Life's Irreducible Structure (DEBATE THREAD)

There seems to be a concept of ‘flow of energy’ where a species system (note, a species individual already created) whereby the species system draws low entropy from it’s surroundings, to help stave off higher entropy within itself, But you’ll note that in so doing, the species systems burns energy drawing and utilizing the low entropy, thus affectign it elsewhere within the specie’s other systems. Not sure if this is what you are referring to ? (Just type ‘flow’ in the search function of your browser when you get to the link- it’ll bring you to hte pertinent info)

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000001.html

Thank you so very much for both of your replies and for sharing your insights! And, of course, thank you for your encouragements!

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’

A poison pill to the RNA world approach to abiogenesis is autonomy v semiosis. On the one hand, it would have to be non-autonomous to gather information and then toggle back to autonomous to give rise to symbols and then toggle back to non-autonomous to gather more information, etc. [Pattee, Rocha]

Or to look at it another way, using Shannon, unexpected messages can be transmitted (broadcast) to the receiver (molecular machine) in the form of noise (e.g. RNA as in virus) in the channel. This would be the mechanism for mutation in evolution theory.

However, a really big however, the channel (autonomy) must pre-exist along with the symbols (encoding and decoding of the message.) And we can't get there (iii) from here (ii).

Also, I very strongly agree with you that this irreducible structure argument has great potential and needs further development.

Coyoteman seems to be suggesting that male nipples are useless simply becacause they don’t produce milk to help offspring, however, they are not useless when it comes to help with arousal, which would be a necessity to help propogate a species when problems arise with the male having difficulty durign sex. Perhaps Coyoteman could (IF he were reading my posts- which evidently he isn’t) Expalin how nipples evolved then? If evolution supposedly casts off what isn’t ‘useful’, then what possible purpose could htere have been for the male nipples IF coyoteman is suggesting they are useless?

Ok I think we’re gettign to the bottom of this- Demski- without any evidence, was proposing a ... get ready for it .... “4’TH Law Of Thermodynamics” or rather a “Law for the Conservation of Information”, and in his proposal, he suggested not that information was caused by nature, or created by nature, but that nature somehow TRANSMITS information (Assumedly because he knows informaiton is even subject to entropy, and in order to posit a purely natural origins for information, and hten transference to species, in which the species somehow managed to avoid information entropy while it waited billions of years to evolve, he needed a constant source of new info influx into the evolution awaiting species- so he coems up with a hypothesis that really isn’t beign taken seriously, as it can’t explain species specific metainfo)

He states: [[This strong proscriptive claim, that natural causes can only transmit CSI but never originate it, I call the Law of Conservation of Information]]

So here again, even if we are to assume metainfo isn’t natural to all species from single cells on upwards, Nature certainly isn’t the originator of this metainfo, simply hte transporter- BUT, he imposes the following environmental conditions, which again, have absolutely no evidence to back up:

(1) The CSI in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or decreases.

(2) CSI cannot be generated spontaneously, originate endogenously, or organize itself (as these terms are used in origins-of-life research).

(3) The CSI in a closed system of natural causes either has been in the system eternally or was at some point added exogenously (implying that the system though now closed was not always closed). >

(4) In particular, any closed system of natural causes that is also of finite duration received whatever CSI it contains before it became a closed system.

http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/dembski.htm

Sounds to me that he is simply coming up with an unsupported hypothesis to give the poor single cells enough time to avoid informaiton entropy while it waits billions of years for ‘mutaitons to do their magic’,

Very, very, very well said, dearest sister in Christ! And a beautiful analogy to the mathematics!

Actually, I think Williams gets the problem right if we understand that it’s the “top” of the hierarchy — level (v) — that “pulls” the rest.

Precisely so!

Truly, Williams' "inverse causality" breaks with the convention of looking backwards in time and changes the dynamics of the debate.

If the investigator only sees the "x axis" - and he is required to do no more to rebut the "irreducible complexity" argument - then he may be inclined to attribute whatever complexity he observes to be a serendipitous emergent property (self-organizing complexity or cellular automata.) The Aristotlean paradigm is serendipitous per se.

For instance, the Aristotlean mathematical paradigm played out in physical cosmology gives us the anthropic principle, i.e. "look no further, we are here so it happened, don't ask why or whether it was even remotely probable." The Platonist mathematical paradigm does not accept hand wringing and asks why this and not something else.

Or to put it another way, when the level of complexity clearly anticipates that which has not yet occurred then it is not serendipitous at all but forward looking. Enter the Platonist paradigm, universals and the "beyond" of space and time.

Thank you for sharing your views, dear LeGrande!

I am not however a Kabbalist and therefore cannot debate their beliefs with you. I only mention a few interesting points raised by Jewish mystics which I find particularly interesting and/or relevant to the subject at hand.

In this case, the musing that the speed of light is the firmament was relevant to the discussion of time, i.e. null path. If any believe God is not beyond space and time, then they are in error.

Space and time are part of the creation not a property of - or restriction to - the Creator.

Also, I find the term Ayn Sof to be more illuminating. It literally means “no thing” or “the One without end from which all being emerges and into which all being dissolves.” This would be a more apt term for God the Creator of "all that there is" which includes space and time.

Truly, space and time are created as the universe expands. They do not pre-exist. Thus no particle is at rest.

Let's let the gentleman [Polanyi] continue, shall we?

Yes, let Polanyi continue:

I have said before that problems of this kind can be resolved by no established rule and that the decision to be taken is a matter for the sciuentist's personal judgement; we now see that this judgement has a moral aspect to it. We see higher interests conflicting with lower interests. That must involve questions of conviction and faithfulness to an ideal; it makes the scientist's judgement a matter of conscience.
Faithfulness to the scientific ideals of care and honest self-criticism is, of course, indispensable even for the execution of the simplest jobs in the workshop of science...
The scientist's task is not to observe any allegedly correct procedure but to get the right results. He has to establish contact, by whatever means, with the hidden reality of which he is predicating...
Unfettered intuitive speculation would lead to extravagant wishful conclusions; while rigorous fulfilment of any set of critical rules would completely paralyse discovery. The conflict can be resolved only through a judicial decision by a third party standing above the contestants. The third party in the scientist's mind which transcends both his creative impulses and his critical caution, is his scientific conscience. We recognize the note struck by conscience in the tone of personal responsibility... This indicates the presence of a moral element in the foundations of science...

And let Polanyi conclude:

Of course, believing as I do in the reality of truth, justice and charity, I am opposed to a theory which denies it and I condemn a society which carries this denial into practice...
I believe to have shown that the continued pursuit of a major intellectual process by men requires a state of social dedication and also that only in a dedicated society can men live an intellectually and morally acceptable life. This cannot fail to suggest that the whole purpose of society lies in enabling its members to pursue their transcendant obligations; particularly to truth, justice, and charity.

If evolution supposedly casts off what isn’t ‘useful’, then what possible purpose could htere have been for the male nipples IF coyoteman is suggesting they are useless?

Which raises a couple interesting questions.

If they're useless, how and why did they evolve in the first place?

If evolution supposedly casts off what isn’t ‘useful’, then it can be presumed that body hair or fur wasn't useful, as man has relatively little of it.

If man and the other apes all descended from a common ancestor, and lived in essentially the same environment, did man lost the hair or did the other apes gain it? Why one and not the other? How is being hairless and needing to clothe oneself an evolutionary advantage? Right about now, some of that fur would be a huge advantage in this stinkin' cold.

I am not a fan of Dembski, but he is a PhD mathematician and the most respected theoretician in the ID movement. If any alternatives to evolution get taught in science classes, it will be the works of Dembski and Behe. Their writings and ideas are the basis of textbooks like “Pandas and People” and “Exploring Evolution.”

Behe and Dembski post at Uncommon Descent, which is where I go to see what the latest anti-Darwinian thinking is.

did man lost the hair or did the other apes gain it? Why one and not the other? How is being hairless and needing to clothe oneself an evolutionary advantage?

Here's a column outlining three theories. Basically, they boil down to a semi-aquatic period in human evolution; heat regulation when humans moved out of the forest and onto the open savannah; or reduced habitat for parasites.

So a question in return: if man and the other apes didn't descend from a common ancestor, why is there a human birth defect that causes hair to grow all over the body, including the face? I understand the idea of the Fall and devolution. But if the original perfect man was hairless and unrelated to other apes, why should devolution take humans in the direction of other apes?

And what's your explanation for why men have nipples? Do you subscribe to CottShop's charming theory that God installed them just so we'd have another erogenous zone in case we needed it?

[[I am not a fan of Dembski, but he is a PhD mathematician and the most respected theoretician in the ID movement.]]

I’m not either really- but liek you say- He is a smart dude, and does have soem important hypothesis’ from time to time- but I think He’s barkign up the wrong tree with his proposal for a 4’th ‘law’ of informaiton conservation. I’ll explain why in a bit-

[[If any alternatives to evolution get taught in science classes, it will be the works of Dembski and Behe.]]

I think the content of this thread’s paper might infact prove more important than either man’s proposals really- I’ve been looking at hte other thread GGG posted on ‘Junk DNA’, and it’s just simply amazing hte amount of info, and the myriad of systems and subsystems that all work flawlessly for hte most part- it’s mindbogglign that such small subsystems can be so instrumental with trillions of processes goign on all at once- This woudl require such a tremendous amount of informaiton that it just doesn’t seem possible for nature to be the supplier of the regulating metainfo.

[[Behe and Dembski post at Uncommon Descent, which is where I go to see what the latest anti-Darwinian thinking is.]]

I didn’t realize Behe posted there too? I’ve read numerous Behe articles, but mainly on his own site and other blogs, but didn’t know He postedo n uncommondescent- I dissagree with soem of what both of htem think and propose, but again, liek you ssaid, they are quite influential, and do have soem very important contributions to make but wow- do they get ripped apart by other blogs and websites-

[[If evolution supposedly casts off what isn’t ‘useful’, then it can be presumed that body hair or fur wasn’t useful, as man has relatively little of it.]]

I’ll tell ya what- on days liek today- -12 degrees, I’d surel iek a nice thick matt of fur- brrrr lol

[[If they’re useless, how and why did they evolve in the first place?]]

National geographic apparently thinks man evolved from woman- they have been desperately tryign to show all human life starts off as a woman i nthe womb, and they’ve been relentlessly showing a show called ‘The Pregnant MAN’- you know, that WOMAN who got a sex change, but kept her womanly innards, and got pregnant? Talk abotu desperate to kick God out of life- NG apparently doesn’t care abotu hteir reputation as honest and trustworthy by showing crap liek that.

[[Here’s a column outlining three theories. Basically, they boil down to a semi-aquatic period in human evolution; heat regulation when humans moved out of the forest and onto the open savannah; or reduced habitat for parasites]]

Sorry Haha- but I’m simply not itnerested in a hypothesis whgich ignores the evidnce and possits somethign which simpyl has no evidence to support. I’ve read many such hypothesis’ i nthe past, and it’s nothign but a sidestepping copout claim to explain away hte evidence hwich simply refutes the claims.

[[So a question in return: if man and the other apes didn’t descend from a common ancestor, why is there a human birth defect that causes hair to grow all over the body, including the face?]]

Common design- there is NOTHING in Creationism or ID to state that humans can’t have a gene that happens to be similar to apes, go awry, as well- apes can have a gene go awary and be born naked- big deal? With similar species of common design, we should see these things.

[[And what’s your explanation for why men have nipples? Do you subscribe to CottShop’s charming theory that God installed them just so we’d have another erogenous zone in case we needed it?]]

It’s not my theory- it Sarfarati’s (Sp?)- I shoudl have made that clear last night- Again I forgot hte link- but you can find it on AIG under ‘Male nipples don’t prove evolution’ I think was hte title-

[[I’d think by now you’d realize this paper doen’t have any new or original content.]]

Really? Because I’ve certainly not seen a single person come forward and poke any holes in it other than to point our a scant few minor mistatements that have absolutely nothign to do with hte entral themes offered.

Tell me JS- what ‘isn’t new or original’? And what has been provided scientifically to refute the claims made? I’ve certainly seen nothing provided here- infact, what I see is an evolving importance emergingthe deeper we look biologically.

Simply wavign your arms and dismissing somethign isn’t a valid coutner argument- I’d have htought you’d have realized that by now?

[[I’d think by now you’d realize this paper doen’t have any new or original content.]]

nothing new? Hmmm- That just isn’t true- previously, ID had only a few examples of IC, but htis paper comes along making a bold claim that ALL of life shows IC at every level- and it provides exampels of why, which to hte best of my knowledge, hasn’t been refuted yet, and you say ‘nothign new or original has been presented’? Previously, peopel MAY have htoguht IC existed in all levels, however, their best assumptions were that htere was no direct evidence- this paper comes along and shows a direct evidentiary hypothesis, and IF it turns out to be supported by futher sicentific evidence, then it sure as heck is a new and original hypothesis that will have evidnece to uspport it- whereas before, we just had assumptions without any explanations really- This paper breaks ground that previously hadn’t been broken IF what is being claiemd proves itself reasonable, which, apparently it is, because I’m certainly not seeign anyone shoot it down with anythign but generalized, unsupported claims.

Really? Because I’ve certainly not seen a single person come forward and poke any holes in it other than to point our a scant few minor misstatements that have absolutely nothing to do with the central themes offered.

That has nothing to do with whether it is new or original. Here's a book from 1985 that covers the ground much more thoroughly than your article.

Secondly, life does in fact maintain and repair itself without violating any laws of thermodynamics, and populations do change as environments change. There is no physical process required by theories of evolution that has not been observed.

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.