The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

self | January 26, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

By Jean F. Drew

“The commonly cited case for intelligent design appeals to: (a) the irreducible complexity of (b) some aspects of life. But complex arguments invite complex refutations (valid or otherwise), and the claim that only some aspects of life are irreducibly complex implies that others are not, and so the average person remains unconvinced. Here I use another principle—autopoiesis (self-making)—to show that all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations. Autopoiesis provides a compelling case for intelligent design in three stages: (i) autopoiesis is universal in all living things, which makes it a pre-requisite for life, not an end product of natural selection; (ii) the inversely-causal, information-driven, structured hierarchy of autopoiesis is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry; and (iii) there is an unbridgeable abyss between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environmental and the perfectly-pure, single-molecule precision of biochemistry.”

So begins Alex Williams’ seminal article, Life’s Irreducible Structure — Autopoiesis, Part 1. In the article, Williams seeks to show that all living organisms are constituted by a five-level structured hierarchy that cannot be wholly accounted for in terms of naturalistic explanation. Rather, Williams’ model places primary emphasis on the successful transmission and communication of relevant biological information.

Note here that, so far, science has not identified any naturalistic source for “information” within the universe, biological or otherwise. And yet it appears that living organisms remain living only so long as they are “successfully communicating” information. When that process stops, the organism dies; i.e., becomes subject to the second law of thermodynamics — the consequences of which the now-deceased organism had managed to optimally distance itself from while alive.

Evidently Williams finds Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity arguments insufficiently general to explain biological complexity and organization, and so seeks a different explanation to generically characterize the living organism. Yet his proposed autopoietic model — of the “self-making,” i.e., self-maintaining or self-organizing and therefore living system — itself happens to be irreducibly complex. That is to say, on Williams’ model, any biological organism from microbe to man must be understood as a complete, functioning “whole,” transcending in the most profound way any definition of a particular organism as the “mere” sum of its constituting “material” parts.

Further, the idea of the “whole” must come prior to an understanding of the nature and function of the constituting parts. Williams terms this idea of the “whole” as inversely causal meta-information; as such, it is what determines the relations and organization of all the parts that constitute that “whole” of the living organism — a biological system in nature.

Just one further word before we turn to Williams’ autopoietic model. To begin with the supposition of “wholeness” flies in the face of methodological naturalism, the currently favored model of scientific investigation, and arguably the heart of Darwinist evolutionary theory. For methodological naturalism is classical and mechanistic (i.e., “Newtonian”) in its basic presuppositions: Among other things, it requires that all causation be “local.” Given this requirement, it makes sense to regard the “whole is merely the sum of its parts” as a valid statement — those parts being given to human understanding as the objects of direct observation of material events. The presumption here is that, given enough time, the piling up of the parts (i.e., of the “material events”) will eventually give you the description of the whole. Meanwhile, we all should just be patient. For centuries if need be, as a collaborator once suggested to me (in regard to abiogenesis. See more below).

Yet subsequent to classical physics came the astonishing revelations of relativity and quantum theory, both of which point to “non-local” causation. The transmission of information across widely spatially-separated regions (from the point of view of the biological organism as an extended body in time) so as to have causative effect in the emergence of biological life and its functions is decidedly a “non-local” phenomenon. Indeed, non-local causation seems ubiquitous, all-pervasive in the living state of biological organisms, as we shall see in what follows.

Williams’ Autopoietic Model
Williams lays out the five-level, autopoietic hierarchy specifying the living system this way (parenthetical notes added):

(i) components with perfectly pure composition (i.e., pure elements)
(ii) components with highly specific structure (i.e., molecules)
(iii) components that are functionally integrated (i.e., components work cooperatively toward achieving a purpose or goal)
(iv) comprehensively regulated information-driven processes (DNA, RNA)
(v) inversely-causal meta-informational strategies for individual and species survival (we’ll get to this in a minute)

Pictorially, the model lays out like this:

Figure 1 summarizes the five-level, hierarchical specification of any living organism, microbe to man. But how do we get a handle on what this hierarchy actually means?

An interesting way to look at the problem, it seems to me, is to look at the available potential “information content” of each of the five “levels” or “manifolds” of the hierarchy.

You’ll note that Figure 1 depicts an ascending arrow on the left labeled “complexity.” For our present purposes, we’ll define this as “algorithmic complexity,” understood as a function that maximally yields “information content.” If we can find complexity measures to plug into the model, we might gain additional insight thereby.

Fortunately, algorithmic complexity measures have been obtained for certain levels of the hierarchy; i.e., Level (i) and Levels (iv) and possibly Level (v). For the latter two, the measures were taken with respect to the living human being. Figure 1 can thus be expanded as follows:

Notes to Figure 2:

¹ Gregory Chaitin: “My paper on physics was never published, only as an IBM report. In it I took: Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s laws, the Schrödinger equation, and Einstein’s field equations for curved spacetime near a black hole, and solved them numerically, giving ‘motion-picture’ solutions. The programs, which were written in an obsolete computer programming language APL2 at roughly the level of Mathematica, were all about half a page long, which is amazingly simple.”

On this basis, Chaitin has pointed out that the complexity we observe in living systems cannot be accounted for on the basis of the chemical and physical laws alone, owing to the paucity of their information content.

² George Gilder: “In each of the some 300 trillion cells in every human body, the words of life churn almost flawlessly through our flesh and nervous system at a speed that utterly dwarfs the data rates of all the world’s supercomputers. For example, just to assemble some 500 amino-acid units into each of the trillions of complex hemoglobin molecules that transfer oxygen from the lungs to bodily tissues takes a total of some 250 peta operations per second. (The word “peta” refers to the number ten to the 15th power — so this tiny process requires 250 x 10¹⁵ operations.)

A Word about Abiogenesis
Darwin’s evolutionary theory does not deal with the origin of life. It takes life for granted, and then asks how it speciates. Moreover, the theory does not elaborate a description of the constitution of the individual living organism, such as Williams’ irreducibly complex/autopoietic (“IC/AP”) model proposes.

It’s important to recognize that neither Darwin’s theory, nor Williams’ model, deals with the origin of life. It seems to me that evolution theory and ID are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. One deals with the species level, the other the biological structure of living individuals, the “building blocks” of species, as it were.

Yet there is tremendous hostility towards intelligent design on the part of many orthodox evolutionary biologists, which has gotten so bad in recent times that the more doctrinaire Darwinists have run to the courts for “protection” of their cherished beliefs (and interests personal and institutional), insisting that ID “is not science.” Judges are not scientists; in general they are ill-equipped to make judgments “on the merits” of scientific controversies. Yet they render judgments all the same, with profound implications for how science is to be taught. I fail to see how this redounds to the benefit of scientific progress.

If science is defined as materialist and naturalist in its fundamental presuppositions — the currently-favored methodological naturalism — then ID does not meet the test of “what is science?” For it does not restrict itself to the material, the physical, but extends its model to information science, which is immaterial. The problem for Darwinists seems to be that there is no known source of biological information within Nature as classically understood (i.e., as fundamentally Newtonian — materialist and mechanistic in three dimensions).

The problem of abiogenesis goes straight to the heart of this issue. Abiogensis is a hypothesis holding that life spontaneously arises from inert, non-living matter under as-yet unknown conditions. Although evolution theory does not deal with the problem of the origin of life, many evolutionary biologists are intrigued by the problem, and want to deal with it in a manner consistent with Darwinian methods; i.e., the presuppositions of methodological naturalism, boosted by random mutation and natural selection. That is, to assume that life “emerges” from the “bottom-up” — from resources available at Levels (i) and (ii) of the IC/AP model.

There have been numerous experiments, most of which have taken the form of laboratory simulations of “lightning strikes” on a properly prepared chemical “soup” (e.g., Urey, Miller, et al.). At least one such experiment managed to produce amino acids — fundamental building blocks of life (at the (ii) level of Williams’ hierarchy). But amino acids are not life. On Williams’ model, to be “life,” they’d need to have achieved at least the threshold of Level (iii).

For it is the presence of “functionally-integrated components” that makes life possible, that sustains the living organism in its very first “duty”: That it will, along the entire extension of its complete biological make-up (whether simple or highly complex), globally organize its component systems in such a way as to maximally maintain the total organism’s “distance” from thermodynamic entropy. An “organism” that couldn’t do that wouldn’t last as an “organism” for very long.

And so in order for the materialist interpretation of abiogenesis to be true, the “chemical soup” experimental model would have to demonstrate how inorganic matter manages to “exempt” itself from one of the two most fundamental laws of Nature: the second law of thermodynamics.

From cells on up through species, all biological organisms — by virtue of their participation in Levels (i) and (ii) — are subject to the second law right from creation. Indeed, they are subject to it throughout their life spans. A friend points out that the second law is a big arguing point for Macroevolutionists, who try to argue that the second law is irrelevent, i.e., doesn’t apply to living systems, because “it only applies to closed systems and not to open ones.” Thus they say that living systems in nature are “open” systems. But what this line of reasoning does not tell us is what such systems are “open” to.

And yet we know that every cell is subject to the second law — simply by needing to fuel itself, it subjects itself to the effects of entropy, otherwise known as heat death. And although it can and does stave off such effects for a while, doing so requires the cell or species constantly to deal with maintaining distance from entropy in all its living functional components, organized globally. Entropy plays a big part in all life — from cells to completed species.

When the successful communication of meta-information begins to slow down and break down, cells and species then begin to succumb to the effects of entropy, to which they have been subjected all their entire life. This is because they can no longer combat, or stay ahead of the “entropy curve,” due to inefficient communication processes and, thus, degradation of the maintenance procedures communicated to the cells via the meta-information system that is specific to each particular biological entity and to each particular species. After all, any species description is necessarily an informed description.

Yet another origin-of-life approach — the Wimmer abiogenesis experiment — is highly instructive. He managed to “create” a polio virus. He did so by introducing RNA information into a “cell-free juice,” and the polio virus spontaneously resulted.

Wimmer used actual DNA to synthesize polio RNA based on information about the polio virus RNA which is widely available, even on the internet. The RNA information was truly “pulled” from the DNA, which “resides” at the next-higher level. He could not synthesize RNA directly; he first had to synthesize the DNA from the raw information and then synthesize the polio RNA from the synthetic DNA.

Yet RNA information, like all information, is immaterial. In terms of the Williams’ hierarchy, clearly Wimmer had obtained an organism functioning at about Level (iii) — because it had sufficient information to propel it to that level, as “pulled” by the information available at the next-higher level where DNA information “resides” — Level (iv).

Unlike biological organisms expressing all five levels of the Williams model, the polio virus, though fully autonomous as an information processor (leading to its “successful communication” in Wimmer’s laboratory), somehow still doesn’t have everything it needs to be fully “autonomous” as a living being. A virus, for instance, is dependent on a living host in order to execute its own life program. As such, it is a sort of “quasi-life.” Shannon Information Theory helps us to clarify such distinctions.

Before we turn to Shannon, it’s worth mentioning that, according to H. H. Pattee and Luis Rocha, the issue of autonomy (and semiosis — the language and the ability to encode/decode messages) is a huge stumbling block to abiogenesis theory. For that kind of complexity to emerge by self-organizing theory, in the RNA world, the organism would have to involuntarily toggle back and forth between non-autonomous and autonomous modes, first to gather, and then to make use of information content as an autonomous living entity. The question then becomes: What tells it how and when to “toggle?” Further, it appears the source of the information content that can toggle non-life into life remains undisclosed.

Shannon Information Theory
The DNA of any individual life form is exactly the same whether the organism is dead or alive. And we know this, for DNA is widely used and proved reliable in forensic tests of decedents in criminal courts of law. And so we propose:

Information is that which distinguishes life from non-life/death.

Information, paraphrased as “successful communication,” is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in a receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. It is the action which facilitates any successfully completed communication. Thus Shannon’s model describes the universal “mechanism” of communication. That is, it distinguishes between the “content” of a message and its “conduit”: The model is indifferent to the actual message being communicated, which could be anything, from “Don’t forget to put your boots on today — it’s snowing,” to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The value or meaning of the message being transmitted has no bearing on the Shannon model, which is the same for all messages whatever. Pictorially, the Shannon communication conduit looks like this:

Information is further defined by its independence from physical determination:

“I came to see that the computer offers an insuperable obstacle to Darwinian materialism. In a computer, as information theory shows, the content is manifestly independent of its material substrate. No possible knowledge of a computer’s materials can yield any information whatsoever about the actual content of its computations. In the usual hierarchy of causation, they reflect the software or ‘source code’ used to program the device; and, like the design of the computer itself, the software is contrived by human intelligence.

“The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of ‘news.’ Information is defined by its independence from physical determination: If it is determined, it is predictable and thus by definition not information. Yet Darwinian science seemed to be reducing all nature to material causes.” — George Gilder, “Evolution and Me,” National Review, July 17, 2006, p. 29f.

Referring to the Shannon diagram above, we can interpret the various elements of the model in terms of biological utility, as follows:

Note the head, “noise.” Biologically speaking, with respect to the fully-integrated, five-leveled biological organism, “noise” in the channel might be introduced by certain biological “enigmas,” which broadly satisfy the requirements of Williams’ model and, thus, are living organisms. Shannon Information Theory describes such “enigmas” as follows:

Bacteria — typified by autonomous successful communication; bacteria are single-cell organisms. Because they are autonomous entities, communications follow the normal flow in Shannon theory — source, message, encoder/transmitter, channel, decoder/receiver. The bacteria’s messages are not “broadcast” to other nearby bacteria but are autonomous to the single-cell organism.

Bacterial Spores — typified by autonomous successful communication. Bacterial spores, such as anthrax, are like other bacteria except they can settle into a dormant state. Dormant bacterial spores begin regular successful communication under the Shannon model once an “interrupt” has occurred, for instance the presence of food. Anthrax, for instance, may lay dormant for years until breathed into a victim’s lungs, whereupon it actively begins its successful albeit destructive (to its host) communication, which often leads to the death of its host; i.e., the bacterium’s “food source.”

Mycoplasmas — typified as an autonomous bacterial model parasite successfully communicating. Mycoplasmas are akin to bacteria except they lack an outer membrane and so often attach to other cells, whereby they may cause such events as, for instance, the disease pneumonia. In the Shannon model, mycoplasmas are considered “autonomous” in that the communications are often restricted to the mycoplasma itself; e.g., self-reproduction. But because they also act like a parasite, they might alter the host’s properties and thus result in malfunctions in the autonomous communication of the host by, for instance, interfering with the channel.

Mimivirus — typified as an autonomous virus model parasite successfully communicating. Mimiviruses are gigantic viruses. They are viruses because they are parasites to their host, relying on the host for protein engineering. But the mimiviruses (unlike regular viruses) apparently do not need to be a parasite, and thus they are “autonomous” with regard to the Shannon model. But like the mycoplasmas, the presence of mimiviruses can alter properties of the host and thereby result in malfunctions in the autonomous communications of the host by, for instance, interfering with the channel.

Viroids — typified as non-autonomous virus-like noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication. Viroids have no protein coat. They are single strands of RNA that lack the protein coat of regular viruses. They are noise in the channel under the Shannon model; i.e., messages only that are not communicated autonomously within the viroids themselves. They can also be seen as “broadcast” messages, because viroids may cause their own message (RNA) to be introduced into the host.

Viruses — typified as non-autonomous virus noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication. Viruses feed genetic data to the host. They are strands of DNA or RNA that have a protein coat. Viruses are parasites to the host, relying on the host for communication; e.g., reproduction. In the Shannon model, viruses are either noise or broadcasts that are not autonomous in the virus and appear as noise messages to the host. It is possible that, unlike the polio virus which is destructive, there may be some viruses (and viroids) whose messages cause a beneficial adaptation in the host.

Prions — typified as non-autonomous protein noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication (protein crystallization). Prions are protein molecules that have neither DNA nor RNA. Currently, prions are the suspected cause of bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Mad Cow Disease. In the Shannon model, prions would be incoherent in the channel because they have no discernable message; that is, neither DNA nor RNA. Thus the prion would lead to channel or decoding malfunctions.

So far there is no known origin for information (successful communication) in space/time. This should be visualized as activity represented by the arrows on the above illustration. Possible origins include a universal vacuum field, harmonics, geometry.

Shannon’s mathematical theory of communications applied to molecular biology shows genuine promise of having some significant implications for the theory of natural selection in explaining the rise of information (successful communication), autonomy, and semiosis (language, encoding/decoding). — S. Venable, J. Drew, “Shannon Information and Complex Systems Theory,” Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy, Lulu Press, 2006, p. 207f.

It seems worthwhile to note here that, under Shannon’s model, the thermodynamic “tab” is paid when the “molecular machine” goes from the before state to the after state. At that moment, it dissipates heat into the surroundings. Level (v) meta-information successfully communicated to the organism provides it with strategies to counter and compensate for local thermodynamic effects. Ultimately, when the organism reaches a state in which it is no longer successfully communicating, the entropy tab must be paid by ordinary means. And so eventually, the living organism dies.

Putting Williams’ IC/AP Model into Context
So far, the autopoietic model — though it provides an excellent description of the information flows necessary to establish and maintain an organism in a “living state” — seems to be a bit of an abstraction. Indeed, in order to be fully understood, the model needs to be placed into the context in which it occurs — that is, in Nature.

Each living entity as described by the model is a part and participant in a far greater “whole.” Niels Bohr put it this way: “A scientific analysis of parts cannot disclose the actual character of a living organism because that organism exists only in relation to the whole of biological life.” Including the species-specific meta-information unique to any particular species, which also controls and dictates how the entire biological system works as a “whole”; i.e., at the global level. And arguably, not only in relation to the entirety of biological life, but to the physical forces of nature, to inorganic entities, and to other biological beings, including the “enigmas” described above, which appear to be a sort of “quasi-life.” For even though they may be autonomous communicators, some of these “quasi-life” examples suggest an organic state that is somehow not “sufficiently informed” to stand on its own; i.e., they exemplify a state that needs to latch onto a fully-functioning biological entity in order to complete their own “program” for life — the very definition of a parasite.

The single most telling point that Williams’ model makes is that information is vital to the living state; that it flows “downward” from the “top” of his model — Level (v), meta-information — and not from the “bottom” of the model flowing “upwards” by the incremental means characterizing Levels (i) and (ii) — not to mention orthodox Darwinist expectation. On this model, Levels (i) and (ii) “do not know how to fit themselves” into the “biological picture.” For that, they need the information available at Levels (iii) to (v).

Many questions relevant to our exploration of the fundaments of biology have not been touched on in this article — e.g., what is the meaning of “emergence?” What is the manner in which “complexification” takes place in nature? What do we mean by “open” and “closed” systems? What do we mean by “self-ordered” or “self-organizing” systems in nature? (And what does the prefix “self” mean with respect to such questions?)

But since we’re out of time, we won’t be dealing with such problems here and now, though I hope we may return to them later. Instead, I’ll leave you, dear reader, with yet another depiction of Figure 1, this time elaborated to show the total context in which the irreducibly complex, autopoietic model is embedded:

Note the model now sits, not only with respect to its natural environment, but also with respect to the quantum domain of pure potentiality, and also with respect to a (proposed) extra-mundane source of biological information.

I think for the biological sciences to actually progress, a model such as Williams’ IC/AP model is worthy of serious consideration. Remember, Darwin’s theory is wholly classical, meaning dimensionally limited to 3-space, to local, mechanical, largely force-field-driven material causation. Relativity and quantum theory have both moved well beyond those precincts. It’s time for the Darwinian theory of evolution to “catch up” with the current state of scientific knowledge — and especially with the implications of information science.

©2009 Jean F. Drew

[metmom]

The bottom line is that "the beast" supercomputer IBM just created is barely scratching the surface on biological equivalent computing power.

Super computing power is nowhere near intelligence anyway. All it can do is what it's programmed to do. It's essentially just a glorified calculator.

[tpanther]

Over time, science allowed us to understand the earth was round not flat, and by the time we saw the earth from space, there are going to be few around to debate it's flatness anymore.

Which is a completely different matter entirely when it comes to origins, or how drugs work let alone if they work better than others.But I can see how you're so desperate to simplify such complex problems in science.

You're still describing how science is SUPPOSED to work.

You're also stuck in the rut of stagnation. The data supported a round earth over time. It was accepted and therefore objective science at one time, and for a LONG time that it was flat. And your position today would remarkably resemble arguing the earth is flat: "the debate is closed, you're nothing but a junk scientist, that's not science", blah blah blah, all while demanding others believe your dogma of a flat earth.

The classification of Pluto is a matter of opinion, but not about Pluto itself.

Bingo...meanwhile science textbooks are no longer referring to Pluto as a planet. Opinions DO mean something after all, when it comes to what is accepted "objective" science as it is taught.

The exact same is applicable to manmade global warming. IN FACT what passes as objective science in science classrooms all across the country isn't objective science at all, just as the cult of evolution is presented more as fact than theory.Nothing is allowed to compete, because the debate is closed.

Astronomers merely selected a few criteria that they apply uniformly to define what a planet is. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

You should qualify your statement because not ALL astronomers agree, which of course means it has EVERYTHING to do with our discussion at hand.

Pseudo-scientists following grant money and pursuing junk science, much as ID types follow their religious principles while abandoning reason, are also not related to science.

The evolution cult followers need to understand no one gave them the keys to define what is or isn't objective science, no one appointed them but themselves. And it is they who are forcing their ideology and religious beliefs on the public. If anything, the junk scientists are the ones who pretend they and they alone are the only people capable of "doing science" (algore and evolutionists who exclaim "the debate is over, my defininition is as good as God's", blah blah blah...) while their fellow NEA godless liberal cultists sue dissenters into silence, enforcing their cultish science through courts and not the labs, let alone so-called peer review, etc.

Sorry, but not at all. Science is the pursuit of provable fact. Consensus has nothing to do with it. I can see, however, why you think that ID is anything but garbage. Your concept and understanding of science is deeply flawed.

In practice it's precisely how it works, and I live in the real world as a hospice nurse and see how all kinds of things other than the actual objective science influences the science of medicine on a daily basis; and it's simply preposterous to believe godless liberals don't infect science as they have journalsim, art, history, politics, law, and virtually any and everything else they touch. And the only people incapable of seeing this fact are the kool-aid drinking liberals themselves.

There simply is no serious peer review of evolution because normal people without myriad insecurities and God-hang-ups understand each and every threat is met with "that's a religious attack on science" rather it is or not! (As well as "Inquisition, theocracy, burning at the stake", as well as your ineffective drivel.)

Again you are conflating disparate things. There certainly is an end when something is proven - like Evolution.

So why isn't it called Evolution FACT already? It appears the debate isn't over after all, no matter how desperate you and the algoreacle are ready to claim victory, it just isn't the case, not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.

You just made my point for me, game, set, match.

[metmom]

If 10,000 scientists think that the earth is flat and one proves it's round then it's round.

You need to brush up on the caltech definitions as used in science. Nothing in science is proved, only disproved.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.

"Proof", like "truth" is a word best avoided in science.

[spunkets]

"...you know as well as I do that evolutionary theorists just EXPECT that man MUST be getting BETTER over time. Meaning: smarter, more "fit," etc. That means past (dead) generations before our own were less smart, less fit, etc., etc., than we who are presently living."

No. The processes responsible for the instantiation of phenotypic diversity are not restricted to such qualification. What appears as phenotype in any progeny will be elements of the set of what's possible, nothing else.

"I mean, isn't evolution all about "progress" — while at the same time denying any purpose in nature?" And yet: How can there be "progress," if there is no purpose, criterion, or standard to assess "progress" by in the first place?

The only appropriate use of the word Progress in nature would be to describe something like trait appearence vs. time, or diversity of species vs time. The appearence of anything in particular would only be progress in a contrived subjective scheme used as a reference. Purpose is generally only found with reference to those same subjective schemes. Else, it simply refers to some physical functional attribute.

[Filo]

And you read the thread and composed a response to the topic in seven minutes and 19 seconds?

I read enough. I give ID about as much credence as I give the "theories" stating that Obama is a repticon.

[DBCJR]

WOW! Going off topic at the speed of light.

---

How old are you?

[Filo]

Over time, science allowed us to understand the earth was round not flat, and by the time we saw the earth from space, there are going to be few around to debate it's flatness anymore.

Exactly.

Which is a completely different matter entirely when it comes to origins, or how drugs work let alone if they work better than others.But I can see how you're so desperate to simplify such complex problems in science.

Again, you are conflating different things.

You're also stuck in the rut of stagnation. The data supported a round earth over time. It was accepted and therefore objective science at one time, and for a LONG time that it was flat. And your position today would remarkably resemble arguing the earth is flat: "the debate is closed, you're nothing but a junk scientist, that's not science", blah blah blah, all while demanding others believe your dogma of a flat earth.

I would be if I were arguing from a position of dogma and ignorance, yes.

Much like the ID folks, really.

I am, instead, arguing from the perspective of the round-earth perspective. There is way more than enough proof supporting that. Bingo...meanwhile science textbooks are no longer referring to Pluto as a planet. Opinions DO mean something after all, when it comes to what is accepted "objective" science as it is taught.

Wow, you really are driven by ignorance, aren't you?

The only opinions feeding the Pluto debate are about what constitutes a planet. Eventually the definition was set as a body that contains enough mass to become spherical, clears its own orbit, etc.

Once there was a concrete definition in place Pluto no longer qualified.

That lack of qualification is a fact and not an opinion or theory.

The exact same is applicable to manmade global warming. IN FACT what passes as objective science in science classrooms all across the country isn't objective science at all, just as the cult of evolution is presented more as fact than theory.Nothing is allowed to compete, because the debate is closed.

Sorry, but you are still not getting it. Anthropogenic global warming, like ID, is junk science, if it is science at all. There is no credible evidence backing up either, just deliberate and selective misinterpretations of data to support a predetermined solution.

Evolution is no such animal. There is no credible debate about the basic premise that organisms mutate, compete and evolve.

None.

Yes, some of the finer details are still open to speculation. Was this species descended from that. Was this structure evolved from that. Did this stimulus bring about that adaptation and so on. Those are, however, all details and have no bearing on the proven validity of Evolution. The evolution cult followers need to understand no one gave them the keys to define what is or isn't objective science, no one appointed them but themselves.

Exactly. Science is defined by scientists. Evolution is but one tiny branch that meets the qualifications next to physics, biology, chemistry and so on.

And it is they who are forcing their ideology and religious beliefs on the public. If anything, the junk scientists are the ones who pretend they and they alone are the only people capable of "doing science" (algore and evolutionists who exclaim "the debate is over, my defininition is as good as God's", blah blah blah...) while their fellow NEA godless liberal cultists sue dissenters into silence, enforcing their cultish science through courts and not the labs, let alone so-called peer review, etc.

Sorry, but that's not the case.

If anyone in the ID community ever brings up a valid point following appropriate scientific methods they'd be heard. Sure it would be scoffed at initially because of the reputation creationists have, but if they had real, scientific evidence then it would work.

Sadly that does not work both ways. Creationists/IDers have no respect for the scientific method and refuse to see the inherent validity of their opposition.

That is one reason they are bound to fail. In the end they are bringing a rubber band to a gunfight.

In practice it's precisely how it works, and I live in the real world as a hospice nurse and see how all kinds of things other than the actual objective science influences the science of medicine on a daily basis; and it's simply preposterous to believe godless liberals don't infect science as they have journalsim, art, history, politics, law, and virtually any and everything else they touch. And the only people incapable of seeing this fact are the kool-aid drinking liberals themselves.

I have no argument with most of that. Medicine is not science. For most practitioners it ain't even close. . . and liberals do infect the world with their nonsense, but in the end reality usually prevails.

Medical research, on the other hand, is usually science.

There simply is no serious peer review of evolution because normal people without myriad insecurities and God-hang-ups understand each and every threat is met with "that's a religious attack on science" rather it is or not! (As well as "Inquisition, theocracy, burning at the stake", as well as your ineffective drivel.)

There has been 100 years of serious peer review of Evolution and it has passed with flying colors.

There has been no credible, scientific opposition for years.

And no, ID does notqualify because ID is not science. Like medicine, it ain't even close.

So why isn't it called Evolution FACT already?

Actually it is.

Evolution is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution is only about the details, as mentioned above.

It appears the debate isn't over after all, no matter how desperate you and the algoreacle are ready to claim victory, it just isn't the case, not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.

The "debate" isn't over because there are still flat-earth types out there. There is no scientific debate, but don't let that stop you.

But I agree about the AGW crap. It's utter nonsense. . . again, just like ID.

You just made my point for me, game, set, match.

If I did then clearly you don't understand the point you are trying to make.

But I will agree that ID is closer to tennis than science.

[spunkets]

"problem is, however, that the information at the level of physics and chemistry cannot account for life. That's the Level (iii) "hit the wall" problem in a nutshell, right there."

I don't see any wall. I also see no real distinction between what's given as levels 1 & 2. All bonding phenominon is contained within the laws of physics, so there should be no distinction between levels 1 & 2. That includes chemical bonding in the temp ranges of conventional life forms.

Level 3 says, "It should be obvious that such phenominon(life) can not be explained on the basis of the information available at levels 1 & 2..." I don't see that at all. All the physical laws that account for matter, it's bonding and other energy exchanges are sufficient to know and understand the assemblies and configurations that are identified as life.

"Where did these plenipotential "evolutionary algorithms" of which you speak come from, spunketts?"

The algorithms are models of the physical systems based on the physics that provide for the biological possibilities and the particulars of the physical environment those biological organisms exist in. The reality itself that appears that's described by the model arises out of the physics.

"What still needs to be accounted for, however, is the means by which such simplicity yields the complexity we see all around us in Nature. The people who develop "evolutionary algortihms" are probably painfully aware of this problem..."

The means would be the physics. Identifying any particulars, such as the most probable step(s) is simply a matter of discovery.

[betty boop]

And you are going to find universal truth without reference to verifiable facts?

Verifiable facts do not impugn universal truth. Only the unverifiable ones do.

[Filo]

You need to brush up on the caltech definitions as used in science. Nothing in science is proved, only disproved.

Nonsense. You certainly can prove things scientifically, CalTech's semantic dissembling aside.

Kinda reminds me of an old comparative anatomy professor who wouldn't let us use the word "creature" because it implied creation. . . regarless of the fact that everyone knew what the damn word meant.

[betty boop]

All the physical laws that account for matter, it's bonding and other energy exchanges are sufficient to know and understand the assemblies and configurations that are identified as life.

Au contraire, mon ami. They cannot be identified as "life," only as the necessary preconditions of life. Yet life is "more" than its physical preconditions. See Chaitin, Yockey, Grandpierre et al. Not to mention Williams.

[metmom]

Not you. You were just courtesy pinged.

[betty boop]

What appears as phenotype in any progeny will be elements of the set of what's possible, nothing else.

What or who defines "what is possible?"

[betty boop]

What was offered was chemistry.

Well hoop-dee-doo js1138! Show me how the algorithmic complexity of chemical information [Level (ii)] can account for a Beethoven, and maybe I'll join your side.

[GodGunsGuts]

I leave for a day, and this is what I find! Who knew you were so busy since the debate thread on this topic!! And to that, I say bravo!!! A very impressive first stab at trying to integrate autopioesis and information theory into the scientific study of living organisms. All the best—GGG

PS I sent the link to this thread to CMI in the hopes that they will forward it to Alex Williams. I would love to add him to this thread!

[DBCJR]

Sorry. Wasn/t tracking.

[Coyoteman]

If what you have written purports to be science, why is it posted in the Religion Forum?

[betty boop]

I would love to add him to this thread!

That would be wonderful! I wonder what Williams would think of the "extrapolations" we have made of his extraordinarily "competent" theory in the direction of Shannon information theory. It seems to me the IC/AP model is perfectly consistent with what the latter holds. Which to my mind lends credence to Williams' findings.

"Good stuff" just naturally resonates... even beyond the bounds in which it was originally imagined and articulated.

[GodGunsGuts]

==To deny that proteins convey messages is once again, to betray your ignorance of the subject. Even worse you are apparently unwilling or unable to learn and thus rectify your ignorance of the subject.

Look who’s talking...LOL. Except in your case, when you are finally caught dead-to-right, you simply update your ignorance by plagiarizing your opponents argument and then pretend that that is what you meant all along. You should apply for a position in Bob Gallo’s lab. I hear they are always looking for people like you.

[betty boop]

If what you have written purports to be science, why is it posted in the Religion Forum?

Because FR does not have a Science Forum. And because every time in the past when I've posted a self-written piece and posted it to either or both of the Philosophy or Culture forums, seemingly inevitably it was removed to Chat.

At least when I post to RF, it sticks there. Plus I know you evos cruise the place. So I have everything I need by posting to RF. :^)