Life's Irreducible Structure (DEBATE THREAD)

[[And I’ve reported you too for the threatening manner in which I’m treated when I point out that this is a ‘Meta’-article from an obscure internet group that adds no real data whatsoever to the collective body of knowledge and therefore should be treated with the highest amount of suspicion.]]

That wasn’t what you were reported for- but gee- Who will the mods beleive? Someone hwo only shows up i nthreads to insult people and offers nothign of consequence to the htread’s topic issues? Or someone who contributes and stays on topic?

“Threatening manner” Lol- Wish you could take back your previous posts huh? I’m sure htem ods will have a grand time goign through your posting history and seeing if you’ve actually contributed to anything, or if your only intention was to derail threads and to insult everyone- Wanna place a bet on what they’ll discover?

I’m not flaming anyone Moderator- IF you say that ‘restrictions don’t apply” Then exactly what must I knock off? Reporting someone who shows uop in a thread with nothign but insults and petty remarks? Is that hwta I have to ‘knock off” Mod? People like DoctorMichael show up in threads liek this or one reason and oen reason ONLY- to insult others- if that’s fine by you Mod- then so be it- but it’s a little tiring havign to endure the petty crap coming from peopel liek him! Do what you want Mod- but I’m sick and tired of peopel liek him contributing NOTHING to threads whiel tryign to derail the topics! If this is your idea of ‘fair and balanced’ by telling ME to knock it off- Then just WOW!

When any thread devolves into a shouting match between two or more posters, everyone loses. Posters have to scroll past a bunch of irrelevant material to get to subject at hand. And when it gets bad enough, if there are no clean hands in the shouting match - the thread will either be dispatched to the Smoky Backroom or pulled.

Good manners are not a prerequisite for posting. And if another poster offends you, it is best to simply ignore him/her.

[[Good manners are not a prerequisite for posting. And if another poster offends you, it is best to simply ignore him/her]]

Oh I see- so apparently you shopuldn’;t have even showed up in this thread to voice ANYTHING then becvause by golly IF I annoy someone else- they hsould just ignore me then? Cripes! Give me a break- I simply told Mike what I was goign to do and why- if htis is the way yuou run things here- then whatever- but let’s be clear- IF this is the way you run it- then stay out of the htreads altogether and don’t you tell me anything! If you wish to ban me- whatever- but I’ll not put up with that kind of moderation crap!

There is only a universal now for things which are at rest relative to us, i.e. in our frame of reference. ... There is no universal now for all reference frames.

How can something be "universal" if it's something "relative to us?" This doesn't make sense to me: You can't put man "outside" of a system and then say the system is universal. Which is what happens when you make the relative position of the observer the criterion of what is "universal." Our frame of reference gives us relative position with respect to other frames. It does not give us truth, which is what the universal physical laws are awesomely good at approximating in astonishingly high degree.

It seems what we're looking for is a higher frame of reference. If indeed it is true that the universe is one single, integrated, dynamic, "informed" system — as modern theory suggests — then that frame of reference would need to extend to the whole; as such it would be universal.

You wrote this puzzling line: "Not everything, simply everything that is not identical." No explanation given. Is it reasonable for me to infer that here you are making a case for some kind of novel, spontaneous emergence? Or do you really believe in "special creation" for "non-identical" entities? If the latter, how would that work?

Thanks so much for writing, LeGrande!

p.s.: RE: my "bunch of guesses ... dressed up nicely in an equation format." I wouldn't exactly call them guesses. But if it pleases you, you may do so. BTW, I left out the algorithmic complexity value conventionally given for DNA: ~10⁹ bits.

I'm sorry you did not appreciate the way I "imagined" the structure of the IC/AP system. It could be imagined differently. But I thought this might be a good way to tackle the issue, especially because it makes explicit work done in the assessment of the algorithmic complexity of living systems, and suggests how unimaginably vast is the "available potential information" of Nature.

Sorry to be so late to the party – I had a number of priorities that interfered.

betty boop, your posts - in particular at 589 and 215 - are absolutely wonderful. I aver your summary and restatement of the article is superior to the article itself in that it not only simplifies the points the author raised but also underscores those points with particulars, esp. the calculation of algorithmic complexity at various levels.

And as you know, dearest sister in Christ, I strongly affirm your position on the relevance of information to molecular biology, including the theory of evolution.

Lurkers: information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver (or molecular machine) in going from a before state to an after state. Information is the action of successful (or unsuccessful in the case of noise) communication. It is not the message, e.g. DNA or RNA. The message survives death of the living organism.

I was very pleased with Alex Williams’ approach to the issue. My chief complaint over the previous argument of “irreducible complexity” was that it was backwards looking much like evolution theory itself and therefore baited various counter arguments, e.g. cellular automata and self-organizing complexity.

Instead, I preferred a forward looking approach like the simple statement that order does not rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system. Period. There are always guides to the system. Even the atheist must accept that space, time, physical causation and physical laws are guides in nature. Cellular automata and self-organizing complexity both require guides to the system.

Alex Williams overcomes my complaint with the “irreducible structure” argument though I wish he had used a different word than “irreducible” because the reader would most likely presume it is also backwards looking when it clearly is not.

To me, the bottom line is that for each level to arise from the prior level there must be additional outside guides to the system. And of course the naturalists’ deal breaker is information itself.

[[that it not only simplifies the points the author raised but also underscores those points with particulars, esp. the calculation of algorithmic complexity at various levels.]]

I agree fully, and it also makes more clear the mathematical impossibilities which face Macreovlution which is something I think is a VERY important concideration concerning TOE.

[[My chief complaint over the previous argument of “irreducible complexity” was that it was backwards looking much like evolution theory itself and therefore baited various counter arguments, e.g. cellular automata and self-organizing complexity.]]

Excellent point- I fulyl agree- and even brought up a possible coutner argument- but wasn’t sure if it was a feasible argument- I suspect strongly that it wasn’t, but it seems that TOE supporters might possibly be able to posit that amino acids were formed from chemicals, and therefore, it showed that a ‘higher form’ was created from a ‘lower form’- of course this doesn’t take into account that we’re only up to level (ii) at htis point, and that there is nothign to suggest level (ii) could evovle into level (iii) via a natural process, because the metainfo wouldn’t be available to the level (ii) creation in order to facilitate further evolving, but again, the TOE supporter ;might’ be able to mount a remotely possible argument that a great many mutations at level (ii) kept adding their own contributions of ‘info’ by altering the level (ii) info to hte point where it ‘might possibly’ accumulate to a point of a bit higher ‘metainfo’

But again- there probably are soem holes in this acenario/argument that I’m not seeing, and I find it highly unlikely this could happen- but htne again, I think we need to know a bit more about hte whole 5 point system and how it all intertwines first- I think the paper, and Betty Boop’s posts go a logn way toward proposing a very plausible theory, and might perhaps be much more important than Behe’s examples of single ID IF ID really does exist at all levels and throughout everything- this paper, if furthered more thoroughly, might just be the next important theory in support of ID.

Experience should be a caution against writing off any part of the human body as useless or junk.

I agree, and I'll go further. I was incautious to imply the issue is settled.

I will say that a lot of work has been done on junk DNA, and more is being done.

However, there isn't much doubt that most of it is derived from an evolutionary past, and much of it was directly useful -- coding --in former times.

[[Instead, I preferred a forward looking approach like the simple statement that order does not rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system. Period.]]

I do too- and I think the paper should contain a third installment exploring forward looking arguments and evidences, and if hte paper can evolve in this direction, I think it’s on it’s way to becoming mostly airtight, and will provide perhaps the most plausible explanation for not just abiogenisis, but all of life

Only devolution is possible under their hypothesis.

If, by devolution, you mean that formerly coding genes get turned off, I suppose it happens.

It also happens that species get overspecialized and go extinct when their environmental niche changes suddenly.

But that's an observable, quantifiable phenomenon. Genetic entropy makes no sense in any frame of reference.

[[But that’s an observable, quantifiable phenomenon. Genetic entropy makes no sense in any frame of reference.]]

I think an important distinction needs to be made here- Beign turned off is one thing (And I think can contribute to overall entropy if other systems are affected by this gene switchign off, and htose systems suffer as a result), and genes being ‘hurt’ and info being actually lost because of hte results of mutaitons

If, by devolution, you mean that formerly coding genes get turned off, I suppose it happens.
It also happens that species get overspecialized and go extinct when their environmental niche changes suddenly.

But that's an observable, quantifiable phenomenon. Genetic entropy makes no sense in any frame of reference.

It does in a religious frame of reference if you believe in the fall. It goes along with the "no new information" line and created "kinds."

But if you're doing science its all a complete fabrication with no supporting evidence.

[[Gene reactivation has been observed, so it’s not impossible.]]

And I think it’s also quite important to point out that these happen in species specific ways- (and that gene info get turned on that were never used- like in hte case of nylon digestion- at least it’s thought the info was never used, although it may have been used for a different purpose at soemtime in the past? Not sure on this) but these all happen in species specific ways, and again, this harkens back to individual species specific metainfo

Thank you so much for this fascinating sidebar and for all your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!

LeGrande: There is only a universal now for things which are at rest relative to us, i.e. in our frame of reference. ... There is no universal now for all reference frames.

Consider the "null path." For a photon traveling at the speed of light, no time elapses.

Also, some Jewish mystics have proposed that the firmament of Genesis is the speed of light and not geometric, i.e. no "here" and "there" division between physical and spiritual reality.

Moreover, no particles are at rest, space/time continually expands. For that reason, a photon sent by a star which was a billion light years away may not reach us for ten billion light years, long after the star is gone. The photon did not slow down, time did not elapse for the photon - but because space/time expands, it took longer to reach us.

Or to put it another way, rest frames in space/time are time relative - they only occur at a moment. For the observer "in" space/time, the rest frame is a mathematical construct.

Only the observer outside of space and time - God - sees every where and every when, all at once.

I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth [it], that [men] should fear before him.

That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. - Ecc 3:14-15

This is why God cannot lie. When He says a thing, it is - because He is. A thing is true because He says it.

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. - Exodus 3:14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58

To God be the glory!

[[But if you’re doing science its all a complete fabrication with no supporting evidence.]]

That simply isn’t true- there is evidence showing genes get switched off and on, and htere is evidnece that no new non species specific information gets added by mutaitons- Science has doen extensive testing into this very thing- al lthey found were changes to info that already existed, genes turned off, then turned on with different functions later which TOE supporters then falsely claimed was ‘new ifnromation’ but in reality was nothing of hte sort- nothign but species specific info within designed parameters- and was certainly not the new NON species specific information that woudl be absolutely necessary in order to even begin movign a species beyond it’s own kind.

These facts just make the metainfo all that much more relevent and important, and just further supports ID.

I agree. Do you disagree with my statement that you can't prove a scientific theory, you can only falsify it?

Of course, because it's not your statement - it's something any freshman science major hears in their one-credit hour philosophy of science seminar course.

Well then use the particle - anti particle spontaneous creation example, or the quantum eraser, or the Theory of Relativity. I especially like the Theory of Relativity with events happening in different orders depending on your frame of reference : ) That really messes with causality.

Same issue here - your assuming that these necessarily destroy causality when that is only one of many possible interpretations. With the ToR, the issue isn't so much causality being messed with, but time itself, IIRC.

Anywise, if I press the button to summon the lift, and the lift comes to my floor, that is causality. If I press the button to summon the lift, and the lift doesn't come to my floor, this isn't necessarily proof that "causality has broken down". It's merely indicative of a deeper, nested causality that I may currently be unaware of. So also with the "breakdowns of causality" which you suppose are shown by QM - that intepretation is unlikely, and certainly doesn't even begin to address the causality issue of the creation of the universe (a macroscopic event to which QM doesn't apply). This is true whether one posits the creation of the universe by an intelligent Creator, or whether one posits its creation through random, materialistic forces.

Arche problem?

The problem of first cause - what we've been discussing already, under a different name.

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.