that is exactly the same as the probability of hitting 20 random targets whose "bullseye" is chosen AFTER the arrow hits it rather than before. But the first situation is, without any doubt, a product of chance, and the archer wins no prize. The second situation is, without any doubt, a product of skill, and SKILL is the application of purpose, design, and intelligence to the attainment of a specific goal. That's the reason that archer wins a prize. It's not just the probability; it's how we characterize the probability and what the probability means.

It's irrelevant that the chances of tossing HHHHH are the same as tossing HTTHTHT. The problem is to specify in advance the target sequence you need; i.e., you have to NAME and IDENTIFY your desired bullseye FIRST, and then try to toss it. If I say: "I'll give you $100 if you flip the following sequence in 10 consecutive coin tosses:

HHTTTTHTHT

- the odds of getting just that sequence -- the sequence that I specify -- are the same as getting any other combination of 10 tosses . . . BUT YOU ONLY WIN $100 IF YOU FLIP THAT SEQUENCE. All other combinations are defined as "loser combinations." OK?

That's the situation with proteins and amino acids. Any combination of 20 amino acids in a chain 300 links long is as likely as any other combination. But we only "win" when one specific combination appears that functions, e.g., in helping to clot blood. All other combinations are defined as "loser combinations."

Post 93

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 12:39pm

Marcus,

This for example and I give up.

When I say "protein" think "the biochemical analog to a word." When I say "amino acid" (the building blocks of proteins) think "the biochemical analog to a letter." It's an analogy, but it's a good one, and it's a very common one: amino acids form an alphabet -- this one has 20 letters in it, instead of our 26 -- which can be combined in various ways, just as letters can be combined in various ways. Now, when I say "Earth's environment billions of years ago" think "A Scrabble board with the letters tossed onto it randomly from the box." Never mind how the letters -- the amino acids -- came into existence in the first place. It doesn't matter for this example. (FYI, two guys in 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, synthesized amino acids by zapping puddles of organic chemicals with electricity. Unfortunately, it was later shown that the sort of chemical environment they had used to create their amino acids never existed on the early earth. The experiment was interesting but proved nothing about how in fact the basic building blocks of proteins came into existence.) So consider our Scrabble board, and ask yourself the following: is there any physical restriction on how one square piece of wood can fit next to another square piece of wood? Of course not. You are permitted physically to put one Scrabble piece next to any other Scrabble piece. Similarly, there is no chemical restriction on the order (or number) of amino acids in forming chains that we call "proteins." The only question is this: (for Scrabble) does the sequence of letters form a meaningful word in English? (For amino acids) does the sequence of amino acids form a meaningful, i.e., functional protein? So far, so good?

Now consider this: most functional proteins (proteins that actually DO something) -- even very simple ones -- are at least 100 amino acids long. Going back to Scrabble, that means that we require a word -- let's say a complete, meaningful sentence -- that is composed of at least 100 letters. Easy to create? Sure -- if there's an actual mind doing the composing. You just writing, then do a "Word Count" with MS Word, and trim off what's too long, always being careful of things like grammar and punctuation, and always being sure that the entire chain -- the sentence -- makes sense. But what if a Darwinist asserts "Oh, you're not allowed to compose the sentence; you have to create it randomly, by jiggling the Scrabble pieces in a bag and pulling out one letter at a time until a meaningful sentence is achieved. "That's absurd!" you cry. "That would take forever, assuming it could be done at all!" The Darwinist -- probably a knee-jerk True Believer like Richard Dawkins -- would answer "Not so. There are 26 letters (and a space, let us suppose to distinguish individual words), so the chances of pulling out any particular piece is 1/27. The odds of pulling out any specific combination of 100 letters is 1/27^100. We've got all the time in the world, so start shakin'!"

The only problem is, you don't have "all the time in the world." The number 27^100 to produce a specified sentence -- let alone one that is meaningful in English -- is so astrononomically large, that by putting a "1" over it, it may as well be ZERO. One mathematician, William Dembski, from considerations of physics, has set 1/10^150 as a "universal probability bound"; i.e., any event that had less chance of occurring than one-in-10^150 cannot have happened by chance. That's an extremely conservative "upper limit" he's established. Another mathematician, Emil Borel, set 1/10^50 as a bound.

Now, if this is true for a specified target of 100 letters (the specified target here is merely "any meaningful English sentence of 100 letters), imagine what the odds would be if we were required, using chance alone, to form a meaningful sentence of 300 characters! (It would be 1/27^300) That's the situation Darwinists face when they require random processes like "mutation" and "natural selection" to create a specific protein (such as, e.g., just ONE of the proteins used in the bacterial flagellum). They claim that "time is on their side" but it isn't. There have only been about 10^25 seconds of elapsed time since the (purported) Big Bang; even if there were pre-existing amino acids everywhere in the universe (not just on earth), and even if they formed rich puddles, or even rich oceans, there still would not be enough time (a/k/a "probabilistic resources") to have created that one protein, let alone all of the other proteins that compose living beings.

To say otherwise -- as does someone like Richard Dawkins -- would be similar to saying that if we had enough monkeys banging away randomly on PCs with MS Word for enough time, they would manage, after many trials, to come up with just the right combination of letters, spaces, punctuation, chapter numbers, and sequence divisions, to have composed "Atlas Shrugged." Furthermore, since we can now "explain" the appearance of this meaningful string of letters (totaling almost 1,100 pages) by appeals to strictly natural, random, non-telelogical causes, we may dispense with such mystical, pseudo-religious explanations as an imputed "author" named Ayn Rand, who "composed" the novel with a certain "goal" or "intention" in mind.

So now do you have at least some idea of what "specified" means?

Post 94

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 1:07pm

Jason,

First of all I don't appreciate the rude comments regarding my age.

Paranoia anyone? The man did not disparage your age, he addressed his sarcasm to Ethan and extended a hand of friendship to you. Are you taking your medication?

Post 95

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 1:21pm

Robert:

grammarian said:

Jason seems like a good kid who is able to get away with certain mistakes because he can hide behind his youth.

So, take your own meds, or get some glasses.

Ethan

Post 96

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 1:43pm

Ethan

You're are being dishonest. The quote is followed by:

I have no problem with that.

Post 97

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 1:46pm

Robert,

Complete misdirection on YOUR part. He is claiming that Jason can get away with mistakes becasue of his youth. He is patronizing Jason. Jason was correct in his note about your habit of trying misdirection. I'm not distracted.

Ethan

Post 98

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:12pm

Robert D,

Your example shows a complete misunderstanding of protein biochemistry and evolution.

Your example assumes that a protein is made to order. That there is only one way an insulin protein can be ordered for example. That is complete bull!

If you would look at sequence homologies of proteins you would know that some sequences are conserved between species and some are not.

There are thousands of different proteins in a cell and thousands of different variations of these between species. They can regularly undergo mutation without losing function or can lose or gain function through mutations. The genes that code for them are often duplicated or recombined and in the process the protein changed. There are so many sources of variation in proteins possible that your example is completely wrongheaded to say the least.

Not to mention the three dimensional complexity of a protein with regard to it's function which is not a simple case of each particular amino acid carefully placed here or there.

The mathematics are bull because the equation is not 1/27^100. It is not cumulative! The chance of pulling out the next necessary amino acid in the chain would be not even be 1/20.

The reasons are difficult to explain here, but put simply - amino acids occur in groups that have similar properties and can substitute for one another - secondly they are expressed from codons that have a wobbly third base that can vary without changing the amino acid.

It's amazing the bull that gets propagated as creationist science on websites!

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 8/17, 3:27pm)

Post 99

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 4:30pm