First Principles

[infotheorist]

"accident" might be the wrong word for me to use....but seriously did you read what I wrote? I explained the fallacy as well as I can, seriously, are you the same person I was talking to a few weeks ago, because its like your brain shut down?

This is the kind of tone that was left out of all of the other posts. I am not here to convince you of anything, so I am done.

[infotheorist]

Amino acids are found in clouds in deep space... analysis of interstellar 'dust' clouds show aminos, complex glycerides, and water in large quantites in space. Now, by my reckoning, the building blocks of life have been knocking around probably since the 5th or sixth generation stars died so there has been ~13 billion years for the formation of life chemicals by chance alone.

Where did they come from?

[infotheorist]

I just took a quick look at the GA. It looks like a good example of what we always see in the area of evolution in genetics. There are always limitations on genetic evolutionary changes. First of all, most mutations are lethal or harmful.

Not true, most are neutral.

According to Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon (Of Pandas and People), 1 in 1,000 genetic mutations is non-harmful.

[Grandpa Harley]

Amino acids are found in clouds in deep space... analysis of interstellar 'dust' clouds show aminos, complex glycerides, and water in large quantites in space. Now, by my reckoning, the building blocks of life have been knocking around probably since the 5th or sixth generation stars died so there has been ~13 billion years for the formation of life chemicals by chance alone.

Where did they come from?

 

Stars forge heavier elements as they age... carbon-12, Oxygen-8 et al... basically anything after the second generation of star... then its a matter of radiation, compression, electrostatics in zero-g and time to make molecules. Matter is the way energy is stored in this universe, and the basic building blocks tend to build more complex ones... photochemistry plays a part too..

 

I could have SWORN it was explained in my link...

[ubergeek]

I hope no one minds a late contribution to this ongoing, highly interesting, and mind-numbing debate, but something IT said earlier caught my attention...

 

How does evolution account for irreducible complexity? For example, the flagellum of a bacterium. The strucure is rather complex with its arrangement of microtubules and other components. It is probably the most efficient motor in the universe. Without all of the parts together at the same time, the flagellum does not function. Can gradualism account for irreducible complexity?

 

The short answer is that irreducible complexity hasn't been shown to be anything more than an arbitrary judgment on the part of the researcher (Behe, et. al.), so there's nothing to account for. If you're asking how evolution can account for complexity in general, that's different. However, in the interest of keeping this as brief as possible and so as not to derail the debate, read The Flagellum Unspun by Dr. Kenneth Miller. It's highly readable, and though short on detail it provides a fair overview of the flagellum's alleged irreducible complexity.

[Grandpa Harley]

shades of the old canard 'when is an eye not an eye?' when it's a photo sensitive skin...

[Kuroikaze]

"accident" might be the wrong word for me to use....but seriously did you read what I wrote? I explained the fallacy as well as I can, seriously, are you the same person I was talking to a few weeks ago, because its like your brain shut down?

This is the kind of tone that was left out of all of the other posts. I am not here to convince you of anything, so I am done.

 

I wasn't actually trying to be rude, I was merely pointing out that you seemed considerably more intelligent when I was conversing with you a few weeks ago.

 

If I had been trying to be rude it would have been way more obvious, but whatever, its no skin of my nose either way. Get offended and never talk to me again, it won't keep me up at night But seriously, as an atheist, if I got offended this easily I would be mad at everyone all the time...

[Grandpa Harley]

you put it incredibly badly...

[Saviourmachine]

I just took a quick look at the GA. It looks like a good example of what we always see in the area of evolution in genetics. There are always limitations on genetic evolutionary changes. First of all, most mutations are lethal or harmful.

Not true, most are neutral.

According to Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon (Of Pandas and People), 1 in 1,000 genetic mutations is non-harmful.

You are neglecting a large part of my post, perhaps it's not clear what I'm writing. I'm willing to answer questions in that case.

 

Anyway, it is not needed to cite scientists. (And I'm wondering why you let intelligent design text book writers defend evolution theory.) There are 64 codons, there are 20 amino acids. Changing one nucleotide most often will result in the same amino acid. Those are called "silent" mutations*. There are also "neutral" mutations, in which an amino acid is replaced by another that has almost the same chemical properties. This often results in a similar, well-functioning polypeptide. There are also non-harmful mutations in the non-coding areas.

 

Consider a RNA codon table. A quick look reveals that there are more or less 8 "blocks" with a ratio of 6:3 of missense versus silent mutations (disregarding neutral mutations) and 8 blocks with a ratio of 8:1. So, assuming that all nucleotide combinations appear in a uniform distribution (what is pertinent false, but we get an idea), we can assume that we have a ratio of 7:2 of missense versus silent mutations. So, for every 7 potentially harmful mutations, there are 2 non-harmful mutations.

 

Now, consider that 97 % (figure from Wikipedia) is non-coding DNA, junk DNA, the amount of non-harmful mutations increases significantly. Safe guess: 90 %. Assuming that mutations occur everywhere with the same probability, 1 of each 10 mutations will appear in a coding region. That means that of the 90 mutations, 2 are potentially harmful. That means that 88 of 90 mutations are non-harmful, so 977 of the 1000. Quite different from a 1 of 1000 guess. How did they or do you obtain that figure?

 

* At http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/38329/ it is mentioned that silent mutations can have (phenochemical) consequences. But I still think that it is safe to regard that as an exception, rather than the rule.

[infotheorist]

This discussion of evolution has been too all over the place for me. Let me lay out some first principles about biology like I did in the beginning in relation to cosmology. The question that our 2 competing ideas is asking is, does intelligence arise from non-intelligence, or does it always take intelligence to produce intelligence? That is the ultimate question being asked here.

 

1) Principle of causality -- As stated all throughout my posts, the first principle that all of science is based on is the principle of cause and effect. All finite effects require causes. Every scientific experiment ever done (yes even quantum physics experiments) relies on this principle.

 

2) Principle of analogy (uniformity) -- Unobserved causes of the past are assumed to be similar to causes of like events observed in the present. This principle is what allows us to look at origin science from what is known in operation science.

 

3) Law of specificity (specified complexity) -- This law is basically the inverse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (1/entropy). With respect to information (not energy), this is like turning back time and getting a system back to its original highly ordered state. This is why in biology we talk about species. It is this law that gives biologist a clear differentiation between non-living matter and life.

 

Observational evidence -- DNA -- DNA is the specified complexity (information) that separates life from non-life. Molecular biology depends on a sub-discipline known as information theory. Information theory was not around in the days of Darwin (electron microscope not invented until the 1950'). Hubert Yockey in the Journal of Theoretical Biology pointed out that information theory has demonstrated that there is a one to one correspondence between the logic system of the genetic text and communication systems, computers, and mathematical logic systems.

 

We often see non-intelligent forces in nature causing random, redundant or complex patterns (i.e. redundant patterns in sand drifts, complex patterns in raw marble, random/redunadant noise patterns). When we see highly specified and complex patterns, we assume intelligence (i.e. a sand castle, marble statue of Abraham Lincoln, or a highly specified complex message).

 

By correctly applying the laws and observational evidence from operation science and the principles of causality and uniformity, we should be able to determine which model most accurately describes the origin of life. Is there any scientific law or observational evidence that supports the idea that the highly specified and complex information found in a cell can be produced by natural laws?

[NotBlinded]

Is there any scientific law or observational evidence that supports the idea that the highly specified and complex information found in a cell can be produced by natural laws?

I believe that matter has the possibility to arrange in an intelligent manner. This would mean that intelligence resides, at some level, within all matter. I do not believe that intelligence can spontaneously appear from non-intelligence. If I did believe that matter was not in any way intelligent, that would leave me believing that there is some greater force (a supernatural god) that sat in the sky and magically gave intelligence to matter (my brain since it is matter). I don't believe that is the case.

 

I think there may be many quantum layers that cause other layers to behave as they do. These are the probabilities that appear random. I also believe there may be a base, or neutral source that produces these probabilites. I could call this God, and I do on many occasions, but with all the baggage the word holds, it is usually not understood by who I say it to. I don't know what this originating "force" is other than my belief that everything is connected to it in order to be.

 

I believe there are causes in quantum physics, but those causes may be infinite as described by time but eternal before time. Time is just an illusion...

[Grandpa Harley]

"Is there any scientific law or observational evidence that supports the idea that the highly specified and complex information found in a cell can be produced by natural laws?"

 

Some, membrane formation, self replication of 'non-living' organic molecules, spontaneous generation of primitive amino acid like compounds under laboratory conditions... all precursors on the function and structure we see in living organisms...

 

Where's the evidence for the hand of god?

[Grandpa Harley]

Is there any scientific law or observational evidence that supports the idea that the highly specified and complex information found in a cell can be produced by natural laws?

I believe that matter has the possibility to arrange in an intelligent manner. This would mean that intelligence resides, at some level, within all matter. I do not believe that intelligence can spontaneously appear from non-intelligence. If I did believe that matter was not in any way intelligent, that would leave me believing that there is some greater force (a supernatural god) that sat in the sky and magically gave intelligence to matter (my brain since it is matter). I don't believe that is the case.

 

I think there may be many quantum layers that cause other layers to behave as they do. These are the probabilities that appear random. I also believe there may be a base, or neutral source that produces these probabilites. I could call this God, and I do on many occasions, but with all the baggage the word holds, it is usually not understood by who I say it to. I don't know what this originating "force" is other than my belief that everything is connected to it in order to be.

 

I believe there are causes in quantum physics, but those causes may be infinite as described by time but eternal before time. Time is just an illusion...

 

TBH you're using the word 'intelligent' as a synonym for 'ordered'...

 

'Order' doesn't need intelligence, simply constraining factors. I'd take a look at Wolfram's work on simple 'cellular' automata (in this case a 'cell' is point with field constraints... in this universe, that describes an atom, or a smaller fundamental particle). The level of complexity from simple restraints over time is something that makes the artifacts look 'intelligent' when really they're just maths...

[NotBlinded]

TBH you're using the word 'intelligent' as a synonym for 'ordered'...

 

'Order' doesn't need intelligence, simply constraining factors. I'd take a look at Wolfram's work on simple 'cellular' automata (in this case a 'cell' is point with field constraints... in this universe, that describes an atom, or a smaller fundamental particle). The level of complexity from simple restraints over time is something that makes the artifacts look 'intelligent' when really they're just maths...

Okay...

 

Then how does this "order" combine to form intelligence? If every cell in my body is just ordered, how is it I'm intelligent? (no puns please... )

 

What instigates the constraining factors?

[Grandpa Harley]

TBH you're using the word 'intelligent' as a synonym for 'ordered'...

 

'Order' doesn't need intelligence, simply constraining factors. I'd take a look at Wolfram's work on simple 'cellular' automata (in this case a 'cell' is point with field constraints... in this universe, that describes an atom, or a smaller fundamental particle). The level of complexity from simple restraints over time is something that makes the artifacts look 'intelligent' when really they're just maths...

Okay...

 

Then how does this "order" combine to form intelligence? If every cell in my body is just ordered, how is it I'm intelligent? (no puns please... )

 

Buggered if I know. I know Penrose's theories on the origins of intelligence as a cumulative effect of overlaid fields, but I'm damned if I know they're right. I'd point you at those as a possible, and plausible, reason for intelligence and brain function, and why Hard AI is unlikely. Cells, in of themselves, exhibit low level intelligence... they recognise where they belong, they don't tolerate things that are not them. The can read electro chemical signals to do things... about as an intelligent as an amoeba. Life forms are really, at a very basic level, large communities of other animals, so specialised they can't exist outside the community. We operate by the enlightened self interest of 'lower' animals, in a very real sense... some of these animals (immune cells) will give their lives to save the whole... it's certainly complex but it's major complexity comes from the fine turning of roles...

[Saviourmachine]

1) Principle of causality -- As stated all throughout my posts, the first principle that all of science is based on is the principle of cause and effect. All finite effects require causes. Every scientific experiment ever done (yes even quantum physics experiments) relies on this principle.

As I stated, I doubt this. Not much is "based on" the actual nature of cause or semi-cause. Most of science is completely invariant in regard to the principle of causality. Nothing does change in econometrics if there would some macroscopic tunneling of objects, or other weird things going on. Or do you suggest that those things are the rule, not the exception?

That we have to act "just" ethically is irrelevant to the fact of how this empathic attitude originated. There is no god needed to endow us with feelings.

 

2) Principle of analogy (uniformity) -- Unobserved causes of the past are assumed to be similar to causes of like events observed in the present. This principle is what allows us to look at origin science from what is known in operation science.

Dangerous as principle, doesn't seem the appropriate way to go to study emergent phenomena. I'm not familiar with "operation science", which scientists are working in that field? I know of "operations research" that has to do with (e.g. scheduling) operations within an organization.

 

3) Law of specificity (specified complexity) -- This law is basically the inverse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (1/entropy). With respect to information (not energy), this is like turning back time and getting a system back to its original highly ordered state. This is why in biology we talk about species. It is this law that gives biologist a clear differentiation between non-living matter and life.

Do you have studies that mention this law of specificity? You explained its consequences, not what it entails. I assume that you've borrowed the term "specified complexity" from Davies (or Dembski?). My attempt of a definition would be something like: DNA exhibits specified complexity, it is random (difficult to compress; Kolgomorov complexity) and a code (that specifies a phenotype) in one. I don't know what the consequences would be for evolutionary landscapes. Do you (or they) argue that they are generally too rigged? That you need hill climbing algorithms? That evolution theory needs e.g. hotspots, higher mutation rate, to come to the right time scale? (And that it therefore should be disregarded?)

 

Is there any scientific law or observational evidence that supports the idea that the highly specified and complex information found in a cell can be produced by natural laws?

The sentence "highly specified and complex information" seems a bit overdone. Do you mean information in Shannon's sense? I don't know what kind of answer you search for. You seem to seek some "information generator". I again highly recommend Kaufmann's work.

[NotBlinded]

Buggered if I know. I know Penrose's theories on the origins of intelligence as a cumulative effect of overlaid fields, but I'm damned if I know they're right. I'd point you at those as a possible, and plausible, reason for intelligence and brain function, and why Hard AI is unlikely. Cells, in of themselves, exhibit low level intelligence... they recognise where they belong, they don't tolerate things that are not them. The can read electro chemical signals to do things... about as an intelligent as an amoeba. Life forms are really, at a very basic level, large communities of other animals, so specialised they can't exist outside the community. We operate by the enlightened self interest of 'lower' animals, in a very real sense... some of these animals (immune cells) will give their lives to save the whole... it's certainly complex but it's major complexity comes from the fine turning of roles...

Your intelligence shows in many of your posts (there are few though...just teasing! )

 

I'll go google Penrose tomorrow. Time to go home...

[NotBlinded]

1) Principle of causality -- As stated all throughout my posts, the first principle that all of science is based on is the principle of cause and effect. All finite effects require causes. Every scientific experiment ever done (yes even quantum physics experiments) relies on this principle.

As I stated, I doubt this. Not much is "based on" the actual nature of cause or semi-cause. Most of science is completely invariant in regard to the principle of causality. Nothing does change in econometrics if there would some macroscopic tunneling of objects, or other weird things going on. Or do you suggest that those things are the rule, not the exception?

That we have to act "just" ethically is irrelevant to the fact of how this empathic attitude originated. There is no god needed to endow us with feelings.

 

2) Principle of analogy (uniformity) -- Unobserved causes of the past are assumed to be similar to causes of like events observed in the present. This principle is what allows us to look at origin science from what is known in operation science.

Dangerous as principle, doesn't seem the appropriate way to go to study emergent phenomena. I'm not familiar with "operation science", which scientists are working in that field? I know of "operations research" that has to do with (e.g. scheduling) operations within an organization.

 

3) Law of specificity (specified complexity) -- This law is basically the inverse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (1/entropy). With respect to information (not energy), this is like turning back time and getting a system back to its original highly ordered state. This is why in biology we talk about species. It is this law that gives biologist a clear differentiation between non-living matter and life.

Do you have studies that mention this law of specificity? You explained its consequences, not what it entails. I assume that you've borrowed the term "specified complexity" from Davies (or Dembski?). My attempt of a definition would be something like: DNA exhibits specified complexity, it is random (difficult to compress; Kolgomorov complexity) and a code (that specifies a phenotype) in one. I don't know what the consequences would be for evolutionary landscapes. Do you (or they) argue that they are generally too rigged? That you need hill climbing algorithms? That evolution theory needs e.g. hotspots, higher mutation rate, to come to the right time scale? (And that it therefore should be disregarded?)

 

Is there any scientific law or observational evidence that supports the idea that the highly specified and complex information found in a cell can be produced by natural laws?

The sentence "highly specified and complex information" seems a bit overdone. Do you mean information in Shannon's sense? I don't know what kind of answer you search for. You seem to seek some "information generator". I again highly recommend Kaufmann's work.

When you post Savior, I question my intelligence...

 

I can't understand a thing you say...dang it!

 

Don't stop posting though, I'm just sayin'...

[infotheorist]

When you post Savior, I question my intelligence...

 

I can't understand a thing you say...dang it!

 

Don't stop posting though, I'm just sayin'...

I guess I am with you on these sentiments. I don't necessarily question my intelligence, but I do have a hard time understanding your esoteric references. I don't even know what you are asking sometimes. Sorry

[Grandpa Harley]

It's sometime too easy to use short hand... If pressed I usually point people to the relevant Wiki pages...

 

But bugger me with a gate post if I know who Shannon is...

[NotBlinded]

When you post Savior, I question my intelligence...

 

I can't understand a thing you say...dang it!

 

Don't stop posting though, I'm just sayin'...

I guess I am with you on these sentiments. I don't necessarily question my intelligence, but I do have a hard time understanding your esoteric references. I don't even know what you are asking sometimes. Sorry

Hey, that's okay. That's why it is fun to gather information from everywhere! We all have something to offer each other...hopefully.

[infotheorist]

Hey, that's okay. That's why it is fun to gather information from everywhere! We all have something to offer each other...hopefully.

Thanks for the encouraging words. I totally agree. This kind of debate can definitely be fun, and I have certainly learned things from you guys. Debating facts and staying away from personal attacks can be extremely healthy and beneficial.

[Grandpa Harley]

Then someone spoils it by calling one a fundy... then gloves are off...

[ubergeek]

"...does intelligence arise from non-intelligence, or does it always take intelligence to produce intelligence? That is the ultimate question being asked here."

 

Is that really the right question, though? I don't mean to quibble, but placing causality, analogy, and specificity under the umbrella term "intelligent" seems suspiciously like anthropo-centric thinking. Anyone else think so?

 

There is, actually, an example of causality, analogy, and complexity (though not "specified" complexity) in nature that few (if any) of us would say belongs in the category of intelligence or "intelligent design" - the snowflake. Granted, these are examples of non-living, complex structures but may be helpful anyway in gaining some insight.

 

Hopefully, I'm understanding where you're going with this, otherwise the following will be for nothing (*sniff* *sniff*)...

 

1) Principle of causality -- As stated all throughout my posts, the first principle that all of science is based on is the principle of cause and effect. All finite effects require causes. Every scientific experiment ever done (yes even quantum physics experiments) relies on this principle.

 

Snowflakes are caused by certain weather conditions that arise from other preexisting climatological conditions. These preexisting conditions lie on a continuum between random and non-random in the sense that they are partially predictable, but can have unexpected results and can vary within certain parameters dictated by various cosmological considerations (e.g., Earth's axis, proximity to the Sun, rotation, wobble, etc.).

 

But anyway, snowflakes satisfy this principle.

 

2) Principle of analogy (uniformity) -- Unobserved causes of the past are assumed to be similar to causes of like events observed in the present. This principle is what allows us to look at origin science from what is known in operation science.

 

If I'm understanding this correctly, then snowflakes and their causes also meet this requirement.

 

We cannot observe snowflakes of the past, but since the 17th century on (Kepler, Descartes, etc.) people have been cataloging snowflake "designs" and various types that are extremely similar (i.e., uniform) have been identified. Also, from the standpoint of physics, complete uniformity is theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely. But, uniformity doesn't require exact precision in replication, does it?

 

With regard to their causes, again studies of snowflakes and the weather conditions that produce them have allowed people to identify the similar conditions under which certain types will form and others won't. In other words, the causes of each type of snowflake are similar enough to satisfy this principle.

 

3) Law of specificity (specified complexity) -- This law is basically the inverse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (1/entropy). With respect to information (not energy), this is like turning back time and getting a system back to its original highly ordered state. This is why in biology we talk about species. It is this law that gives biologist a clear differentiation between non-living matter and life.

 

I don't think this is a "law," really. Dembski outlined this but has been shown to have used specious reasoning in constructing his argument. I don't have the links handy right now, so I can't reference the materials. If you'd like them, I'll be happy to provide them. I think, however, that Miller briefly addresses information theory/specificity in that link I posted a day or so ago in this thread. Again, let me know if you want those other links.

 

Hmm...I don't think I'll try this without my references handy.

 

We often see non-intelligent forces in nature causing random, redundant or complex patterns (i.e. redundant patterns in sand drifts, complex patterns in raw marble, random/redunadant noise patterns). When we see highly specified and complex patterns, we assume intelligence (i.e. a sand castle, marble statue of Abraham Lincoln, or a highly specified complex message).

 

Just in case, I thought it should be clear that the non-intelligent, random, redundant, and complex patterns you mention aren't really analogous to snowflakes (except the non-intelligent part). This is partly because they are not really random, since they fit specific patterns that are repeated again and again, year after year. I don't know enough about redundancy in information theory to speak intelligently about that, so that'll have to wait for further references.

 

Is there any scientific law or observational evidence that supports the idea that the highly specified and complex information found in a cell can be produced by natural laws?

 

The term "specified" is, to my mind, misleading and loaded. It would seem that "specification" could come about once evolution is set in motion, with natural selection "specifying" which changes will propagate and which ones won't. This would also seem to work on a molecular level, given enough time, though I admit this is something I can't write about without references.

[Saviourmachine]

I guess I am with you on these sentiments. I don't necessarily question my intelligence, but I do have a hard time understanding your esoteric references. I don't even know what you are asking sometimes. Sorry

Don't be surprised when the things I mention become mainstream science, there are more and more people that will become aware of the importance of studying emergent, non-linear dynamic systems. For an introduction of Kauffman's book see http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm. I assume you know Shannon (information theory). Kolgomorov's idea is very simple. Information, in the form of a bit sequence, can be described by an algorithm. The shorter the algorithm can be, the less information a sequence has in Kolgomorov's sense. There is nothing esoteric, it is just science, just math.

 

I find it easier to criticize something after I study it into depth. There is so much to know. The world is (in that regard!) a lovely place.