Stephen C. Meyer Article: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington ^ | January 26, 2005 | Stephen C. Meyer

[Thatcherite]

I am referring to the quantum basis of systems living or non-living.

I am all agog! What is "the quantum basis of systems living or non-living"?

[WildTurkey]

Both statments are true.

[Thatcherite]

Exactly how does evolution fail to be properly classified as science? As a theory it explains the observed facts (millions upon millions of them); it makes numerous successful predictions (many of which were not common-sense obvious when first predicted); and many potentially falsifying observations have confirmed it rather than falsifying it. No scientific theory can say more than that, and there is no higher status in science for an explanation of "how things work" than "theory".

[PatrickHenry]

... making Christians look stupid.

I think you've said that quite enough for one thread.

[b_sharp]

"I am all agog! What is "the quantum basis of systems living or non-living"?"

It's either 'They act as both a particle and a wave' or 'If you put them in a box you can't tell if they are dead or alive'

No, I've got it! You can't step into the same photon stream twice.

[Thatcherite]

Its true, Schroedinger should take better care of his cat.

[DannyTN]

"---though, on this site, I'm sure that there are many who believe they have the "War of Northern Aggression" down to a pretty exact "science!"

Yep, and the cause was "Damn Yankees". That's a scientific fact.

[shubi]

LOL You know with creationists you can say something true and repeat it and they will still come back with the same refuted nonsense again.

I am just attempting to preempt more nonsense. Hope springs eternal...

[shubi]

That analogy is about as mismatched as any I have ever seen.

[balrog666]

I am all agog! What is "the quantum basis of systems living or non-living"?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."

[WildTurkey]

LOL You know with creationists you can say something true and repeat it and they will still come back with the same refuted nonsense again.

This "ID" nonsense is similarlary hash from decades ago. I still can't fathom what goes on in the mind of a YEC'er to allow him to find credibility in those arguments that DON'T support the YEC lunacy.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I said: A metaphor for what your correspondents are saying is that Einstein's theory of relavity was not complex because it was written on paper with ink.

The proteins and genes are complex - not because of the bio/chemistry - but because of (a) the semiosis - the language itself and the encoding/decoding of it (b) the autonomy of the information/semiosis by organism and species, (c) the functions integrated within the whole organism towards the singular purpose, the will to live and (d) the permeation of both the information and the will to live in the biosphere and/or universe!

b_sharp replied: Alamo-Girl, did you forget to mention the energy crystals and copper bracelets?

you replied: So you say, but the post to which b_sharp was replying read like a completely nutty piece of new-age mysticism. Perhaps that wasn't your intention but it wasn't just b_s who noticed it.

I've not come across this considered-to-be-mysterious "will to live" thing before, and now it has appeared at least twice in one thread. Resources are limited, organisms which struggle for existence will tend to displace those that don't struggle. All modern living things are descended from a line of millions of successful reproducers in a world where there will never be enough resources for most organisms to manage that. Call it the evolutionary tautology if you will (survival of the fittest, where the fittest are those who survive). Why is that presented as some kind of metaphysical mystery?

The “will to live” is not a new subject on the forum; moreover, it is a subject of current scientific investigation due to its field-like property. Here is a brief description of the "will to live" from post 40 of the Does Science Point to God? thread:

The “will to live” permeates the entire biosphere and perhaps the entire universe. For that reason, we assert that it is field-like (existing in all points of space/time). It is observed in plants and animals, in creatures which go into dormant phases of their life cycle. It is observed in the simplest of life forms (cell intelligence, amoeba). It is also observed in collectives of organisms which act as if one mind (ants, bees, etc.). The “will to live” also permeates throughout the molecular machinery of higher organisms. For instance, if a part of the heart dies (myocardial infarction) – the molecular machinery will continue to struggle to survive, routing blood flow around the dead tissue. A person can be “brain dead” and yet the rest of the body will struggle to survive and will succeed if a machine (respirator) is used to simulate the cyclic instruction of the brain.

The "will to live" is the subject of a new article, Can the Monist View Explain “What Is Life?, which was written in response to discussion from a previous thread: Behe Jumps the Shark beginning around post 492 and continuing to the end. As js1138 suggests, the "will to live" is related to a prior investigation of abiogenesis On Plato thread, post 491 is a status and summary of the investigation.

Of course, all of the above threads are populated with authoritative source articles, excerpts and links - rigorous debates and arguments such as yours, counter-arguments, etc.

For Lurkers interested in broaching the subject of the “will to live” - here are some articles to introduce the concepts of semiosis, autonomy, complexity and information theory:

H H Pattee: The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut

Luis Rocha: Syntactic Autonomy: Or Why There is no Autonomy Without Symbols and how Self-Organizing Systems Might Evolve Them

Tom Schneider: Theory of Molecular Machines

Chris Adami: Information Theory and Molecular Biology

NECSI: Complex Systems (two basic types of complexity)

Complexity is ...[the abstract notion of complexity has been captured in many different ways. Most, if not all of these, are related to each other and they fall into two classes of definitions]:

1) ...the (minimal) length of a description of the system.

2) ...the (minimal) amount of time it takes to create the system.

The length of a description is measured in units of information. The former definition is closely related to Shannon information theory and algorithmic complexity, and the latter is related to computational complexity.

NIST: Kolmogorov Complexity

Wikipedia: Cellular Automata (aka Self-Organizing Complexity)

Adami: Physical Complexity

NECSI: Functional Complexity

Wikipedia: Irreducible Complexity

Specified Complexity

Principia Cybernetica: Metatransition (a kind of punctuated equilibrium)

[Dimensio]

You mean you do not find Meyers credible. Thank goodness!

He finds Meyers credible in that Meyers does not accept evolution, therefore the extent of Meyers's work that opposes evolution is credible UNTIL it starts to suggest an old earth, at which point it becomes non-credible.

See, to a young-earth creationist, any work that could potentially be used or even twisted to make an argument against evolution is completely and totally credible, however as soon as it is used to support an old earth, it becomes invalid and bad science.

Similarly, to an old-earth creationist, any anti-evolution work that claims a young earth is credible insofar as it discounts evolution, but only that far,e ven if the attempt to discredit evolution is directly tied the claims of a young earth (or, in the case of YECs mining material, claims of an old earth).

I'm reminded of the "He's not Bush" claims used as supporting "arguments" for Kerry's candidacy.

[shubi]

It does seem like a form of insanity. This cognitive dissonance seems to be caused by the fear of losing friends in their church. It is also partly from the misinterpretation of some passages on the Bible on "agreement".

Christians are supposed to agree on the basics, like the Nicene Creed. The creationist conmen use this to cleverly distort the Gospel into their own cultish dogma.

I went to a church to see what it was like yesterday. They happened to have a guest speaker affiliated with the Discovery Institute there. He made creation a cornerstone for the Gospel in a convoluted yet cleverly couched speech, using a power point presentation. I think many of the people in this wealthy suburban church were not fooled, but the church as a whole seems to be led by idiots who believe this crapola.

It is sad.

[b_sharp]

I hope she realizes that at the quantum level there is no difference between the living and the non-living. Even if they are brain eaters. :)

Even though there is no distinct dividing line between what is considered alive and what is not when you get to the point of viruses, prions and the discussion of when life starts at abiogenesis, many feel that there is a mystic 'something' that invests the living with properties not seen in the non living. (the soul?)

This is probably why most have a difficult time understanding how life can come from non-life at the time of abiogenesis. This is also why creationists bring up the impossibility of life from non-life as determined by Pasteur even though the two systems are not related in any way.

[Thatcherite]

Even though there is no distinct dividing line between what is considered alive and what is not when you get to the point of viruses, prions and the discussion of when life starts at abiogenesis, many feel that there is a mystic 'something' that invests the living with properties not seen in the non living. (the soul?)

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Some are desperate that "aliveness" or "the will to live" or "the soul" should NOT be an emergent phenomenon of the laws of physical nature applied to complex colections of organic molecules (eg human beings) or indeed some hypothetical future AI construct of silicon and metal running a vastly complex piece of software.

[WildTurkey]

It is sad. The YEC'ers say that the bible must be literally interpreted, except for those passages that must be figuratively interpreted because they conflict with other passages or conflict with know facts ...

[DannyTN]

"ID is nonsense that is a pipsqueak trying to pick a fight with Superman as science. ID makes Christians look stupid."

What makes Christians look stupid is:

• Believing part of the scriptures and not all of them.
• Twisting scriptures to avoid a plain and clear meaning.
• Denying the power of God.
• Believing the conclusions and reasoning of man over what God has told us.
• Ignoring prophecy like 2 Peter 3, that said we would forget the flood and creation because we would assume that all things continued like they have from the beginning.

God has demonstrated the ability to heal instantly (Moses, Lepers, Guard's ear), to make sick instantly, to raise bodies from the dead after they've begun to stink (Lazarus), to control the weather, to control the movement of the planets and stars (Joshua's long day, Bethlehem star).

So there is absolutely no reason to assume God needed long ages or evolution to create man or animals.

The scientific evidence in support of evolution is not strong.

• When looked at objectively, the Cambrian explosion is strong evidence of Creation not evolution.
• The lack of transition fossils is strong evidence of Creation not evolution. Lining up Species going extinct and genetic disease are consistent with a cursed earth.
• The idea that human's with tool making ability were around for 2,000,000 years or 200,000 years and didn't progress and didn't leave hardly any trace is simply not credible.

The scientific evidence of an old earth and universe is stronger, however:

• We have identified problems with every dating technique. And they all rely on starting assumptions that we have no way at present to verify. Except that the starting assumption for K-Ar dating was recently proved false. No telling what impact that would have on current theories, if there was a way to go back and rethink everthing without relying on K-Ar dates.
• There's a proof out there that the lead used to date the meteorites and thus the solar system could not have come from decayed Uranium in the meteorite itself. But the meteorites continued to be quoted as proof of the age of the earth.
• Speed of Light is admittedly a problem for the age of the universe. But that doesn't mean there aren't alternative explanations. Including: Changes in the speed of light, or temporal differences affecting the creation week, propigation rates through space, and/or the distinct possibility that there were no stars on the third day and that God changed the past on the fourth day in order for starlight to arrive on time.
• It is not deceptive for God to use his powers if He has a reaon to do so. And He does not have to give us the reasons for having done so. In most cases, He does, but in some He doesn't for His own reasons, which probably include that He didn't want man to advance too fast. (Babel)

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Authur C. Clark

• What we do today with remote controls,cars, microwaves, flight would seem to be magic to someone of 300 years ago.
• What God does today and has done in the past appears to be magic to us still. And I don't think it makes us look stupid to take that into consideration.

[DannyTN]

Correction... Lining up... variants of existing species and even extinct species and assuming common ancestors is nothing more than an assumption.

...Species going extinct and genetic disease are consistent with a cursed earth.

[Thatcherite]

See what a can of worms you open up with this "will to live" thing...

Here are some hypotheticals for you that I am sure you will intellectually enjoy:

Would you consider a digital computer that could pass the Turing Test to be alive?

What if it also had the physical capability to make more copies of itself? (by mining minerals, refining them etc etc...) ie Would a Von Neumann machine that could also pass the Turing Test be alive in your opinion?

For each of these questions if not, why not? If so then why?

Would it be moral to turn such a machine off once it was running? Would you be able to make yourself do so if the machine used its output device to beg you to leave it running?

What if the machine looked just like a human and was largely constructed from organic parts, with just a digital "brain"?

Depending on your answers to these questions, where does that leave your "life force"?