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]
And yet unguided physical systems have not been shown to get anywhere. Indeed, Newton worried that such "dynamics and reactions that can occur in the given physical system" would, if left on their own, eventually culminate in the disorder of the system, such that it could no longer preserve its physical integrity.
If you're interested in Newton's take on this problem, maybe this article might help.
js1138 wrote:
"The self imposed limitation of science is that evidence must be verifiable by anyone who uses the same methodology.
The self-imposed limitation discussed by AG is that the best evidence, by definition, cannot be verified by others."
Coyoteman wrote: "What you [A-G] are in fact practicing is the exact opposite of science."
Alamo-Girl responded: "Science v. faith is a false dichotomy. They are not mutual[ly] exclusive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is, indeed, no dichotomy between faith and science.
I, as a scientist, routinely verify (and have verified by peers) observations and experimental results by employing the same methodology.
I as a Christian, routinely verify (and have verified by peers -- specifically, Alamo-Girl in this case) mutual experiences, revelations and insights by employing the same methodology (faith, prayer, study of Scripture, etc...)
js1138 and Coyoteman are wrong. There is zero conflict between my practice of science as a professional and my sure knowledge that I have a personal relationship with the One Who designed, specified, and created the physical, chemical, and biological materials and phenomena that I study.
js1138 is incompetent to aver that "The self-imposed limitation discussed by AG is that the best evidence, by definition, cannot be verified by others." -- because he refuses or is unable to employ the same methodology.
Likewise, Coyoteman is incompetent to declare a dichotomy between science and faith -- because he insists on excluding part of the applicable methodology for making that determination.
Coyoteman and js1138 are no more competent to pontificate on the faith aspects of this discussion than is the YEC adherent who denies the existence of galaxies beyond our own -- and refuses to look into the telescope.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alamo-Girl is correct: "Science v. faith is a false dichotomy." Only those who refuse -- or are incompetent --to practice one or the other insist that the "dichotomy" exists
My apologies! I did intend to include you in the addressees to my #363..
Well yes, js1138 — thank you for the clarification!
A couple thoughts. It seems to me that apoptosis and necrosis must be quantified by different information measures, since — while both lead to death — one is an "orderly" or "controlled" process, and the other a "random" process. The distinction between the two seems to be a purely "informational" one.
Another thing, "biological immortality" is, as you know, a technical term currently in favor in some circles of biology. It describes the situation where a sustained, cumulative increase in the rate of mortality as a function of chronological age is absent. Biological entities so characterized are said to be exempt from the Hayflick limit, which is essentially a description of the situation in which cells no longer divide.
But to extend "biological immortality" beyond the range of this narrow, technical understanding would be absurd.
For there is no logical sense whatever in claiming that a being incapable of death was ever actually alive in the first place. Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
I'm not sure what death is, has been determined yet..
To determine death you must shall have determined what life is..
I'm not sure any has determined that..
Romans 8 seems to imply life is in the spirit and is not physical.. So many have been dead(physically) (for many minutes) yet have been resuscitated.. How can that happen?.. Is a carrot alive?.. If so then when is a carrot dead?..
Just so when the physical body becomes non functional does that mean death?.. Is life totally functionality?.. If functionality is life then what is being alive?.. Is being alive a matter of degrees?.. Meaning are some thats alive barely functional?.. therefore almost dead?..
What is life?. seems to be a quite large question..
-OR- will all humans live forever somewhere eternally?..
Meaning death may be an illusion.. no one gets off that easy..
Single celled organisms are not immune from being killed. But your discussion of entropy seems to imply that living things die from some sort of wearing out. Feel free to clarify this.
Cells do not, for the most part, die from entropy or wearing out. Single celled organisms -- those that are living -- have never died.
For the Lurkers, I'd like to explore further why we say that information (Shannon) is that which distinguishes life v. non-life/death in nature - and how it relates to this sidebar.
Apoptosis is a programmed cell death - a functional cell within the autonomous larger organism receives the message to die now. Conversely, necrosis of a functional cell within the autonomous larger organism occurs which the successful communication does not occur, e.g. the message to isolate the dead cells as in apoptosis was not sent or received successfully.
Relevant to this sidebar, it must be noticed that a single cell organism is autonomous. It is self-contained. Except for noise, communications is internal to the single cell organism.
And some of them, e.g. bacillus anthracis (anthrax) - enter a dormant state (spore) until a food source is present (e.g. it is inhaled.) This is like putting communications (e.g. your computer) in a stand-by mode until the mouse or keyboard moves.
Once the cell - whether a functional cell in a higher organism or a single cell organism - no longer communicates (or is no longer communications capable, e.g. in standby) - it is dead.
In "information theory and molecular biology" the thermodynamic tab (2nd law) is paid by heat dissipating into the local environment when the receiver (molecular machine) of a message goes from a before state to an after state. As the old adage goes, in death a person achieves room temperature.
In sum, communications are temporal, time-bound. The 2nd law (entropy) is universal, it applies consistently over all of time, i.e. after communications stop.
This can also be envisioned by a thought experiment.
Take a live rabbit and a recently dead rabbit and hypothetically break them down. The live rabbit has a higher temperature than the dead one because it is successfully communicating.
As you break the rabbits down to their component functional subsystems all the way to the individual cells, it becomes obvious that communications has stopped in the dead rabbit. The heart is not pumping, the blood is not flowing, etc.
But as you continue breaking the rabbits down to the chemicals and then particles or fields of which they consist, you see that both the dead rabbit and the live rabbit are made of the same "stuff."
And so betty boop and I have said that the difference between life v. non-life/death in nature is information (Shannon, successful communication.)
NOW thats a heroic attempt at explaining physical life.. and death..
Very informative.... thanks...
Amazing what one can learn by paying attention and communicating..
Excellent metaphors.. that say more than the words convey..
So the intercourse or merging of two data streams can bring new life?..
Maybe thats what "born again" means..
And what "the spirit" is, a data wave or field.. producing a new data set or database..
The "body of christ"(metaphor) then takes on a whole new dimension..
Information merged into a common (or universal)database..
With a life all its own..... Hey... THIS IS FUN...
We mortals tend to think life is the body or flesh or physical components (the donkey in your metaphor) - it nags at us continually especially as we get older or face poor health.
But if one understands that life is the information (Shannon, successful communication) - he gains a new perspective like you have expressed.
Truly, it is "about" successful communication at myriad levels in the hierarchy - and as you have noted. the harmony (or lack thereof) of those communications whether internally, or by offspring or in being "born again" in Christ.
With that view, this passage takes on new meaning:
To God be the glory!
[[Cells do not, for the most part, die from entropy or wearing out.]]
When the cell no longer has the necessary energy to recieve and act upon information/fuel/instrucitons, it dies. As well, outside forces that interupt the ability to receive and utilize information/fuel/instrucitons will kill the cell. The effects of Entropy works to disrupt this information/fuel/instructions process- not in a ‘conscious effort’ to disrupt, but rather as a purely natural process of degredation. Healthy cells can prolong their fitness, but eventually the process of prolonging takes it’s toll wearing hte cell structures out to hte poiont they can no longer fight the effects of entropy, as their parts and ystems become worn an tired out.
Repair mechanism systems that help prolong cell life, but these repair systems also undergoe stress during hte course of their ‘lives’, and these eventually break down too.
Every beat a heart takes is one beat closer to death. Anytime a system converts- fuel to energy for instance, this process contributes to wearing out. Like the car engine, every move of the piston creates wear and tear- This wear and tear can be ‘reduced’ by making sure you have good clean oil to help maintain the cylinder in good working order, but there is still a process of heat and friction going on that contribute to wearing out. Every workign system is bound to this principle. Nothign is eternal but God, Time, and my horrible spelling
But no living single celled organism has ever died this way. All I am saying is that cells may be killed or may die from starvation or asphyxiation, but non-specialized cells do not die from entropy or information degradation.
Thanks for the ping. As for Coyoteman, I don't think you need bother pinging him anymore.
I don't recall ever saying there is a conflict between science and faith, although there can be a conflict between science and specific assertions about physical reality made by people in the name of religion. I'm curious why I was included in such a sweeping statement.
Is your "sure knowledge" in conflict with some specific finding of science?
The cause might be anything from physical destruction or malformation to environmental changes (absence of food, extreme changes in the environment, radiation, etc.)
But once the autonomous single celled organism is no longer communicating - it "achieves room temperature" (2nd law) just like the dead guy. It succumbs to entropy.
But no living single celled organism has ever done that. Each and ever one that is now alive has been alive for as long as there has been life.
A code is an instance of foreknowledge. In every case where the origin of a code (defined as a communication channel with an input alphabet A and an output alphabet B) is known, it is the result of foreknowledge. DNA code is a encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Shannon's model. The DNA molecule represents something other than itself. It is reasonable therefore to infer as a defeasible hypothesis that it too, is the product of intelligence.
The hypothesis of invention by incremental change than you mentioned in your #279 as a possible source for chemistry evolving by 'trial' and 'error' an instance of a structure that can continue evolving, eventually into the staggering specified complexity of a genetic code, would come at a cost; namely, a huge amount of time (not to mention other insurmountable costs such as genetic load and biological constraints)
Even given an astoundingly fortuitous series of concatenations of atoms and molecules that would be necessary to eventually produce a genetic code, if such a thing were possible, consider all the types and varieties of codes under the sun in the animal kingdom that are themselves derivatives of genetic code. Bee waggle dance code; pheromone codes, variously operating by smell or contact reception; acoustic signals code, as in bird songs; electrical signals code, in with sharks and some fish, etc. What the law of invention would require is for chemistry to evolve not only DNA code, but then DNA code evolving these many other types of codes independently!
I think the sun would have already suffered heat death before these derivative DNA codes that we observe would ever have come to pass, without some higher force or power than mutation noise plus blind trial and error at work.
Cordially,
Go ahead, kill an amoeba and see what happens to its remains. I'll wait.
I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that a code can predict the future?
In some way other than incorporating rules for dealing with regular or recurrent phenomena?
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.