The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism

You just keep repeating yourself, without backing up the why .... If you want to convince me, demonstrate to me where I'm wrong.

First, I have only an intuitive understanding of what your ABc's mean. You need to sharpen it a bit if you'd like a better critique.

Second, your cat turning into a laser pointer (plus some left over mass and/or energy) isn't an inconceivable natural event, simply a very improbable one. Atoms can be transmuted and moved and molecules rearranged by application of outside forces. One can imagine an advanced civilization arriving and demonstrating their superior technology by doing it. Then one simply leaves them out of the equation and supposes the equivalent exquisitely timed forces arriving from distant space and converging on your cat. Again, it's very, very improbable but not inconceivable.

Third, my intuitive understanding of what you mean by B is that it is the limit of what is possible within the system. The system we're discussing is biological life for which the limit is all possible DNA configurations that can be reached from the initial conditions we infer by the mutations, etc. we know occur in nature. A genome entailing a brain is IMO definitely within the system. What is primarily at issue is the probability of this outcome.

So, to summarize without, I hope simply repeating myself, I reject you assertion that the B in this case excludes the human genome.

First, I have only an intuitive understanding of what your ABc's mean. You need to sharpen it a bit if you'd like a better critique.

Sorry about that. My A<=B is a shorthand for the output <= input statement. And A>B is a shorthand for the output >& input statement.

Second, your cat turning into a laser pointer (plus some left over mass and/or energy) isn't an inconceivable natural event, simply a very improbable one. Atoms can be transmuted and moved and molecules rearranged by application of outside forces. One can imagine an advanced civilization arriving and demonstrating their superior technology by doing it. Then one simply leaves them out of the equation and supposes the equivalent exquisitely timed forces arriving from distant space and converging on your cat. Again, it's very, very improbable but not inconceivable.

Actually, it may be inconceivable. Such as some parts of the laser will most likely shift into energy, which may be lost to the end system (once it's shifted into energy, with the dynamics of matter and energy interaction, it may be impossible for the original energies and matter to be shifted over to the cat from the laser. The cat might come from parts of the laser, but the shift would be incomplete). Not everything is possible. For example, a paradox (which is conceptually possible, but not physically possible, as far as we know by applying the primary premise that that logic works.). Time + events is not a catch-all equation for everything (though it can be for alot of things. But these things must be demonstrated to be valid).

Third, my intuitive understanding of what you mean by B is that it is the limit of what is possible within the system. The system we're discussing is biological life for which the limit is all possible DNA configurations that can be reached from the initial conditions we infer by the mutations, etc. we know occur in nature. A genome entailing a brain is IMO definitely within the system. What is primarily at issue is the probability of this outcome.

Actually, the limits, as far as the evolutionary algorithms I've seen, are an inate part of the system. Probability needs to be coupled with how the information shifts. If we map evolutionary changes, Micro changes can be mapped to a horizontal axis. However, Macro changes are mapped to a vertical axis (in an information increase mapping). Yes, it may be possible, but does information theory allow it? If we have to apply "it's possible, therefore it happend", we're not working with a very solid theory here. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it did happen. Also, just because we might be able to figure out a way to do it doesn't mean nature will do it that way (or even allow it done that way).

Personally, I don't like information theory divorced from Evolution theory. Your explaination gives the what, but not the why (and "it's probable" isn't a very valid why. Science doesn't work like that). It basically meets the form "because it did". I don't accept that. There's a couple of observations I make about Evolution. 1) Micro Evolution works on one information scale, and Macro Evolution requires an extra information scale (the 2 dimensional horizontal and vertical mapping up above). (A<=B is the horizontal mapping, or the increase of existing structure/information. A>B would be the vertical mapping, or addition of structure/information). This I get from my current understanding of information theory. 2) The evolution of creatures (both living and virtual) all falls under the Micro Evolution scale. Our direct observations tell us that Evolution happens along a horizontal scale, keeping within the range of A<=B. Math theory tells us that no matter how many iterations of a function that falls squarely under A<=B you give, you won't be able to shift it to an A>B function (vertical scale, Macro Evolution), unless the function is more then an A<=B function, or if there's a conversion function from A<=B to A>B. In either case, it's up to you to show either 1) The function is more then an A<=B function (through observation. But if you have a theory about how, feel free to share it. However, it won't be valid until it's been demonstrated, like any other theory), or 2) There's a conversion function to change the Micro Evolution A<=B function to an A>B function (also through observation. You can share a theory about it if you have one, but again, it won't be valid until it's demonstrated). To put it in simple terms, it's up to the Evolutionists to prove that Macro Evolution can happen (I won't take assumptions as 'fact', as many Evolutionists around here seem to do. If you don't take Historical Evolution as 'fact', then I have no quarrel with you. I'm quite enjoying this chat).

-The Hajman-

If B grows, it still fits into the set A<=B, and you still don't get Macro Evolution (in fact, the constraints become tighter).

Ah, I see my notation doesn't follow yours. The output grows. And, as edsheppa points out, your final output is the current most evolved system, not the primitive protocell.

However, your rigid adherence to information theory and its current state of development as a final model for evolution is limiting. Life as information is a theory under construction. Darwinian theory can be modeled in a GA. But there's more to evolution than Darwinian theory. Following your last response to edsheppa (and I hope I'm not confusing the subject, as he's perfectly capable of explaining this himself) I want to point out that natural selection in real life works at the level of function unlike natural selection in a GA. When I mentioned constraints above, I meant by that constraints on the information that becomes available or accessible to selection. The most obvious constraints are structural and developmental.

As far as modeling these constraints, progress has been made on individual molecules such as RNA. Given a functioning RNA molecule, random mutations will yield a very limited number of RNA molecules with a new structure that could conceivably be functional and therefore selectable. Negative mutations never make it to a selectable endpoint. Most mutations are carried as neutral. They do not change the structure of the molecule and are carried along successive generations without selective influence. New mutations in subsequent generations eventually lead to either a deleterious endpoint, or a complete structural change. One that carries the organism through it's developmental pathway. Whether it is then carried through the population successfully is a matter of natural selection.

Technically put, natural selection (NS) acts on the topology of phenotype. The GA's are performing NS on the genotype. The phenotype determines the fitness landscape (there's your A) and the genotype-phenotype map determines B, not the genotype alone. With each new phenotypic change, the fitness landscape changes into a completely new space and thus A grows.

i>It doesn't. We still have bacteria, for instance. Once an organism breaks through the fitness constraints into the next space, the equation is no longer A<=B but, instead, is A'<=B' or something else.

I would agree with that. However, what I don't agree with currently is that it demonstrates that it'll lead from a dynamic A<=B constraint into an A>&B constraint. Larger spaces do allow for more, and different, information configuration. And shifting spaces (dynamic spaces) do allow for an even broader range of such configurations (a purely dynamic space will allow for a theoretical infinite number of configurations). In other words, an organism has infinite potential in a natural space environment. However, infinite potential doesn't mean it will (or could) take up a different information space then it first started with (recognizing that the environment space and the information space of the organism, though linked, are seperate). This can be seen in good GA programs (such as those that link AI algorithms with AL). It allows for a dynamic space, but the information space never truely grows. However, the 'organism' potential to adapt to that particular space is unlimited (as far as we can make it). The way I understand it, we're not looking at a one dimensional evolutionary shift. It's easily 2 (or more) dimensions. And an infinite shift and growth in one dimension doesn't necessarily mean a shift or growth in another. I think I understand what you're saying. That as the space changes and grows, then the structure will grow. I agree with this. Also, I agree that both A and B will grow as this happens. However, it appears you're saying that the information space will also grow. This I see as a problem independent of our adaptation to the fitness space. Another dimension in the problem; an extra shift it would need to take. The current evolution algorithms don't disallow this shift as you explain it. It simply doesn't require it, need it, and doesn't seem to lead to it on it's own, and it hasn't been demonstrated (it may not be the scientists fault. Nature might require all that time. However, for whatever reason, it hasn't been demonstrated). This is why I don't put much faith in it. When I read a theory that starts from A and gets to B, I need something to explain how it happens. When an Evolutionist says "It just does", that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their theory. When they say "If you believe in Micro Evolution, you must believe in Macro Evolution", I don't take them very seriously. When the immediate end results of Micro Evolution show a steady state in the information space, and the end results of Macro Evolution show an (obvious) expanded state in the information space, and the Evolutionist claims that the first will lead to the second (with no further explination, and clumping the two together as if there is no difference), my answer is, by necessity, "Prove it". (This is just my rant to show you where I'm comming from. :) At any rate, I think your explaination better explains things then "Micro and Macro Evolution are the same". If you don't mind, I'd like to continue this (for more then one reason. I have an application that I could use a better GA algorithm with). I thank you for this conversation.

There are numerous paralogous and homologous structures in extant species which provide examples.

Liiiikkke...?

You also see, I trust, that this largely explains the discontinuity between species.

It could. But the simplier explination for many is that their not related. This isn't to say they arn't related. It just says it's not required for them to be.

-The Hajman-

I would agree with that. However, what I don't agree with currently is that it demonstrates that it'll lead from a dynamic A<=B constraint into an A>&B constraint. Larger spaces do allow for more, and different, information configuration. And shifting spaces (dynamic spaces) do allow for an even broader range of such configurations (a purely dynamic space will allow for a theoretical infinite number of configurations). In other words, an organism has infinite potential in a natural space environment. However, infinite potential doesn't mean it will (or could) take up a different information space then it first started with (recognizing that the environment space and the information space of the organism, though linked, are seperate).

If it’s physically possible, what prevents it from happening? What is the barrier to the transfer of information?

Information is conserved in a global sense.

This can be seen in good GA programs (such as those that link AI algorithms with AL). It allows for a dynamic space, but the information space never truely grows.

This is true for a closed system. In life, organisms don’t function as closed systems.

However, the 'organism' potential to adapt to that particular space is unlimited (as far as we can make it). The way I understand it, we're not looking at a one dimensional evolutionary shift. It's easily 2 (or more) dimensions. And an infinite shift and growth in one dimension doesn't necessarily mean a shift or growth in another. I think I understand what you're saying. That as the space changes and grows, then the structure will grow. I agree with this. Also, I agree that both A and B will grow as this happens. However, it appears you're saying that the information space will also grow. This I see as a problem independent of our adaptation to the fitness space. Another dimension in the problem; an extra shift it would need to take. The current evolution algorithms don't disallow this shift as you explain it. It simply doesn't require it, need it, and doesn't seem to lead to it on it's own, and it hasn't been demonstrated (it may not be the scientists fault. Nature might require all that time. However, for whatever reason, it hasn't been demonstrated).

GA’s are rather limited. Interesting things begin to happen when they can interact with each other. A bit like cellular automata. GA’s are designed to vary the description of solutions to a particular problem. It’s easy to see that evolution doesn’t work this way. And just because GA’s don’t generate novel information, this doesn’t mean that life can’t. Artificial intelligence, for instance doesn’t duplicate the human brain. This doesn’t mean that theories about human cognition are wrong. It rather means they are incomplete. Or that the capability to implement all theories simultaneously don’t yet exist.

When the immediate end results of Micro Evolution show a steady state in the information space, and the end results of Macro Evolution show an (obvious) expanded state in the information space, and the Evolutionist claims that the first will lead to the second (with no further explination, and clumping the two together as if there is no difference), my answer is, by necessity, "Prove it". (This is just my rant to show you where I'm comming from. :) At any rate, I think your explaination better explains things then "Micro and Macro Evolution are the same".

In a very trivial sense, they are the same. The biological processes, such as natural selection, play a role at each level. And micro changes lead to macro changes. I usually object to the claim that micro + time=macro. I use the example of an ant colony, which exhibits an ordered behavior when viewed from a macro perspective. And, like CA’s the individual ants are simply using preprogrammed responses to their environment for their seemingly collective behavior. Yet, the difference between an organized colony and a disorganized group of ants is not one of time. It’s ant density. And it’s probably related to the concentration of olfactory stimuli in the local environment.

There are some obvious fundamentally different processes which work at the species or population level which don’t work at the genetic level. Some pecies extinctions, for example, can be traced to catastrophic climactic events. On the other hand, some micro changes can lead to instant macro events. Small mutations in switch and control genes, like the homeobox genes, lead to massive body plan changes. Speciation in some fruit flies, for instance, can be traced to single point mutations in gamete recognition proteins. There’s your proof – however, when speaking of macro, I suspect you aren’t speaking of speciation events but of the invention of novel function. And, of course, this can also be traced to changes at the micro level. In fact, this is done in the laboratory in the generation of peptides and RNAs with novel functional features.

I’m curious as to where you draw the line of distinction between possible micro evolution and impossible macro evolution. Aside from my assumptions above, what is your definition of macroevolution? As to the relatedness between organisms, why does genetic and morphological similarity imply a relationship within a species but not between species?

The problem is, "God did it" doesn't explain anything. It doesn't lead to knowledge. When the obvious next question, "how did God do it?" comes along, the only answer religion can offer is "God works in mysterious ways."

Science can't accept religious "mystery" as an answer. At most and best, such mystery describes a state of non-knowledge. It really means "I don't know," but the religionist is too proud to make that admission.

Certainly that is one problem. There is another, probably worse. From the tone of your reply, I suspect that you have made the same choice that Lewontin did: "...we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door..." Here is the problem: suppose that there is a God and that He did create the world (not necessarily in six days, etc.) In this case what can we say about any scientific theory based in part on the axiom "No god was involved in the origin of the universe or of life"? We can say this: That scientific theory will probably never get close to the truth about origins.

But most scientists are too proud to make that admission.

To anyone who understands science, it is obvious that science does not have all the answers. It is only about coming up with better answers. Newton's physics was better than Aristotle's, and Einstein's better than Newton's.

Apples and oranges. The physics you are writing of here speaks only of the laws governing the interactions of physical objects. The theories are mathematical in formulation and are of necessity only approximations of what will usually happen in the physical universe. A theory that gives closer approximations in all cases is clearly "better" than the theory to which it is being compared.

And even if God performs a miracle that contradicts the "laws" of physics, such as causing the Earth to stop revolving for a time, this would not weaken the "laws" of physics. We would expect them to continue working except when overridden...

Parts of biology are like this, giving close approximations to what will usually happen in the physical universe. However, when a person claims that "event X occurred 100 million years ago" this is a different situation. We cannot directly know whether X did occur or not. All we can do is to try to interpret the evidence that remains 100 million years later, and judge our interpretations according to whether or not they are consistent with (and not too improbable under) the "laws" of physics, chemistry, molecular biology, etc.

However, if event X were actually a "divine intervention," or if there were at least one "divine intervention" occurring between event X and the present, not only would it be possible for all these interpretations to be wrong, it would be possible that any system consistent with "God does not intervene" would never be able to approach the truth about event X. Such a system might give "answers" better than other systems for natural present-day events, but might be completely unable to approach the truth about the past.

Darwin's biology is better than that of Moses. Darwin went in search of knowledge, while Moses got lost for 40 years. Is it such a problem to admit that Moses really didn't know what he was talking about when he said plants appeared before the sun did? It was three thousand years ago, and he had all that politicking to do with his Hebrews and that Pharoah guy. Biology wasn't his strong point. Maybe Moses didn't write it. Whoever did, got it wrong. Now we know better.

Straw man. You apparently believe that without the sun, plants could not live. As far as I know, most plants require only soil, water, atmosphere, proper temperature range, and enough light. In the present time we see the sun providing the warmth and light. If the sun were removed, we would naturally expect the plants to die.

However, if an omnipotent God is at work, all that is required is His will that the plants live. If He commanded them to live, they would live: without light, without heat, without air, without water. God could cause plants to grow and flourish on a neutron star. Of course, according to Moses, there was already soil (firmament), water, and light. In fact, there was light before there were stars. Not enough light for plants? Why not? And since neither the air nor heat were mentioned specifically in creation, it is unclear why we must assume that anything necessary for plants was lacking...

But if we assume the nonexistence or the nonintervention of God, I guess we may "know better"...

Except those who insist, "God did it through mysterious ways." That is their answer: their single, useless, tired, incompetent answer to every question. It isn't that science has a prior commitment to "materialism" so much as it has a prior commitment to knowledge. Religion's mystery answer just does not provide any knowledge.

Straw man again. If God ever directly causes anything to happen, you won't know how unless He reveals it to you. I believe you have already made the assumption that this never happens. (Interesting, because if that were true, then science could never prove it!) Actually a weaker axiom would suffice: "God has never yet intervened in a way that would produce scientifically misleading evidence." However, I belive that most Evolutionists take the stronger "God never intervenes" or the strongest "There is no God." This is the prior commitment to materialism. Lewontin was more honest than you have been in this conversation.

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.