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

self | January 26, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[Alamo-Girl]

In short, I see no creationist theory that explains the range of phenomena accounted for by mainstream science.

Case in point, you value the evidence differently.

Neither side is objective. Indeed, no observer "in" space/time can perceive objectively "all that there is" all at once.

[js1138]

You did the same.

Fair enough, but personal feelings and perceptions are not available for examination and discussion among groups of people.

Civilization is the result of commonly agreed upon perceptions. Science and technology are built on carefully constructed and tested conjectures, hypotheses and theories, ideas that pass the same test regardless of race, religion, nationality or politics. Those using the same methodology get the same results.

[Alamo-Girl]

I just read Szostak's bio at HHMI and was not impressed enough to want to go further. It said:

Today, Szostak's main focus is the construction of a simple, artificial cell that can grow and divide as well as evolve in a Darwinian sense to adapt to its changing environment. To do this, he is attempting to make and then combine two self-replicating systems: a nucleic acid (such as RNA or DNA) that can transmit genetic information and a simple membrane-bound vesicle that keeps the nucleic acid chains from drifting apart. A major challenge is coordinating the growth and division of the membrane-bound vesicle with the replication of its contents. Szostak has found that the nucleic acids themselves can drive the growth of the fatty acid membrane; as they replicate, the internal osmotic pressure increases, swelling the vesicle and stretching the membrane so that it absorbs fatty acids from other vesicles that are under less internal pressure. Cells with faster nucleic acid replication should therefore grow faster than cells with slower nucleic acid replication. In this way, simple physical principles coordinate the replication of the nucleic acid genome and the replication of the rest of the cell structure, leading to the emergence of natural selection and Darwinian evolution based on competition between cells.

This is merely an extension of Wimmer's experiment. According to this bio, he, like Wimmer, is starting with the message and presupposing autonomy, semiosis, awareness and information [Shannon.]

Again, my question goes to the rise of autonomy, semiosis, information [Shannon, successful communication] and awareness. Not taking it as a "given."

Since you are obviously aware of his work, perhaps you can tell me whether he addresses those specific points on the order of the mathematicians and physicists who have. (e.g. Pattee, Rocha, Yockey)

[js1138]

Neither side is objective. Indeed, no observer "in" space/time can perceive objectively "all that there is" all at once.

Nevertheless, science finds useful generalizations that can be tested and applied by anyone. That is why science doesn't attempt to deal with absolute truth or supernatural events and causes. It's a self-imposed limitation.

That does not mean that science cannot find reliable information about past history and current phenomena. If you choose to live within you own self-contained shell and not participate in the adventure of science, that is your own self-imposed limitation. You and your friend have wisely placed your discussion in the religion forum. However, if you venture out of your self-imposed world and make declarations about what is or is not valid in the domain of science, you need to prepare yourself for criticism. I assure you that not many would be as polite as I attempt to be.

[Alamo-Girl]

And if an investigator could recreate a phenomenon under laboratory conditions - or observe it consistently - it would neither be called a miracle nor supernatural.

Those who have experienced such miracles - e.g. Christians like me - do not question whether they are real. But of course we cannot convince someone who has not yet experienced it.

The objective of the thread was to reveal our worldviews - "where we were coming from" - up front. There is little point in berating someone for not seeing or appreciating something he cannot see or appreciate as you do.

[js1138]

I don’t really know how to phrase this any simpler. If mathematical models do not conform to physical reality, the models are defective.

Szostak is working with physical reality. If he can demonstrate self-replication and evolution arising from chemistry, it is the mathematical models that need revising, not reality.

One could hearken back to discussions of whether human powered flight is possible. There’s theory and math, and there’s experimentation.

There’s scarcely anything happening in recent work on evolution that wasn’t declared impossible based on theories of irreducible complexity, or some form of vitalism.

I find it interesting that Yockey and Dembski have undergone late life conversions on the subject of evolutionary algorithms and information. There’s even a hate Yockey site devoted to pillorying Yockey for turning against ID. Dembski hasn’t turned against ID, but he has realized that selection is a source of active information.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! betty boop and I both are very much appreciative of science and math.

But it is also true that we see the domain of science (that which is governed by physical laws, physical causation and physical constants) as a reduction of "all that there is." It is also true that we cannot make a metaphysical naturalist (atheist) see what we see.

Methodological naturalism is a self-imposed boundary of science, in particular biology. I do not believe that imposition was either necessary or prudent. All of science should be more like physics in my view - only declaring postulates appropriate to the theory at hand.

Boundaries do not apply to the Creator.

[CottShop]

[[But at any rate, given the molecular evidence of ERVs and such, if it is demonstrated that speciation is possible, than the other lines of evidence for common descent become overwhelming.]]

Niether speciation nor ERV’s are evidence for common descent- Speciation is nothign more than a species reamining the same species- Despite hte fact that htey can not breed with other guls, ring species such as these are still gulls- lizards that are seperated and microevolve the innability to breed with other lizards on different islands does not mean they are no logner lizards themselves. To state speciation is evidence for macroevolution is akin to stating that because I saw someone leap a log, that this means they must have been able to fly in the past. There is nothign in common design that prevents speciation- there remains the fact that those speciated examples remain within their own kind.

Macroevolution, a much much different process than adaptive microevolution requires a far different process than simple loss of informaiton that speciated examples genetic structures underwent.

Decreases in informaiton, rearrangements of informaiton, etc all fall aquarely into Microevolutionary changes. Loss of informaiton is NOT evidence for Macroevolution. No matter how many losses of informasiton you throw at a species, it will never result in net-gain of non species specific informaiton NEEDED for macroevolution

Pointing to loss of informaiton as some supposedc evidence that macoreovlution happened ignores the fact that loss does not lead to gain, and ignores the fact that in order for macroevolution to happen- leterally trillions of very significant gains in informaiton needed to occure for macroevolution to happen. When I examine Macroevolution looking for evidence of these trillions of gains of non species specific informaiton, I come up empty- All I get are single scant few examples of microevolutionary evidence that is assumed to be the basics of macroevolution, but when examined, are nothign but genetic variation within kinds.

Macroevolution requires- absolutely requires a gain of very signficant non species pecific information in order to bring abotu al lthe changes between species that we’re told occured, and yet there are no valid examples of any of hte trillions of changes that are claimed to have occured? All we can point to are species havign hteir existing genetic info turned on to ingest nylonase under stressful conditions the way bacteria are supposed to, designed to react? All we can point to is genetic loss in ring species? All we can point to are scant few examples of genetic rearrangements that fall squarely within species specific parameters? All we can point to are ERV’s which prefer certain insertion points in similar species?

The ‘evidence is overwhelming for common descent’? Looks pretty thin and based on faith, assumptions, and an a priori dedication to naturalism despite compelling evidnece to the contrary if you ask me

As mentioned before, ERV’s do indeed show insertion bias/preferrences, and as such it is NOT surprising, nor does it undercut common design, that similar speices share similar insertion points ESPECIALLY in light of hte fact that there are millions of viruses assaulting similar genetic makeups constantly and in large groups over many many generations.

your link to common descent has htis to say:

“Our findings are consistent with a model of recombination-driven biased gene conversion. This leads to the provocative hypothesis that many of the genetic changes leading to human-specific characters may have been prompted by fixation of deleterious mutations.

What the authors report is a non-random shifting within genes, and the introduction of “deleterious” mutations.”

Swell- they’ve discovered inteligently designed, forward looking, anticipating metainfo that deals with problems in species specific ways, in ways that conform to predesigned genetic info that anticipates, designs for, and prepares for problems that can be dealt with by directing and orchestrating changes in such a way as to help preserve species fitness as best as possible “Directed change” Must be hte authors think Nature is omnisciently able to predict future problems and create info that is pre-prepared for such problems?. Yawn

[Alamo-Girl]

If he can demonstrate self-replication and evolution arising from chemistry, it is the mathematical models that need revising, not reality.

It is not arising from chemistry if he starts with the message and presupposes autonomy, information {Shannon) and semiosis.

[js1138]

The objective of the thread was to reveal our worldviews

I could have sworn there was some discussion in the lead article as to whether abiogenesis is possible.

I do not consider that ta worldview question. It is something to be explored and settled by experimentation.

[CottShop]

[[Szostak is working with physical reality. If he can demonstrate self-replication and evolution arising from chemistry, it is the mathematical models that need revising, not reality.]]

Can he do it without any intelligent intervention? Or will it take designer designed complexity in order to achieve htis?

IF it takes designer designed complexity and manipulation and protection- then this would in NO way invalidate mathematical probability statistics that measure naturalism NOT intelligently designed manipulations JS

[[There’s scarcely anything happening in recent work on evolution that wasn’t declared impossible based on theories of irreducible complexity, or some form of vitalism.]]

Really? And these are purely natural experiments without any intellgient intervention whatsoever huh? Swell- Let’s wait and see then- My prediction IF these tests and examinations are purely natural? IC is still a reality! IF however there needs to be ANY itnelligent intervention whatsoever then all it’s goign to prove is what again? Yup- An intelligent designer is needed- period.

[CottShop]

[[It is not arising from chemistry if he starts with the message and presupposes autonomy, information {Shannon) and semiosis]]

Precisely, but I bet it will be trumpteted in National Geographic, Nature science journals, and various scientific papers and in news papers all across the globe that the scientists evolved reproduciton and have ‘closed the gap’ to how life arose from chemicals.

[Alamo-Girl]

I was speaking of this thread not this one.

I'm leaving for the afternoon but I look forward to reading your further insights on this thread, as always.

[metmom]

That is why science doesn't attempt to deal with absolute truth or supernatural events and causes. It's a self-imposed limitation.

That does not mean that science cannot find reliable information about past history and current phenomena.

As long as you're dealing with material, physical aspects of history inasmuch as it is subject to analysis by the scientific method, that is a possibility, BUT all it can do is indicate what appears to have happened. Any other investigation of historical evidence qualifies more as forensic investigation and analysis.

If you choose to live within you own self-contained shell and not participate in the adventure of science, that is your own self-imposed limitation.

Which is it? Is it science that has the self-imposed limitations or *the other side*?

Science is a subset of reality. How can all of reality be a subset of the study of the physical, material realm?

[CottShop]

[[That is why science doesn’t attempt to deal with absolute truth or supernatural events and causes.]]

They don’t? Macroevolutionists are cosntantly appealing to biolgically impossible events that must have occured trillions of times- I’d call that a pretty supernatural event. As well, the fact that these supposed critical significant changes beat out all natural odds somehow trillions upon thrillions of times, and evaded natural laws indicates the beleif i nthe process is an appeal to hte supernatural.

At least for now, Macroevolution most certainly is an appeal to hte supernatural, and in order to chip away the supernatural, they must show conditions which were severely different i nthe past, consitent for billions of years, didn’t vary, etc, and they must chip away at hte established evidnece that species no logner diverge from their own kinds, and they must chip away at the evidnece which shows an explosion of fully formed, fully functional creatures, on and on it goes- in short, they must chip away at natural laws and constants, in order to show conditions and events which now violate several key scientific and natural laws, was somehow different in the past- Until then, and only until they can do so, they are appealing to a process which was supernatural to the best of our knowledge based o nthe evidence we’ve gathered so far.

Scientists in the lab manipulating genetic information are performing supernatural events by causing genes to violate natural laws and conditions. They are supernaturally causing genes to perform duties they could NOT do naturally and without intellgient intervention

[CottShop]

[[ If you choose to live within you own self-contained shell and not participate in the adventure of science, that is your own self-imposed limitation.]]

There’s no need to get personal with snide snobbish remarks simply because someone doesn’t beleive the way you do. BB and Alamo and others ARE participating in scientific investigations by examining the very premiss of htis thread’s articles reasonably. IF you know of a manner in which information can arise to the level of metainfo in a purely naturalistic manner, then present it here for discussion- otherwise, simply dismissing this discussion by insinuating it isn’t a participation in scientific thought is simply an avoidance tactic meant to demean and belittle those bringing evidences to the table for discussions. These aren’t opinions JS- they are scientific principles hwich are being discussed, and we CAN come to reasonable conclusions abotu hte quesitons beign asked based on the evidences of chemistry and biology being presented. Just because they don’t include naturalistic conclusions, doesn’t mean they are ‘anti-science’ ‘psuedo-science’ or any other label yuou might think of. If you don’t wish to particpate, that’s fine- but leave hte petty snide comments out.

[allmendream]

Way to make it personal without actually providing any examples.

You are once again out of your element GGG and the things you say have no basis in reality.

On thread after thread I have found you dead to rights misrepresenting the truth and making statements so out of the scope of reality that in truth one can only conclude that you are willfully deceptive or just plain ignorant or a rather unpleasant combination of both.

Still think that humans and chimps being closer in their DNA than either is to a gorilla is a “logical impossibility”?

Still maintain that they “only” find anti-HIV antibodies in AIDS patients and “zero zip nada” of anything else?

Still maintain that antibody shuffling of gene elements in the variable region is dependent upon antigen presentation?

You were wrong on all points, and because you refuse to learn, you remain wrong.

I am on vacation for awhile so while I know you like to post “where have they gone?” posts, don't expect any reply until next Tuesday at the soonest.

[doc30]

It doesn't. The article makes a point of showing that the second law applies throughout the life of the organism.

I think this is from the section in your article:

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.

How does a living thing stave off the effects of entropy? What does it do?

[hosepipe]

[ I admit that the simplest explanation for everything is goddidit. ]

Even dumber people than you need to make sense of "things"..
Not everybody is as smart as you are..
/great un-washed proletariat

[hosepipe]

[ Speciation is the issue, not self-replication. And not what could have happened, but what actually did happen. ]

Bingo... you get a cookie..