Posted on 06/23/2008 3:05:46 PM PDT by betty boop
To which you replied: Which is more ordered, a bucket of seawater or the salt crystals that form when the water evaporates? Etc.
Salt crystals are more ordered than a bucket of seawater. But living systems are not "ordered" in the same sense or way as inorganic systems are. And I don't think mjp was using the word in the same sense you are.
Stanley N. Salthe writes to clarify this point, referencing an article by Rod Swenson:
...[L]iving systems, unlike self-ordering or material systems, display “intentional dynamics” in their behavior, which Swenson defines as “end-directed behavior prospectively controlled, or determined by meaning or information about paths to ends,” in contrast with “end-directed behavior which can be understood as determined by local potentials, and fundamental laws.” ... Thus the patterns that we observe in biological nature do not principally arise from the properties of matter under the control of the physical laws. There is an informative process at work that appears to be mediated by a field or fields.Just for the fun of it, Swenson has some amusing thoughts, a list of six “main problems” with the adequacy of Darwinism as a theory of evolution:
1. Natural selection requires the intentional dynamics of living things in order to work, and this puts the intentional dynamics of living things outside the explanatory framework of Darwinian theory.
2. Darwinism has no observables by which it can address or account for the directed nature of Evolution.
3. Because natural selection works on a competitive population of many, and the Earth as a planetary system evolves as a Population of One, Darwinian theory can neither recognize nor address this planetary evolution.
4. Darwinian theory has no account of the insensitivity to initial conditions (like consequents from unlike antecedents) required to account for the reliability of intentional dynamics or the evolutionary record writ large.
5. The incommensurability between biology and physics assumed by Darwinian theory provides no basis within the theory according to which epistemic or meaningful relations between living things and their environments can take place.
6. Evolution according to Darwinism is defined as a change in gene frequencies, and this puts cultural evolution outside the reach of Darwinian theory.
Actually, you will find that Jean enjoys a spirited debate, if condescension is kept to the minimum. Along that line, do you think RNA arises or arose spontaneously from a pre-biotic soup? When men synthesize RNA are they not using complex mechanisms (generated by intellect-information application) applied with a goal in mind?
That being said your essay doesn't really address the title very well, you kick a bit of stuffing out of the “randomness” strawman you propped up, but don't really address the topic.
As to randomness, your argument is like saying that casino's cannot make money with a random game because they would lose money as often as they made money.
Also as far as Life and Randomness.....
The very first time the unique sequence of one of your specific Chromosomes was when your mom (still in the womb herself) mixed RANDOMLY the genes from her dad and mom to make sure you had a unique assortment of traits. The other half came when your dad mixed RANDOMLY the genes from his dad and mom to make a unique assortment that would go into the specific sperm out of many thousands that would fertilize mom's egg to make you.
This process is random and makes a unique shuffle of the two parental chromosomes such that the space between genes can be expressed in “centi-Morgans”. If gene B is 40 centi-Morgans from gene C, then in 60% of the offspring the parental traits B and C will stay together and only 40% of the time will the traits be swapped (grandma's B and grandpa's C).
Just food for thought as far as life and randomness.
That's very nice.
But "Darwinism" is a creation that exists largely in the minds of creationists, with little relevance to the theory of evolution.
Perhaps "Swenson" could try again with direct reference to the theory of evolution, rather than this strawman, "Darwinism" produced by the fevered imaginations of creationists.
2) If one assumes a “directed nature of evolution” without any evidence I suppose it must be the fault of the theory of evolution through natural selection that it doesn't focus on finding the evidence for you (as if it could).
3) Planetary Evolution? Population of One? Wow man, like pass the bong.
4) A theory need not have every initial condition described or explain everything in order to explain quite well how living systems respond to environmental pressures, explain evidence both new and old, and allow one to make predictions.
5)Biology and evolution work through physics/chemistry and living things interact with their environment utilizing predictable and natural electromagnetic forces (amino acids are charged/polar/non-polar to create a particular electromagnetic environment capable of doing work or catalyzing reactions).
6)What does cultural evolution have to do with Biological evolution? Why would a theory in Biology have to be applicable to culture for it to be valid within Science?
RNA could very well have formed spontaneously in the pre-biotic world. It would be well in line for the complexity of God's creation for these abiotic processes to be hardwired into the universe, like gravity and nuclear fusion that forms stars, like the laws of physics and those same stars creating complex atoms, like those complex atoms coalescing into worlds that circle stars, and then those complex atoms (possibly) forming complex molecules capable of utilizing energy to maintain and reproduce their structures (a commonly used definition of life).
Essentially allmendream, I said something very much like that in my piece, when speaking of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Here is an example of an unchanging symmetry on the one hand and, so to speak, an inexhaustible repository of the random on the other. It seems to me the tension between them is (somehow) the physical basis of Life.
I never said that there is no randomness in nature. Indeed, unless the world were strictly determined in every respect, things can and will change (evolve), new things arise, etc. Our universe seems structured (for all the reasons I cited), but it doesn't seem to be "over"-determined. But then neither does it seem to be a "random walk, governed by pure, blind chance.
Of course a casino can make money with a "random" game, at least if they were using Bayesean probability theory. Then they can almost certainly make money virtually all the time, and still have a "random" game.
Thanks for your kind words, allmendream, and for sharing your thoughts.
Excellent! ... I happen to have a cosmological paradigm which asserts that dimensions are interwoven in stages, with variables entering into continua as complex expression allows: dimension Time and dimension Space are intertwined in linear, planar, and volumetric/past, present, future expressions I call ‘continums’. I also posit a dimension of Life, having variable expressions of will, emotion, and mind, for want of better terms. I suspect there is also a dimension of Spirit, with three variable expressions also. To have insight into the variable expressions (which are graduated by complexity level), notice the relationship of linear to planar to volume.
Another point about biological evolution and randomness is that at some point a given population of sufficient scope will realize ever possible single nucleotide polymorphism of a given gene and many of the possible double nucleotide polymorphisms. Most of them will be “noise”, but some of them will be “signal” and the bacteria will “tune in” on how to metabolize nylon or citrate or survive heat stress, etc.
Another example of how life uses randomness, besides in each individuals unique genetic shuffle of grandparents DNA, is the immune system. Our immune cells “shuffle” the DNA of their antibodies “highly variable” region so that it becomes a wrench to fit a random socket. Any ones that recognize “self” are destroyed and the rest are assumed to only bind to something “non-self” and anything they bind to is attacked by the immune system.
Indeed.. to know what life is you must be able identify death, as death is where life is not.. Since dead DNA is indentical to live DNA... well thats a dead end street for answers.. DNA seems not to be the source of life but merely lifes clothing.. WHatever Life is, clothes itself with DNA..
No one I know of or have heard of can tell me what life is.. I'm talking physical life.. I wonder if life is not spiritual and not physical at all.. since DNA seems to be lifes clothing.. Lifes space suit.. to exist on this planet.. And that "life" on/in another place might need a different space suit.. Still life but with different clothing..
If life is spiritual then there may be different levels of life... all of course needing a space suit.. of some kind.. On this planet all life seems to be DNA'o'saurs.. similar in needs with different clothing.. Spiritual life from the spiritual realm must need a space suit to function in this realm.. And when, say humans, leave this realm into "space" they need two space suits.. One for the spirit to be able to exist/function(DNA'o'saur) and another for the DNA'o'saur to be able to exist/function..
HEY!... this is fun....
There may actually be such a thing as quarks..
If it acts like a Durk.. moves like a Durk..
and quarks like a Durk.. it is actually possible there may be Durks..
There is a Durk hunt going on in Switzerland now, I think..
If that is the case, you may like the Natural Theology Series.
I suspect it's an exercise in futility, but Miller on, by all means.
Researchers announced on July 11 that infectious viruses can now be created in the test tube of any modern laboratory. In fact, it has been done most recently at Stony Brook University (SBU), where biochemist Eckard Wimmer’s team has generated active polio virus particles that are capable of infecting living host cells.
According to Wimmer, the viruses were made based on "sequence" information pulled from scientific literature. The word "sequence" refers to the arrangement of chemical base-pairs, which is the chemical spelling of a gene. By getting the "spelling" of each gene in a tiny virus, it is possible to string the genes together in the correct order so they exhibit emergent properties and are fully functional.
Experts can now download a genetic blueprint from the Internet and use mail-order materials to assemble a deadly virus. At a time when the word "bio-terrorism" is a reality, the consequences of this development are both alarming and encouraging, he added. It means that scientists probably can create and prepare vaccines faster and more precisely to fend off biological attacks.
However, this also means anyone could manufacture viruses, or even alter them, potentially making them more dangerous. According to Wimmer, ready-made chunks of DNA were purchased from commercial sources, and the researchers took the instructions for piecing them together from literature available on the Internet.
"If someone publishes the sequence of any old virus, you can chemically put together a DNA copy of that, and then create the virus," he said. "So with enough money, knowledge, and equipment, you can make any virus for which you can determine the sequence."
The chemical instructions, including the DNA sequence information of many disease organisms, are available on the Internet for scientific use, and more are being added as researchers pursue their work against disease.
In the experiments at SBU, Wimmer and co-workers Jeronimo Cello and Aniko Paul ordered small chunks of viral DNA, called oligonucleotides, and strung the chunks together.
"The most important part of this work is the proof of principle," Wimmer said. "This says that you can generate a virus from the written sequence, and that has consequences."
James LeDuc, at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, told the journal Science that "it is a little sobering to see that folks in the chemistry lab can basically create a virus from scratch."
Given the potential for bio-terrorism, Wimmer said government agencies could monitor what chunks of DNA are being ordered from commercial sources. This would allow the appropriate state authorities to keep track of those who are doing research on dangerous organisms capable of being used for bio-terrorism.
To make the virus, Professor Wimmer and colleagues Jeronimo Cello and Aniko Paul had to first take a step backward.
"You cannot synthesize RNA," Professor Wimmer said. "So we converted the sequence from RNA into DNA. And DNA you can synthesise.
"Then we had to go back to RNA. That was very simple - by using an enzyme which can read DNA and synthesise RNA, called a transcriptase.
"Now you have the RNA. That RNA we put into a cell-free juice that we developed in 1991 ... and lo and behold out came the virus. It built itself."
The "cell-free juice" is made by taking the virus's favorite home - a human cell - shredding it up and removing the big pieces such as the nucleus.
"The remaining juice that is there contains all the goodies that you need for the process," Professor Wimmer, whose team first sequenced the polio genome in 1991, said.
There were not too many ingredients to throw into the broth. Polio virus has a single, long gene that produces what is called a polyprotein.
But the virus can cut this long protein into smaller pieces that can be used for its few functions.
It is rather easy to describe what life looks like but quite another matter to say what it "is."
It's like the question "who are you?" usually gets lots of descriptive answers. And then you have to ask again, "yes, but who are you?"
But since you speak his lingo, you should send Dr. Wimmer or one of his team members an email and ask what he meant by the remarks quoted in the article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.