First Principles

[infotheorist]

Thanks for the example of the snowflake. That is a great example of complex, redundant patterns in nature. It requires no intelligence, just like my examples of patterns in the sand on the beach or in the raw marble. If we saw a snowman, where someone put boundary limits on the snow, then we would think of intelligence. It is like the example I used with the marble statue of Abraham Lincoln.

[infotheorist]

Alright, you keep talking about Kauffman, so I took a look at the link you sent. Let's take a look at some of the highlights from that summary article.

 

Translated into 'real-life': assuming enough food and energy, high enough concentrations and a fixed probability for chance catalysis, the mixture of molecules can transform into a stable and self-sustaining set. In other words: will be alive!

This is the same fallacy that Richard Dawkins commits, affirming the consequent. If the necessary coditions existed, autocatalysis caused the beginning of life. Autocatalysis caused the beginning of life, therefore, the conditions existed.

 

"We are no accidents, but a natural law created us". "If life were bound to arise, not as an incalculably improbable accident, but as an expected fulfillment of the natural order, then we truly are at home in the universe."

Since when do natural laws create? I thought natural laws were descriptions of what is. How can anything be a fulfillment of natural order? What "natural law" is he referring to and what mechanism "determines" the end result?

 

This explains the title of his book. It is clear that if the origin of life is an improbable event, we are not going to have a convincing scientific explanation.

If all properties of living systems depend on every detail of their structure, then there is no hope of understanding living systems. Life is not to be located in its parts, but in the collective emergent properties of the whole.

This is the central issue. If a whole entity depends upon each of its parts, then each part does make up “every detail.” This is not the case for redundant complexity, but it is the case for irreducible complexity. Some biological systems have pathways that overlap and are interconnected, so that removal of one or even several of its components does not completely destroy the function of that system. This is true. However, just because some bio-systems are redundant, does not necessarily mean that all are redundant. To reach such an inductive generalization is fallacious (Fallacy of hasty generalization).

According to Kauffman, Darwin almost certainly was wrong, because in some [4] complex systems any minor mutation causes catastrophic changes in the system, in stead off improvements. Kauffman illustrates this with mathematical examples and tries to characterize what kinds of complex systems can be build by an evolutionary random search in a reasonable time.

A mathematical illustration of something yet to be shown is fallacious on two counts. The first count begs the question (the premise presupposes the conclusion) and the second count commits the fallacy of analogy (the essential analogical claim that he supposes to be similar, is in fact just the opposite). In other words, Kauffman intelligently designed his mathematical model in such a way as to demonstrate something he believes has no intelligent basis.

"Life does not depend on the magic of Watson-Crick base pairing or any other specific template-replicating machinery. Life lies ... in the property of catalytic closure among a collection of molecular species". (p50) The origin of life cannot be explained if DNA would be essential (p72) and autocatalytic sets can evolve without a genome. Life started without DNA ! Life started as a collectively autocatalytic set of molecules. If one could create autocatalytic sets in the laboratory, one could create life! (p147). Kauffman's anti-DNA view holds for the origin of life, but in the ontogeny of multicellular organisms networks of genes are needed to enable cell differentiation. Kauffman's view of life is opposed to Hubert Yockey's view of life. Yockey [3] considers information as the secret of life. Information coded in DNA. Two opposing views of life.

Once again, he commits the fallacy of “affirming the consequent” / If A, then B; B, therefore A. Also, according to his definition, any molecular system must be defined as living, which violates the law of identity. Kauffman also commits the fallacy of cavalier dismissal (merely dismissing the opposing view, rather than refuting it). Yockey’s research goes back to the research of Bell Labs scientists whose objective was to differentiate between the simply complex nature of random and redundant background noise and the specifically complex non-random and non-redundant patterns of intelligent communication. All of this research was, and is, based upon scientific principles and laws of physics to develop/confirm the origin of the information content in the DNA molecule. Even though Kauffman disagrees with the origin of life by definition, he must still account for the origin of the information content discovered by Watson-Crick.

The revolutionary aspect of this proposal is that nobody did make the step from the specific set of 2000 enzymes which happens to occur in the bacterium, to the set of all possible metabolic sets. I think we will never make progress in understanding the origin of life, if we don't analyse life as a subset of the set of all possible life forms. In my view it is for the first time that the right kind of probability calculus for the origin of life is introduced. As I see it, it rejects the notion that only the metabolism we find today in cells, is uniquely capable of producing and sustaining life

In other words, we have to throw out the principle of analogy/uniformity. He again commits the same fallacious thinking as described above.

But he leaves out toxins, inhibitors, poisons, enzym-blockers which are a fact of life (toxicology and pharmacology would not exist without chemical inhibition).--An eye-opener is Kauffman's question: why do our cells digest food, breaking it apart into smaller molecules, only to build them up again? Why don't our cell's fuse with food cells? Kauffman is afraid of an explosion of molecular catalysis. Again inhibition does not enter the picture.

It looks like computer models with no real biochemical reactions. He again commits the same fallacious thinking already described.

 

The bottom line is that Kauffman surely cannot respond to my post without violating first principles. Thanks for sending that link. I appreciate it.

[Grandpa Harley]

To say natural laws 'create' is a limit on language and semantics.

 

Clearly we are not in violation of natural laws, since we are here.

[ubergeek]

IT, did I misunderstand you? It appeared that in other posts you were suggesting (or at least implying) some sort of intelligence behind the complexity we observe in nature. Now I'm confused! For now, I'll assume you were.

 

Thanks for the example of the snowflake. That is a great example of complex, redundant patterns in nature. It requires no intelligence, just like my examples of patterns in the sand on the beach or in the raw marble. If we saw a snowman, where someone put boundary limits on the snow, then we would think of intelligence. It is like the example I used with the marble statue of Abraham Lincoln.

 

Sort of, but not really. Patterns in the sand or in marble come about randomly (e.g., wind or water currents/eddies, during the process of limestone metamorphosis, etc.). The various snowflake "designs," however, come about due to specific conditions, and are reproduced when those conditions exist.

 

Let's say we see a recognizable pattern in the sand that is attributable to the wind blowing at a certain speed, from a certain direction, and in certain weather conditions. Wipe the pattern away, and monitor the site for identical conditions for a few weeks. It is extremely unlikely the pattern will be repeated, if a recognizable pattern forms again at all. The same could be said for the formation of marble. The same process is extremely unlikely to reproduce the same pattern in multiple rocks. Snowflakes are categorically different, because their complex designs - which we all know aren't perfectly reproduced (no two flakes exactly alike) - bear a clear resemblance to other flakes in the same category. In fact, it is their similarities that allow them to be categorized at all.

 

As a minor point of interest to further illustrate the point, man-made snow has no discernable pattern. The "snowflakes" that comes out of snow-making machines are generally just random crystals. That is, they don't have the complex designs of their natural counterparts.

 

What I'm saying is that snowflakes have the appearance of being the result of specified complexity, yet they arise through an undirected but non-random natural process.

[infotheorist]

IT, did I misunderstand you? It appeared that in other posts you were suggesting (or at least implying) some sort of intelligence behind the complexity we observe in nature. Now I'm confused! For now, I'll assume you were.

You did misunderstand, but that is OK. I will try to clarify it for you. I thought the snowman analogy would help. Snowflakes are not categorically different at all from the other patterns mentioned. Crystal formations or stalactites or anything like that are all the results of nature. Patterns can be complex and/or redundant and do not require intelligence. They are part of natural processes. A snowman, or a marble sculpture, or a message written in the sand are all examples of the result of intelligence. I would hope that none of us would see those things and assume that natural processes brought those about.

 

In other words, nature is capable of producing complex patterns, but not information (specified and complex patterns). DNA corresponds to language (information).

 

Don't get me wrong, snowflakes are amazing, but I would be even more amazed if I saw a natural snowman.

[Grandpa Harley]

In other words, nature is capable of producing complex patterns, but not information (specified and complex patterns).

 

Molecules are specified de facto, since their form is 'specified' (limited) by possible atomic configurations... Water molecules look more or less like a mouseketeer hat. All of them, with minor changes in geometry. The distribution of charge favours H₂O as a method of combining Hydrogen and Oxygen. The geometry of the H-atoms in relation to the O-atom influences the structure of ice crystals formed. Thus the pattern of a snow flake communicates a number of things.

 

1) the electrical state of the local area the crystal formed

 

2) Atmospheric conditions local to the crystal

 

3) Dust content of the air local to the crystal

 

4) Temperature local to the crystal.

 

that is encoded information produced in the pattern of a single snow flake.

DNA corresponds to language (information).

 

Don't get me wrong, snowflakes are amazing, but I would be even more amazed if I saw a natural snowman.

 

Language = Information with Context.

[NotBlinded]

Also, according to his definition, any molecular system must be defined as living, which violates the law of identity.

Why would it violate the law of identity? Is it because it can't be non-living and living at the same time? Would dropping that category of living and non-living violate anything else that it is not?

 

Wouldn't that be like confusing dailetheism and trivialism?

 

 

 

I'm not touching the rest of you post.

[NotBlinded]

IT, did I misunderstand you? It appeared that in other posts you were suggesting (or at least implying) some sort of intelligence behind the complexity we observe in nature. Now I'm confused! For now, I'll assume you were.

You did misunderstand, but that is OK. I will try to clarify it for you. I thought the snowman analogy would help. Snowflakes are not categorically different at all from the other patterns mentioned. Crystal formations or stalactites or anything like that are all the results of nature. Patterns can be complex and/or redundant and do not require intelligence. They are part of natural processes. A snowman, or a marble sculpture, or a message written in the sand are all examples of the result of intelligence. I would hope that none of us would see those things and assume that natural processes brought those about.

 

In other words, nature is capable of producing complex patterns, but not information (specified and complex patterns). DNA corresponds to language (information).

 

Don't get me wrong, snowflakes are amazing, but I would be even more amazed if I saw a natural snowman.

So, you see us as a separate/special part of "creation"? Everything else can form complex patterns on their own, but anything that requires information is special? You are confusing me too...

[Grandpa Harley]

Also, according to his definition, any molecular system must be defined as living, which violates the law of identity.

Why would it violate the law of identity? Is it because it can't be non-living and living at the same time? Would dropping that category of living and non-living violate anything else that it is not?

 

Wouldn't that be like confusing dailetheism and trivialism?

 

 

 

I'm not touching the rest of you post.

Prions match the living and non-living description... sort of the grey area between living and non living.

[infotheorist]

So, you see us as a separate/special part of "creation"? Everything else can form complex patterns on their own, but anything that requires information is special? You are confusing me too...

I'm sorry, my aim is truly not to confuse, although sometimes I am very good at it. Let me try to recap my point.

 

I am using the principle of analogy/uniformity. Whenever we see specified and complex patterns like the examples I have given, we know they had a cause because of the principle of causality. If I find a book in the middle of the woods, I know that book had a cause. I also know that every other time I or anyone sees or reads a book (information), I assume there was an intelligent cause behind the book. In other words, I don't assume the book found in the woods was caused by nature, because the principle of analogy/uniformity tells me that books always require intelligent causes. I then apply the same principles (causality and analogy) to DNA. Watson, Crick and Yockey described the information in DNA and said it has a 1 to 1 correspondence with written language (codes, syntax, grammar, spelling errors, etc.). Because of that information, I reasonably conclude based on scientific and philosophical principles that DNA (information) had an intelligent cause.

 

I hope that clears it up a bit.

[NotBlinded]

Also, according to his definition, any molecular system must be defined as living, which violates the law of identity.

Why would it violate the law of identity? Is it because it can't be non-living and living at the same time? Would dropping that category of living and non-living violate anything else that it is not?

 

Wouldn't that be like confusing dailetheism and trivialism?

 

 

 

I'm not touching the rest of you post.

Prions match the living and non-living description... sort of the grey area between living and non living.

An "apparent" violation of Classical Aristotelian logic then, right? Only by category.

[NotBlinded]

So, you see us as a separate/special part of "creation"? Everything else can form complex patterns on their own, but anything that requires information is special? You are confusing me too...

I'm sorry, my aim is truly not to confuse, although sometimes I am very good at it. Let me try to recap my point.

 

I am using the principle of analogy/uniformity. Whenever we see specified and complex patterns like the examples I have given, we know they had a cause because of the principle of causality. If I find a book in the middle of the woods, I know that book had a cause. I also know that every other time I or anyone sees or reads a book (information), I assume there was an intelligent cause behind the book. In other words, I don't assume the book found in the woods was caused by nature, because the principle of analogy/uniformity tells me that books always require intelligent causes. I then apply the same principles (causality and analogy) to DNA. Watson, Crick and Yockey described the information in DNA and said it has a 1 to 1 correspondence with written language (codes, syntax, grammar, spelling errors, etc.). Because of that information, I reasonably conclude based on scientific and philosophical principles that DNA (information) had an intelligent cause.

 

I hope that clears it up a bit.

Yes, but you know I just have to say something!

 

You then reject the theory of evolution?

 

I think a lot of "looking for the cause" comes about from language. We always have to have a noun that forces an action on a verb. We have to say something like the lightning flashes when they are one in the same. The lightning isn't flashing, the flashing is the lightning.

 

Another example would be, using Aristotle, is that we can make a table out of wood, but is a tree made of wood? Nope, the tree is wood.

 

Just something to think about in that genius mind of yours. (I'm not being factitious either...hehe...a little play on words)

[Amanda]

Wow... I came in late to an incredible thread! I've been skimming the whole thing and would like all of your input on this site I found that seems to address everyone's perspective. It looks good to me, although some critical analysis would be appreciated. Yes... it does have a spiritual component, yet by far is more scientific oriented.

 

First, couldn't the universe be a symbiotic closed system if the expansion of the universe is accelerating... could that be from BBs happening within BBs? Then, if BBs are the result of black holes' enormous density on the space time fabric bursting through the other side... then would the cyclical nature of this make the 2 LOT be nonapplicable then? If that is possible, then we really don't know if the BB was the 'beginning' of the Universe, do we? Could there have been tremendously massive amounts of matter first, then it was sucked into a black hole, then the BB?

 

Speaking of God, consciousness, quantum possibilities, and fractals, and remember what Carl Sagan said in that we are part of the cosmos trying to know itself, here's a theory that blends them all. I found this site that looks interesting, yet don't know enough to evaluate its rationality. Those of you science junkies here who do, what do you think about this site here that incorporates everyone's perspective here. The following is a very simplistic intro into what deeper ideas they present:

 

All of reality, from the smallest microcosmic sub-atomic particle, to the largest galactic cluster, seems to follow the same basic fractal structures - structures based on number and dimensions. Looking at the big picture of nature, we see an evolution of consciousness, from small systems or entities of consciousness, to progressively larger and more complex consciousness. There seems to be a basic drive which compels all conscious entities on an upward spiral of ever expanding consciousness, and coherent intelligence. We all seem to have an innate need to evolve to ever more expansive and integrated fields of consciousness, to ever larger coherent databases of processed information. Conscious beings are like fractals evolving to ever greater scales of magnitude. Along the way we follow the same basic patterns, but at each stage there are some unique variations.

 

Current scientific understanding of the origin of the material Universe in time is called the "Big Bang" theory. It is the creation story of the "Myth of Science," the dominant belief system of modern culture. The Big Bang cosmology is remarkably similar to the ancient Hindu origin myth known as the "Breath of Brahman." Under the Big Bang theory the current space-time Universe was created in a unfathomably large explosion which occurred about 15 billion years ago. At the moment of origin all of the Universe, all matter and energy, existed together in total order and symmetry, called by scientists the "Great Singularity." Then the Universe exploded in the Big Bang, or exhalation of the breath of Brahman, and all started moving away from each other as the directions and time began. The Great Singularity began to break up. Space and the different elements began to be formed. With this first breath a countervailing rhythm of arithmetic expansion and geometric contraction began.

 

Eventually the force of gravitational contraction will equal that of electromagnetic expansion, the maximum size of the Universe will be reached, and the creative process wherein new galaxies, stars, planets and moons are formed will finally come to an end. The equilibrium point is the pause between the exhalation and inhalation of the Cosmic Breath. After that the geometric force will begin to exceed the arithmetical, the direction will reverse, and the Universe will begin contracting; the inhalation of the breath of Brahman will begin. As all matter and energy converges, Black Holes will be created with greater frequency, and ultimately the entire Universe will be drawn together again into a single point, a vast black hole into which all space-time will inhale. This final Omega Point, the end, may in turn produce another Big Bang wherein Brahman takes a new breath and a new Universe is formed. If the law of fractal recursiveness holds true, the new Universe will repeat certain basic forms, but it will do so with new and unique variations and differences.

 

Other topics in same thought here

 

"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?

Yes, abiogenesis. Last time I looked it up, scientists were able to produce self replicating polypeptide chains. I believe these are the precursors to mRNA, which are the precursor to DNA.

 

Maybe the evidence of the hand of god, is it is the hand of god?

[Grandpa Harley]

Also, according to his definition, any molecular system must be defined as living, which violates the law of identity.

Why would it violate the law of identity? Is it because it can't be non-living and living at the same time? Would dropping that category of living and non-living violate anything else that it is not?

 

Wouldn't that be like confusing dailetheism and trivialism?

 

 

 

I'm not touching the rest of you post.

Prions match the living and non-living description... sort of the grey area between living and non living.

An "apparent" violation of Classical Aristotelian logic then, right? Only by category.

not sure I understand what you mean by apparent in that context...

[Saviourmachine]

Sorry, infotheorist, I missed your post regarding the article about Kauffman. Nice, thanks for reading.

 

"We are no accidents, but a natural law created us". "If life were bound to arise, not as an incalculably improbable accident, but as an expected fulfillment of the natural order, then we truly are at home in the universe."

Since when do natural laws create? I thought natural laws were descriptions of what is. How can anything be a fulfillment of natural order? What "natural law" is he referring to and what mechanism "determines" the end result?

Kauffman speaks a lot about "natural laws". I understand them in the sense of the "law of large numbers", or the "law of molecules in a box, that rarely gather in a corner". With a stochastic law you still cannot predict all things. So "fulfillment" is not a very weird term in this context. It is like he says there is such and such system. Let us role a dice and you will say that after a considerate amount of time each number occurred almost as often as the others. Of course, he does not say in his book that observing such dice behaviour proves the "law of large numbers". He just offers a possible explanation. He does not go through the hypothesis, etc. cycle.

 

If all properties of living systems depend on every detail of their structure, then there is no hope of understanding living systems. Life is not to be located in its parts, but in the collective emergent properties of the whole.

This is the central issue. If a whole entity depends upon each of its parts, then each part does make up “every detail.” This is not the case for redundant complexity, but it is the case for irreducible complexity. Some biological systems have pathways that overlap and are interconnected, so that removal of one or even several of its components does not completely destroy the function of that system. This is true. However, just because some bio-systems are redundant, does not necessarily mean that all are redundant. To reach such an inductive generalization is fallacious (Fallacy of hasty generalization).

Nice, an example of "irreducible complexity" is according to you, a biological system that has at least one pathway in which removal of a component, destroys the entire system. And you suggest that in such a system the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. IMHO the first issue does have to do with redundancy, robustness, the second with new (group) behaviour. An emergent system can be very robust, removing a component does not destroy its emergent behaviour. And a fragile system with many components that are all needed for its proper functioning, can be non-emergent. I think this is even often the case.

 

Kauffman does not claim that "all bio-systems are redundant". In contrary, redundant systems in the way you describe are not interesting. He explains how your "irreducible complex" systems may arise.

 

According to Kauffman, Darwin almost certainly was wrong, because in some [4] complex systems any minor mutation causes catastrophic changes in the system, in stead off improvements. Kauffman illustrates this with mathematical examples and tries to characterize what kinds of complex systems can be build by an evolutionary random search in a reasonable time.

A mathematical illustration of something yet to be shown is fallacious on two counts. The first count begs the question (the premise presupposes the conclusion) and the second count commits the fallacy of analogy (the essential analogical claim that he supposes to be similar, is in fact just the opposite). In other words, Kauffman intelligently designed his mathematical model in such a way as to demonstrate something he believes has no intelligent basis.

 

Kauffman categorizes possible types of complex systems, they can be visualized as having different evolutionary landscapes. There are systems in which the landscapes are such that each step implies a deep step down with respect to a fitness measure. The gradual evolutionary mechanisms cannot handle such landscapes.

 

He shows with this that there are systems that need more than gradual descent algorithms (at Darwins time mutations were not known, so I would disregard his name in this context). A mathematical illustration is just a description. You can show something with words or equations. Kauffman claims that a certain type of complex system can not be solved by a certain type of searching through its solution space. And he suggest that many biological systems are like the described system and that point wise mutations are like the described search algorithm.

 

Do you claim that Kauffman's model presupposes his conclusions? What is in your opinion his model and what are his conclusions?

 

Once again, he commits the fallacy of “affirming the consequent” / If A, then B; B, therefore A. Also, according to his definition, any molecular system must be defined as living, which violates the law of identity.

He perhaps defined as living a molecular system that has a catalytic closure property. Not every molecular system does have that.

[Saviourmachine]

Kauffman also commits the fallacy of cavalier dismissal (merely dismissing the opposing view, rather than refuting it).

Where does that come from? Kauffman does not even mention Yockey if I remember right. And his entire book is to offer an alternative and display examples of autocatalytic sets that are difficult to tackle by evolutionary algorithms alone. I doubt it if he would see Darwinists as "opponents" by the way, catalytic sets are an addition that describe origins of complex systems, not their midterm life.

 

Yockey’s research goes back to the research of Bell Labs scientists whose objective was to differentiate between the simply complex nature of random and redundant background noise and the specifically complex non-random and non-redundant patterns of intelligent communication. All of this research was, and is, based upon scientific principles and laws of physics to develop/confirm the origin of the information content in the DNA molecule. Even though Kauffman disagrees with the origin of life by definition, he must still account for the origin of the information content discovered by Watson-Crick.

Randomness and redundancy are orthogonal concepts in the information theory. How is "specified complexity" defined? Coming from an intelligent being? What is sent through a communication or compression channel is as random as possible. This means that all (redundant) patterns are recognized, and not sent with the compressed data. A non-redundant pattern is IMHO a very strange animal.

 

So much about principles and laws. They just created some definition of information that makes sense in a large context. How can Kauffman disagree with the origin of life by definition? Deny that he was born? How DNA systems arise is just what he describes, what he accounts for!

 

It looks like computer models with no real biochemical reactions. He again commits the same fallacious thinking already described.

Abstraction is a virtue. Of course he uses a model. You proof things by saying "law violated..., law violated". He spends time to formulate his ideas, states expectations and creates even models that may or may not behave as expected.

 

The bottom line is that Kauffman surely cannot respond to my post without violating first principles. Thanks for sending that link. I appreciate it.

In case you missed it, I consider those the First-Principles-of-Infotheorist. I don't know if Kauffman violates the FPI. Do you think that is what we - as mankind - should solve now?

 

According to you many "laws" are violated. Do you think that adds something to your argument? I would appreciate it when you would just use arguments with content next time, honestly!

 

What vision do you have? In what way do you want to use your immense intellectual apparatus? What are the real questions?

[Ouroboros]

Okay, I can't let this pass me, I have to write something again. Even though I'm too busy at the moment and shouldn't. But... I can't help it!!!

 

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.

Which again, the science for quantum physics don't completely agree with. So either quantum physicis isn't science, or the causality principle isn't applicable throughout everything in science.

 

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.

Miracles, Free Will and Creation of a Universe are NOT supporting UNIFORMITY. They contradict the principle of uniformity. Uniformity and analogy means that what we observe now and here is what and how things happened before. So by looking at things here and now we can see that miracles, creations and Free Will does not exist. Or on the other hand if those things DO exist, then we do NOT have Uniformity! It's as simple as that.

 

A string of beads can't be explained by saying that it is contingent in one string full of beads, and that's what we observe, but yet then claim that somewhere on this string there is an interruption. A string of events are a string of events, and if they are uninterrupted, then no miracles, Free Will or Creation happened to interrupt this string of events.

 

The First Cause argument demands determinism, because that is what the first premise in the First Cause argument states. That's why the First Cause argument is one of the worst arguments a Christian can use, since it must inevitable lead to Calvinism.

 

On a sidenote, the universe does not seem to be completely uniform. The background radiation isn't as even as thought to prove big bang, and the universe is expanding in an ever increasing speed, which contradicts many earlier theories. Now they're talking about vacuum energy, or dark energy, and dark matter, to explain away these things. Einstein was right about the cosmological constant after all.

 

The pioneer has changed speed in a way that is inconsistent with the laws of gravity, it has slowed down. There are many questions still to answer about the simple phenomenon called gravity. So in a localized observation of gravity we have established theories to explain it. When it comes to the first principle to apply these same rules to the solar system or to the universe they do see things are different.

 

Now to another conflict in science, relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible to explain the first moment of Big Bang. Now, that does not fit into a first principle idea.

 

The whole First Principle or Uniformity etc are just tools, where something we know is assumed to be the same everywhere. And in most cases is most likely is, but it is just a primary assumption until observations has been made to support it. And when observations prove the science or theory wrong, then the theories got to change. To assume then that uniformity and "first principle" to be a "law" of the universe is fundamentally wrong. It is to start of with a "rule of thumb" and make it into an absolute law.

 

 

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.

If you're talking about complexity of life, then you have misunderstood the 2nd law and entropy. Earth is placed in an open system and not a closed system as those laws require.

 

If you talk about the entropy of the Universe, then yes, science still don't have all the answers. But what is strange with the universe right now as that it is not completely uniform. I heard that they now believe it exanded in one direction only (if I understand it right).

 

 

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.

Are viruses alive or not? If not, what is your definition of life? Just DNA and cells can be alive? Are you saying then that the egg and the sperm are dead?

 

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).

Exactly. And that explains why people look at the universe and assume an intelligence behind it. Because we see the world in patters according to how the world is.

 

We are part of the world, so we see the world from the eyes of the world. Our intelligence is the intelligence of the world and we see the world the same way as the world "created" us. That's why we recognize ourself and what we do in how the world is, and we apply our "intelligence" as an attribute to the universe, but many wrongly take this attribute and apply it to an external source, when the whole "intelligence" attribute we have should only be given to the universe.

 

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?

(IRC) The corn have a more complex DNA than humans, so it must be either more intelligent or DNA can't be looked at the way you do.

 

The whole "information theory" concept is misapplied to DNA.

 

DNA is not like letters in an alphabet, but rather as the pixels on your screen.

 

Reorganize the pixels on your screen, turn them on and off in different patterns and different images will appear.

 

The language does not change with more genes, and you don't get more letters or new letters, but by extending the DNA or changing the contents, it is like you getting a larger screen with more pixels, and you modify the pixel patterns on the screen.

 

DNA does expand with more code. It has been observe and is observed. And the claim that it doesn't is extremly faulty. It's a lie from the Creationist camp. In most cases the changes are either neutral or somewhat beneficial or somewhat detrimental. But in many cases genetic mutations are both good and bad at the same time. From what I understand (which of course could be wrong) is that sickle cell anemia for instance, that the reason why you get more people with that trait in areas where malaria is prevalent, is because they survive malaria, but at the cost of a genetic disease. Sickle cell gives the person the benefit of not getting malaria, but instead will get anemia. I heard about other genetic defects that do the same for other illnesses. So in the end, mutations can be good, bad, neutral and even good & bad at the same time. What we call "good" or "bad" is the net outcome from something, not an absolute value we can put on it by pure observation of the "thing". Looking at a number "42" doesn't tell us if it is good or bad, but if we say "42 dead" we think it's bad, and "42 survived" we think it is good. And that's how mutations works too, it depends on situation if they're good or bad.