Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.
The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.
In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.
In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I did a quick Google “groups” search to see what people were posting of the first author in the list, Yockey. It looks like his work is irrelevant to current biogenesis concerns for the identical reasons as those of Hoyle. Specifically ”
1) Calculating odds in reverse, “that because cytochrome c is what we have now, the reactions had to select it out of all the possible combinations. As the reactions occurred, cytochrome c became "what we have now"As one of those 1992 critics put it in,2) Ignoring the dynamics of chemical reactions Chemical reactions have a great deal of specificity -- enzymes are designed to make one specific reaction happen. As the cytochrome c sequence developed, the molecular development was likely constrained by molecular orientation -- drastically reducing the number of available combinations.
“His final conclusion is that no, the random sloshing of amino acids together is a very unlikely explanation for the origin of cytochrome c, despite previous suggestions to that effect. This was way back in 1977, of course, so people were still trying to figure that one out. Today, this is standard knowledge, and nobody bothers with such models.” And another
” autocatalytic _networks_ have been proposed in which case you get to include the combinatorial crossmatching of short molocules that are "too short" in the sense your author uses. This means he threw out a factor of more than {10,000!}^20, more than enough to make the probability of life _in his scenario_ approach unity.Alamo-Girl, I saw a previous post here indicating that you were interested in an objective investigation of this. (That can be an ambitious objective.) But I got the impression in your last post to me that you didn’t place the same significance as I on the misapplication of work by Hoyle (and now Yockey). You said, “ The other authors do not make the omissions you mention because they are not making an approximation”. What’s identified here is not just an “omission” when it’s applied to a criticism of biogenesis, it’s a mischaracterization.Why the heck can't you refute the _current_ model? Why post brain dead straw men and refute them?”
There are dynamic relationship between molecules. In the more extreme examples of this dynamic, there are about 4,000 returns on Google for “biogenesis and macromolecules” where independent events operate on different parts of the molecules.
Using conclusions from work ignoring molecular dynamics is misleading in the context of evaluating the probability of biogenesis. It would be like me putting up a web page to refute Creationism, and arguing with claims of an unrecognized pseudo-Christian sect. I hope that’s clear.
As an aside, I also read that Yockey is using the older warm pond presumption rather than more modern deep-sea hot-springs and associated biofauna premise.
I took a look at the other two authors you recommended. I see that they haven’t generated the same controversy as the use of work by Hoyle and Yockey.
I didn't define "purpose." I just implied that everyone has one and that "purpose" is ultimately based on faith.
I didn't mean to suggest that purpose and rights were the same.
Identical particles are particles that cannot be distinguished from one another, even in principle. Elementary particles as well as composite microscopic particles (e.g. protons or atoms) are identical to other particles of the same species.
In classical physics, it is possible to distinguish individual particles in a system, even if they have the same mechanical properties. One might either paint each particle a unique color to distinguish it from the rest, or track the trajectory of each particle. However, this does not work for identical particles. This may be understood in the framework of quantum mechanics. Roughly speaking, the "painting" method fails because the particles are exactly specified by their quantum mechanical states, and no additional physical properties can be assigned to them. Tracking each particle is equally impossible, because the position of each particle is inherently probabilistic.
This has important consequences in statistical mechanics. Calculations in statistical mechanics rely on probabilistic arguments, which are sensitive to whether or not the objects being studied are identical. Therefore, identical particles exhibit statistical bulk behavior markedly different from classical distinguishable particles. This is further discussed below.
We will elucidate the above statements with a little technical detail. It turns out that "identicality" is linked to a symmetry of quantum mechanical states under the interchange of particle labels. This will give rise to two types of particles which behave differently under the exchange symmetry, called fermions and bosons (there is also an unusual third type, called anyons and its generalization, plektons.)
In answering this anomaly, whereas some physicists have proposed a universal field others such as Roger Penrose have proposed that a new physics is necessary (“The Large, the Small and the Human Mind”). Others, such as Max Tegmark and Cumrun Vafa – address the landscape of phenomenon broadly. In Tegmark’s case by the Level IV parallel universe speculation and in Vafa’s case by geometric physics. All of these are well known and highly regarded physicists; also, none of them are contesting the theory of evolution.
The messages from Talk-Origins are dated 1992 and are in reference to an article by Yockey dated 1977.
However, it was in 1992 that Yockey’s book Information Theory and Molecular Biology was printed. Yockey is working on that book for a second edition will be out shortly.
In other words, the criticisms you found are considerably out of date. Before we discuss this further, you might want to read the 1996 critics of his 1992 book – and Yockey’s response in the Chowder Society.
Yockey’s critics today narrow down to the methods he used to determine information content, e.g. whether to use Shannon entropy or Kolmorov complexity/Solomonoff induction, etc.
Because Shannon entropy is the uncertainty of communication whereas information is its success – and the biological mechanism involves such communication – I have no problem with Shannon entropy. But either way, the information opportunity issues remain – which is the point of the Origin of Life prize (updated 11/2003):
"Highly ordered" is paradoxically opposite from "complex" in algorithmic-based information theory. The emergent property of "instructions," "organization," and the "message" of "messenger biomolecules" is simply not addressed in Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs equations of heat equilibration and energy flux between compartments. Surprisingly, the essence of genetic "prescriptive information" and "instructions" is not addressed by current "information theory" either. Shannon information theory concerns itself primarily with data transmission, reception, and noise-reduction processing without regard for the essence of the "message" itself.
The Foundation questions whether "order," physical "complexity," or "shared entropy" are synonymous with "prescriptive information," "instructions," or "organization." Christoph Adami emphasizes that information is always "about something, and cannot be defined without reference to what it is information about." It is "correlation entropy" that is "shared" or "mutual." Thus, says Adami, "Entropy can never be a measure of complexity. Measuring correlations within a sequence, like Kolmogorov and Chaitin (and Lempel-Ziv, and many others) is not going to reveal how that sequence is correlated to the environment within which it is to be interpreted. Information is entropy "shared with the world," and the amount of information a sequence shares with its world represents its complexity." (Personal communication; see also PNAS, April 25, 2000, 97, #9, 4463-4468).
Differences of perspective among information theorists are often definitional. "Complexity" and "shared entropy" (shared uncertainty between sender and receiver) has unfortunately often been used synonymously with "prescriptive information (instruction)." But is it? Mere complexity and shared entropy seem to lack the specification and orchestrational functionality inherent in the genetic "instruction" system of translation. The confusion between algorithmic instruction and Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy may have been introduced through the thought experiment imagining Maxwell's Demon - a being exercising intelligent choice over the opening and closing of a trap door between compartments. Statistical mechanics has no empirical justification for the introduction of purposeful control over the trap door.
Solar energy itself has never been observed to produce prescriptive information (instruction/organization). Photons are used by existing instructional mechanisms which capture, transduce, store, and utilize energy for work. Fiber optics is used by human intelligence to transmit meaningful prescriptive information (instruction) and message. But raw energy itself must not be confused with functional prescriptive information/instructions. The latter is a form of algorithmic programming. Successions of certain decision-node switch settings determine whether a genetic "program" will "work" to accomplish its task.
b. The submission must provide adequate empirical support strongly suggesting that such a hypothetical scenario can take place naturally in a prebiotic environment. Simulation of abiogenesis must be independent of the factor of human intelligence that is so often subconsciously incorporated into computer hardware/software experimental design and simulation.
c. Thermodynamic realities must be clearly addressed, including specific discussion of any supposed pockets of momentary exception to the Second Law of increasing Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy. The Foundation's view is that Prigogine's dissipative structures, and life itself, operate within the constraints of the 2nd Law.
Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy must not be confused with statistical Shannon entropy or Kolmogorov-Chaitin-Solomonoff-Yockey "complexity." The latter two are nonphysical, abstract, mathematical constructs. All physical matrices of prescriptive information retention, however, are subject to the plight of Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy. They manifest a tendency toward deterioration in both closed and open systems. Repair mechanisms for these messenger biomolecules, therefore, require all the more starting instructional integrity. Prescriptive information would have been necessary in any primordial life form's genome to correct for continuous noise corruption of its functional protogenes. Deterioration of existing recipe in a physical matrix is far more probable than the spontaneous writing of new conceptually complex metabolic algorithms. Building-block synthesis, for instance, would have required something like a reductive citric acid cycle. There are no simple algorithms for integrating such a multistep, highly-directional pathway.
d. Empirical support does not have to be original research, but can be gleaned from existing scientific literature. Previously published empirical support must be described in detail and well referenced within the applicant's published research paper, explaining exactly how those controlled observations demonstrate empirical correlation with the applicant's theory.
Right Wing Professor, I’ll plug that commercial for you one more time. For the benefit of the lurkers out there. But in return, you get to read my reply.
It seems abundantly clear to me that your entire argument against my thesis ultimately reduces to an appeal to (anonymous) Authority. Please tell me how, with respect to the great scientific and mathematical thinkers my essay cites, this situation is qualitatively any different than the one Gallileo faced, some six hundred years ago, at the hands of the ecclesiastic authorities?
Further, on what basis do you impugn the credentials and accomplishments of such thinkers as Tegmark, Penrose, Hawking, Vafa, Yockey, Pattee, Ovrut, Chaitin, Kolgomorov, Grandpierre, et al.? Are these your wild speculators, "people not at all well known in the general physics community,” your "obscurantist quantum theorists, that the vast majority of physicists don't accept?"
It does occur to me that some scientists may be as unsettled by this as they were over the big bang/inflationary universe model. But as it happened in that instance, I predict the math, astronomy and (where applicable) laboratory physics experiments will put an end to such protests, rather quickly.
Alamo-girl, It’s nice to be debating with a polite partner.
Yes, I mentioned those dates, but Yockey’s improbability claim of cytochrome c that you referenced in support of disproving biogenesis is still the point refuted in the discussion that I linked to.
I don’t doubt that there are “other” criticisms of Yockey that would be interesting to investigate, but I don’t recognize them as addressing the two listed rebuttals in my last regarding the improbability of cytochrome c, at least not directly.
Ancillary debates of Shannon entropy, Kolmorov complexity, aperiodic complexity, autonomous, Negentropy, Scaffolding, and "Design" anthropomorphisms is not a journey I can afford to travel now, but if you can summarize why it’s fundamental to a defense from the refutation in my last, I’ll try to find the time to investigate.
I asked for a cite from a reputable textbook. To the extent that that's an appeal to authority, so be it. I'd also appeal to a textbook in response to a claim that Napoleon was never emperor of the French.
Let me remind you again what you wrote:
The answer quantum theory gives is the particles exist in a universal field which mediates or facilitates the interactions of particles in the field, as well as interaction of those particles with the particles of other fields.
One cite from a standard source, please. A book with the title "The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe", by a journalist who does not seem to have much in the way of scientific qualifications, won't hack it.
BTW, good move, omitting the second half of the book's title.
Please tell me how, with respect to the great scientific and mathematical thinkers my essay cites, this situation is qualitatively any different than the one Gallileo faced, some six hundred years ago, at the hands of the ecclesiastic authorities?
Your essay cites one Lynne McTaggart, who is a journalist, for the stuff about the quantum field. It cites Dean Overman, who has degrees in theology, law and business, for the stuff about the beginning of the universe. And you cite Heinz Pagels, who was a physicist once, but is chiefly known as a science writer, for an opinion that scientific laws preceded space and time, which isn't hugely controversial.
Further, on what basis do you impugn the credentials and accomplishments of such thinkers as Tegmark, Penrose, Hawking, Vafa, Yockey, Pattee, Ovrut, Chaitin, Kolgomorov, Grandpierre, et al.?
Nice try. I doubt Chaitin, Kolmogorov and Hawking would want any part of quantum theories of consciousness. Yockey's ridiculous mathematics has been debunked repeatedly . I've given my opinion on Penrose before; despite his denials, IMHO he's motivated by a phlosophical distaste for determinism rather than any outstanding issue in modern physics, although he is a fine mathematician. What you are actually peddling are the bizarre theories of Attila Grandpierre. Grandpierre is a research assistant at an astronomical observatory in Hungary; I doubt he's well known even in his field of solar neutrino research, since he's not at a facility capable of doing frontier research.
Are these your wild speculators, "people not at all well known in the general physics community,” your "obscurantist quantum theorists, that the vast majority of physicists don't accept?"
Which wild speculators do you mean: the ones you list but don't cite, or the ones you cited but haven't listed?
You're claiming that a biological theory of great self-consistency and universality, no significant flaws, accepted by the consensus of the scientific community, should be rejected based on the speculations of a rather unsuccessful research assistant in solar neutrinos in Eastern Europe. Best of luck.
[Cough. Ahem. Nervous shifting in my seat.]
Problem is they don't voluntarily or otherwise. Secularists (athiests in particular) are the most prolific liars and cheats on the planet yet they squeal like stuck pigs when subjected to even a tiny fraction of what they themselves practice.
Nice link. Looks like the rebuttal of Hoyle’s and Yockey’s impossibility calculations that Alamo Girl promotes is not so “considerably out of date” after all…
Like unprovoked insulting generalizations?
Any time you'd like to rebut the criticism of Yockey and the other merry band of infinitesimal probability calculators, go ahead.
Well you may not have much use for astrophysicist Dr. Grandpierre, RWP. But he is actually quite well-thought of -- by such as NASA, ESA, and EU, at whose conferences he is a frequent invited speaker. (You've been to his web site at Konkoly Observatory, Budapest, based on your remarks -- so you know this is true.) He is about to publish a major article on the organization of the Sun, invited by The Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy -- a peer review journal.
You're entirely entitled to your opinion. But that's a fur distance away from validating the gratuitous criticism you have flung in Attila Grandpierre's direction.
I read a wonderful book for you, that is by your suggestion/recommendation: Max Born's Relections of a Nobel Laureat. Maybe you could read the Overman and McTaggert in return, and then share your thoughts with me?
In Born's Relections, his son Gustav gets in the last word. In the Epilogue, he cites from his father's Nobel Lecture:
"I believe that ideas such as absolute certitude, absolute exactness, final truth, etc. are figments of the imagination which should not be admissible in any field of science. On the other hand, any assertion of probability is either right or wrong from the standpoint of the theory on which it is based. This loosening of thinking seems to me to be the greatest blessing which modern science has given to us. For the belief in a single truth and in being the possessor thereof is the root cause of all evil in the world."
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.