Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I’ll send another email to Williams to increase the chances that he see’s it. I think he would be very gratified that there are those out there who are taking his ideas seriously. All the best—GGG
Perhaps. It all seems like an elaborate thermodynamic end-run....?
Do you disagree with Hubert Yockey, as quoted in #55?
"The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be deduced from the laws of physics and chemistry lies not in some esoteric philosophy but simply in the mathematical fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of those laws. Chaitin has examined the complexity of the laws of physics by actually programming them. He finds the complexity amazingly small. [i.e., Chaitin estimates it at 103 bits.]"
Cordially,
What was offered in that video was a purely human construction which may or may not have anything to do with the structure of “objective” reality
What was offered was chemistry.
(Of course not.)
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
Because FR does not have a Science Forum...
I think the true test of whether you are doing science or not is to submit your writing to an established science journal, rather than posting it to an internet chat room.
Subject your writing to scientific peer review. Then you'll know.
The fundamental consideration in evolution is the genome, not the fossil record. Gaps in the fossil record do not matter. What matters is that there are no gaps in the continuity of the genome from the origin of life to the present. It is the continuity of the genome that shows the connectedness of all life -- living, extinct and yet-to-be-evolved. That means there are no gaps in which species miraculously appear, as Intelligent Design falsely claims.
I would be if I were arguing from a position of dogma and ignorance, yes.
Much like the ID folks, really.
Same old same old from the algoreacle of science school of endless projections.
But from someone that takes 7 minutes 19 seconds to come to the gem of a conclusion that you did, who after all is surprised?
Like I said no one appointed you to be the end all expert on science.
Your ideas about how science works and how it’s practiced in the real world indicate you should get out into the real world more often.
A nice first stop would be a visit to a cult deprogrammer!
I have a different agenda..
I think.... you just exposed most evolutionists as "progressives".. Funny HOW?... most posters on FR that support evolution(on "these" threads) almost never post to political threads.. If did they could be exposed still further as "progressives"..
Has any living or dead human ever witnessed(observed) birth of a new species?..
bump for a good paper. Thanks for the read. 8-)
"Au contraire, mon ami. They cannot be identified as "life," only as the necessary preconditions of life."
Life is a configuration of energy. Those configurations exist according to the physics and give rise to all and every instance of life in this world.
"See Chaitin, Yockey, Grandpierre et al. Not to mention Williams."
"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."
Obviously the complexity of his simple scratch pad program did not model life. Evolutionary algorithms can be used to do so, and generate info as they progress.
"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.
As I pointed out, Williams model doesn't represent reality. There's no real distinction between levels 1&2, and the levels above are built upon the simple physics contained in 1&2. All that's needed is to analyze the interactions of the components of the appropriate complex configurations. That's done in medicine for instance, to know and understand human life and to provide for intelligent and deliberate curative, or corrective affects.
Also, Williams idea that info proceeds down is never seen in reality. Biological development,and evolutionary progression are observed to progress from the simple to the complex, never the other way around. That's because, the info contained in the fundamental physics is all that's needed to result in the physical configurations recognized, known and understood as life. There's no life form, or part of, that can be shown to be irreducibly complex. The contrary is true, indicating the info arrow goes up, not down as with IC(omplexity).
Hubert Yockey apparently thinks otherwise:
The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be deduced from the laws of physics and chemistry lies not in some esoteric philosophy but simply in the mathematical fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of those laws. Chaitin has examined the complexity of the laws of physics by actually programming them. He finds the complexity amazingly small. [i.e., Chaitin estimates it at 103 bits.]"
Quoted in #55
Cordially,
Folks only have archeological evidence that indicates a spiecies transition occurred in a rough time frame and maybe in a particular place, or region. They also have contemporary related species to examine. That evidence is supported by knowledge and understanding of the underlying biochemistry.
This fella continues to insult and malign those he’s arguing with with comments such as the following
[[Application of the nonsense that IDers use will do nothing but perpetuate their mental masturbation and define their inability to grasp basic precepts of science, logic and reason.]]
Cordially,
"The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be deduced from the laws of physics and chemistry lies not in some esoteric philosophy but simply in the mathematical fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of those laws.
This statement is illogical. Any measure of "information content" of any physical constuction does not preclude the fact that it's built upon the underlying physics.
"Chaitin has examined the complexity of the laws of physics by actually programming them."
No he has not. He simply created a do nothing program that contains a very simple, limited, incomplete set of representative laws, has a trivial length and the program halts. Nevertheless, it has no bearing on whether, or not complex physical entities are composed of simpler physical entities.
" He finds the complexity amazingly small. [i.e., Chaitin estimates it at 103 bits.]" Quoted in #55"
103 bits? What's that mean? A string 1000 bits long?
An old truism among lawyers about closing arguments is that if the facts are in your favor, argue the facts. If they aren't, argue the law. If neither, pound the table.
[[Evolutionary algorithms can be used to do so, and generate info as they progress.]]
mmm not so much- at least NOT without intelligent intervention acting as a species metainfo- You should know htis if you’ve objectively investigated computer algorithms that assert they are standins for naturalism- Computer programs have been exposed as intelligent manipulation time and time again.
[[As I pointed out, Williams model doesn’t represent reality. There’s no real distinction between levels 1&2,]]
and htere has to be a clear distinction why again? When chemicals give birth to acids, there really is no real discernable difference in the info, and so a large gap that you apparently think must exist, wouldn’t be seen- it’s not until we start itnroducing lower levels of biological info that things start to really take off differences wise.
[[and the levels above are built upon the simple physics contained in 1&2.]]
Yup- they do CONTIAN the basics, however, they also contain somethign the basics coudl never provide, the info necessary for the foundations of life, but htey still are not life until level V when all the self sustaining info is present and accoutned for- up to that point, the examples had to be artifically kept alive by soem unknown outside force of metainfo system which understood al the mechanics of these lower levels, and knew how to sustain the examples by controlling small changes that affect the hwole system- it needed forward looking life support that somehow managed to anticipate changes
Wil lrespond more later.
[[This statement is illogical. Any measure of “information content” of any physical constuction does not preclude the fact that it’s built upon the underlying physics.]]
Of course not, it can and does include simpler constructs from simpler proerties, however, this fact does not preclude hte fact that the more complex contents of information and structures are able to arise simply from simpler ones without some intelligent direction and severe biological and chemical changes that nature is incapable of producing.
[[Nevertheless, it has no bearing on whether, or not complex physical entities are composed of simpler physical entities.]]
See above- Again, computer models that assert that they duplicate evolution start with what again? Yup- info that is already present, and they manipulate this info intelligently, to aquire hte desired outcome, and as such they in no way represent the mechanics of nature.
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.