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 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.
I'm simply trying to point out that "a while" can be a very long time.
There is a theme within the ID and creationist movements that is framed by the phrase "genetic entropy" or devolution, which posits an inevitable wearing down or degradation of the genome. I'm not playing word games. I'm pointing out that the overwhelming number of living things do not wear out and do not go extinct due to genetic entropy.
If we can get clear on what I am saying, we can continue the discussion.
I doubt you have thought this through. the simplest cells are pretty complex (and that seems to be the strongest argument against abiogenesis). There are single-celled organisms with genomes many times longer that that of humans.
Thanks as ever, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind words of encouragement!
I see you've been studying with Brittany Spears..
/joke..
I agree generally.. religion is a big distraction FROM God..
[[I’m merely offering a counterexample.]]
I must have missed it- what was your coutner example? The fact that maoebas were never dead once vefore they were alive?
[[But I’m just observing the fact that people disagree on religious revelations,]]
2.6 billions TRUE CHristians hwo have accepted and experienced Christ don’t- They know hte Saviour exists whether there may be minor dissagreements about God’s word
Well, that would be nice! But we seem to have a problem getting on "the same page." For one thing, you want to chat up genetic entropy, while I'm trying to elaborate algorithmic complexity. As ever, you seem to want to argue from the "special case" in order to obviate the more "general case"....
Yet it seems to me that "genetic complexity" is a subset of the algorithmic....
People that believe in nothing can and do believe in anything..
i.e. scientology as an example.. in a fairly long list..
[[I’m simply trying to point out that “a while” can be a very long time.]]
mmm- not so much
[[I’m pointing out that the overwhelming number of living things do not wear out and do not go extinct due to genetic entropy.]]
i assume you’re talking about viruses being passed on- or dchang by mutaitons being passed on? If so, those within the host do die- the fact that the offspring pick them up in no way intimates that it is ‘living on’- Cells get passed along, but htose in the host do die- those that are passed along start again in a fresh life with fresh repairs and maintanances- but they too will die once hte offspring dies. Suggesting that htey somehow avoid entropy because they are passed along ignores the fact that those that are, are still subject to entropy i nthe new host
God made life to ‘replenish’ it’s fitness by passing along the code to new generations- however, these new cells are still subkect to entropy-
Not really sure where your argument is going, but I don’t think pointing to the fact that soem mistakes get passed down through generations means they are still not subject to effects of entropy just as every other system is (with a few exemptions of static mineral and crystal arrangements which simply follow geometric patters and laws.
[[Well, that would be nice! But we seem to have a problem getting on “the same page.”]]
You’re not the only one- Several issues JS has proposed have been left unclear in other threads as well
Like Betty said- not that single incidents might extrapolate to every other organism, it appears that, after a brief look, that cloned organisms are able to ‘stave off scenescene’ by replacing old modules with new- Whiel this extends their ‘life’ for a long time, it appears that there still is a mainatanace system inplce replacing elements which have succumbed to scenescene- or the effects of entropy.
“Using two models, we examined how stage-specific life-history rates of a clone’s modules determine whether a genetic individual escapes senescence by replacing old modules with new ones.”
It also appears that long lived organisms or animals such a tortoises are subject to entropy- they are just aging more slowly- in some cases much more slowly
If you have info to hte cotnrary- could you post it?
Then you're "pointing out" something that has not been observed. To the contrary, extinctions have been so extremely the fact of existance, that by extension, it would appear to be the very purpose of life.
Anything but God, that is.
Perhaps that's because the genomes of single-celled organisms may contain a heck of a lot of "redundant" information? Remove the redundancy, and they are found to be simple after all?
I mean, for example, the situation where the text message "Happy Birthday" is endlessly reiterated as a screen saver on a PC. It looks like a whole lot of information. But in algorithmic complexity terms, the information size is teensy, amounting to what is conveyed by the two words, "happy" and "birthday."...
Or take as another example the following exchange between Philip Ball and Grandpierre, added as a "dialogue" to the latter's Chapter 28 of the already cited work.
Philip Ball
At root, I am perhaps most perplexed by the notion that algorithmic complexity has to be high to account for biological phenomena. Has it not been one of the underpinnings of complexity science that complex behaviours can arise from simple rules?Attila Grandpierre
This is a very good question.... Indeed, today it is a dominant view that complexity can arise from simple rules. But one must distinguish between the above weak form of such a statement and a stronger form claiming that all complexities found in nature must be derived from simple rules regulating only the physical properties of the systems and organisms. ...[A]lgorithmic complexity has a fundamentally different nature from morphological or phenomenological complexity. Let us take an example. The circle has a low algorithmic complexity (cca. 100 bits), and an extremely high morphological complexity (infinite points, infinite bits). Therefore, it is apparent that a small algorithmic complexity is able to produce an extremely high amount of morphological complexity. In this sense, algorithmic complexity is more fundamental than [the] morphological one. Does it follow from the fact that the circle has a low algorithmic complexity that we must think that all the mathematical functions can be derived from simple rules?No, because, for example, there are many mathematical objects that cannot be given in algebraically closed form. Let us take another example. There are simple machines like a watch having a low algorithmic complexity. Does it follow that we must accept that all machines must have low algorithmic complexity? No, because a computer with higher algorithmic complexity can solve more tasks and more easily than a smaller computer. Moreover, once the machine is ready, its functions are specified, its algorithmic complexity is given.
But there are tasks for living organisms requiring revealing a problem, to realize the existence of an unexpected task. Living organisms must continuously solve new and new problems, and problem solving ... by definition corresponds to the production of algorithmic complexity. Production of algorithmic complexity is possible only if a still deeper level of complexity (generative complexity) exists which can produce algorithmic complexity on the basis of a unified context corresponding to the generative principle. ...[W]e must realize that algorithmic complexity and generative complexity can be regarded as full members of the conceptual framework of science and they are fundamental aspects of nature. My answer to Ball’s problem is that we have to consider systems and organisms [as having] high algorithmic complexity. The algorithmic complexity of a circle or a fractal is low, a watch has a higher algorithmic complexity, a computer still higher, and a living organism still much higher. Indeed, the algorithmic complexity of a living organism must be high to account for biological phenomena. — ibid., p. 608.
I imagine brother js1138 is a master of the debate tactic of indirection: He manages to avoid having to engage unpleasant arguments simply by changing the subject.
Of course, that always leaves me wondering: Why does he want to change the subject in the first place?
Which leads one to inquire into the "teleology" of the "program."
What a magnificent essay/post dearest sister in Christ!
Plus it looks like we're both on a "rabbit kick" these days, LOLOL!
Thank you ever so much for this brilliant essay/post!
Exactly correct.
'Natural selection' is an artifact of the interaction between existing biological systems and their environments rather than the creator of such systems.
Seems so to me, too, GourmetDan. Thank you ever so much for writing!
You are so subtle when you engage in name calling. I almost missed it.
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.