Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
...Excellently put dearest sister in Christ! "Inverse causality" in a nutshell!
Thank you so very much for this outstanding essay/post!
[[Secondly, life does in fact maintain and repair itself without violating any laws of thermodynamics,]]
It’s never been a question about life doing so- what violates thermodynamics is hte idea that biological life could arise in violation of the second law- Yes, life does maintain itself without violating the second law, BUT life is also subject to the second law AFTER all the processes and maintainances are inplace and able to cope with the ill effects of the law.
[[and populations do change as environments change.]]
No quesiton about it, however, this doesn’t mean they macrochange, or macroevolve, and secondly, this also doesn’t mean that the environment is hte source of metainfo
your link goes to “We’re sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site” Are htere any articles you know of discussing that book? I’d liek to take a look at it- perhaps just give hte title- I can do the search for articles discussing it
Excellent observation, dearest sister in Christ!
CottShop, you wrote, "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 the point where it ‘might possibly’ accumulate to a point of a bit higher ‘metainfo’."
But "who" or what at level (ii) is "adding" or "accumulating" the info? It seems to me a person making this argument would have to attribute some form of "proto-consciousness" to molecules and/or atoms. Information doesn't just "add itself" so to produce metainformation. Or so it seems to me. (There's a stark difference between "data" and "information.") And as far as I know, the articulation of symbols is not possible for an entity lacking consciousness and some minimal threshold of intelligence.
I'd love to see how the person advancing this gradualisitic piling up of "information" and its conversion to metainformation at level (ii) [from whence it is "passed along" to level (iii)], from the resources of (ii) and/or (i) will deal with this objection.
Well, just my two cents worth FWIW.
Thank you A-G and CS so very much for your excellent essay/posts!
This one should work. Somehow a space got into the first url.
http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Clues-Origin-Life-Cairns-Smith/dp/0521275229
[[But “who” or what at level (ii) is “adding” or “accumulating” the info? It seems to me a person making this argument would have to attribute some form of “proto-consciousness” to molecules and/or atoms. Information doesn’t just “add itself” so to produce metainformation.]]
I guess I worded it wrong- I shoudl have said that mutation information ‘gets added’ blindly, and over time could add up to include enough changed information that the accumulated info by pure chance, resutls in higher instructions that, again, by pure blind luck, are able to manage lower info. Of course, all this higher info accumulations simply could not ammass enough higher instructions to account for the incredible complexity at al llevels, and this ‘pure blind luck’ arrangement of info would take such a long time to even begin to mimic the actual metainfo, that the species simply coudl not flourish long enough to wait for hte finished product of the necessary metainfo system. But just saying it could be a possible argument- although a remotely plausible one.
Let’s just use a really simplistic example that isn’t realistic, but which might illustrate the possible argument a bit more-
let’s say gene info includes instructions for the species to only see green- and let’s say th4 species lives in a purely green environment with no other colors available to view, and all it’s food source is green, but not very nutritious- Then osme mutaiton comes along, and info gets added to the genetic info of the species that includes the ability to see red- now, as well as green- there are no red colors available, but by pure luck, this mutation gets passed along to future kin, and somehwere along hte line, a red food source that is more nutritious ‘evolves’, and hte species can now distinguish between green and red, and begins to favor the red source, and begins to thrive
I know this is REALLY simplistic, and probably doesn’t even begin to argue how real metainfo coudl accumulate, but it’s all I could think of at moment to try to mount a remote coutner argument of how metainfo ‘might’ accumulate? And agin, this REALLY downplays the vast complexities of metainfo, but I’m just wonderign if perhaps isntead of backward looking, it might be more scientifically important to look forward and demonstrate that nature is realistically incapable of producing the metainfo- which, You and Alamo Girl have doem a great job so far- I’m just tryign to see all hte possible nagles, to discover how likely or unlikely a naturalistic argument might be at this point- although the impossibilites facign Mcroevo outside of the premise of this paper also render aguments not very reasonable, but just wondering if there might be an argument mounted here.
[[I’d love to see how the person advancing this gradualisitic piling up of “information” and its conversion to metainformation at level (ii) [from whence it is “passed along” to level (iii)], from the resources of (ii) and/or (i) will deal with this objection.]]
I’d liek to see the arguments too- JS claims this paper is ‘nothign new or original’, apparently trying to insinuate that it’s not important? But I’ve seen, as I told him, nothign to even come close explaining the naturalistic accumulation of info to arrive at metainfo from any TOE supporter yet- so it is quite apparent that this paper presents a far more important problem for TOE than the paper is being portrayed by soem to do.
There is no physical process implied by or required by evolution that hasn’t been observed.
Well, I didn't really post the link for you. It was metmom who asked the question; I just pinged you because I mentioned your nipple theory.
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
But if the original created man was perfect and didn't have hair, why should he have an apelike gene for growing hair all over his body? What would the designer put it there for in the first place, if he didn't expect it to ever be used?
apes can have a gene go awary and be born naked- big deal?
Do you have a reference for that? I've never heard of an ape being born hairless (except humans, of course), and I can't find anything in a quick search. I do find some references to a chimp that lost its hair due to disease, but nothing genetic.
Have you read the book? Does it explain how metainfo arose supposedly? In the reviews. all I see are explanations that cellular life is incredibly complex, and DNA ‘probably evovled later’ after the suppsoed self assembly of al lthe’inner complexities’- this doesn’t appear to even begin to address the impossiblity of hte heirarchal structures and hte creation of metainfo- nor does it appear to address the 5 stages necessary for life to exist- but htne again, I’m just readign hte reviews- will read them all, then see if I can get a more complete synopsis o nthe net- and see if I can find rebuttals- might prove relevent to this paper’s discussion- we’ll see.
Yes, I’ve read it. I own a copy. I recommend it before you continue looking silly by asserting these problems are new or haven’t been addressed by biochemists.
The book I linked to is a simplified version of a more technical publication. I doubt if it can be made simpler.
I just have one general question. Where will you move the goalposts when these technical problems are solved through research?
“I am troubled by the influx of Cretoids and IDiacs to this website, its infrastructure, and elsewhere within the bounds of Conservatism over the last few years. More importantly, I am also troubled by the influx of their delusional Anti-Science, Anti-Enlightement, and Anti-Western Civilization ideas into Conservatism. Just because their own Faith is pitifully weak enough to cause such loathing does not give them the right to spread their weakness and destroy Conservatism because they refuse to accept a Fact.” [excerpt]DoctorMichael, are you aware that this site was started and is owned by a Creationist?
So you keep saying, LeGrande. Over and over.
For some reason you cite the Feynman path integral formalism on this question. But since the formalism sums an infinity of possible trajectories to compute a single quantum amplitude, I think the problem of "what is the 'adequate' frame of reference for this procedure?" comes to the fore.
Is it that of the localized particle, whose trajectory has been calculated as the sum of an infinite number of virtual histories (from its point of view, so to speak), which converts to a finite quantity?
Or is it that of the "configuration space" of the entire procedure which, because it is defined by an infinite number of possible trajectories, must itself be very large, indeed verging on infinity?
It seems clear to me that, on the above assumptions, the "frame of reference" of the localized particle, having been "reduced" to the finite, is ever much less than that of the total configuration space. Yet the local particle is part of that configuration space.
Therefore, it seems clear to me that the frame of reference we need to understand these phenomena is that of the entire configuration space. Certainly this is "larger" (or "higher") than that of the local particle's reference frame.
Just thinking out loud....
You wrote:
If ID and IC are correct, then there had to be distinct and separate creations complete and fully formed. Evolution from simpler to more complex organisms is ruled out. The Design had to be in place at the beginning, IC rules out modifications.I believe these statements might be true if the materialist/naturalistic/physicalist presuppositions regarding reality are valid. But these models give us no way to understand such widespread biological phenomena as consciousness, self-direction, intelligence, even the idea of information — let alone explain the process by which life comes into existence. And so we are questioning those models.... To the extent that the ToE depends on these models, it might have to be revised.
I happen to believe that all three of your statements are false. Maybe we'll get around to them one at a time, in due course.
Thank you so much for writing, LeGrande!
Give it up, LeGrande, the way you are using the term, a "frame of reference" is a set of axes in a coordinate system.
But "frame of reference" also refers to the system itself, e.g. Marxian frame of reference.
For there to be "no universal (higher) frame of reference" the property of infinity must apply to space/time and nothing could be either beyond the coordinate system or be the "frame of reference" for the system itself.
That is a metaphysical naturalist presupposition which I reject out of hand.
Space and time are finite. CMB measurements since the 1960's all point to the fact there was a real beginning of space and time in this universe.
That was the most theological statement ever to come out of science.
I'd say "remotely possible," if I didn't understand that the very presupposition of "pure chance" or "pure blind luck" queers any argument that follows from it. So long as this type of argument is being used, I have no reason to trust it, let alone assess the "possibilites"is predicts.
I mean, think about it: To make a "necessity" of "pure, blind chance" the very necessity on which your argument rests automatically completely rules out any and all non-chance solutions to problems — in principle.
To me, there's something basically "wacky" about making "chance" a "necessity" at the deepest foundation of your "model." I mean, in this circumstance, you'd always be playing with "loaded dice."
Plus none of these people bother to consider what a random pile up of "information" can be about in the first place? Information — about what? What I'm trying to get at here is this: On what basis ought we to believe that information piling up randomly could ever "mean" anything at all?
I certainly agree with your statement, "...the species simply could not flourish long enough to wait for the finished product of the necessary metainfo system." Indeed, that's what the ToE's "pushing up daisies" model, which I would describe, (in terms of Williams' IC/AP model), as the inversion of levels (i) – (v); i.e., there's no "pull" from the higher levels (v) being "highest"), but a "push" from level (i), and from there on "up" through the levels. Until finally, we have — mirabile dictu! — level (v), "fully-loaded" with metainformation....
Jeepers, quite aside from the evident epistemological problems involved in the "chance is necessity" point of view, does this seem likely to you?
Thanks so much for writing, CottShop!
Funnt isn’t it, how liberals are so desperate for thier position to be the conservative one?
I certainly agree with your statement, "...the species simply could not flourish long enough to wait for the finished product of the necessary metainfo system."
I also think that what makes it all the more improbable is that for it to even begin to work, all the blind chances would have to be necessary. It would not leave room for any unnecessary changes to occur. There wouldn't be enough time to waste on things that were benign at best, deadly at worst.
One suggestion is better cooling for activities such as persistence hunting.
ummm: “persistence hunting”?
Why didn’t we just start sweating more through our tongues like dogs?
Why aren’t there any hairless big cats after all this time then? After all, they have longer periods of hunting needed to survive.
And omnivore humans can collect berries if they’re hungry, while carnviores like big cats have to have meat.
Uhhh speaking of moving goal posts are you going to explain why you need all kinds of steps to understand ID theory, while big bang theory gets a free pass?
If only you would devote more time to answering questions and not incessantly asking them!
Nobody said the original perfect man was hairless. Variation within species would be one reason some people have lots and some have none. But it would take far more than differing amount of body hair to move man in the direction of the ape.
And what's your explanation for why men have nipples?
Nope, you first. I asked why evolution would produce something so unnecessary and didn't get an answer.
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.