From: Denyse O'Leary (oleary@sympatico.ca)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 15:52:03 EST
Kirk asked me to post this for him, in response to your questions, as he
is not a member of this list. - Denyse
Intro:
>>>> This hypothesis yields two falsifiable predictions: a) natural
processes will never be observed to produce more than 70 bits of
information, and b) any configuration or sequence that is actually
observed to be produced that contains more than 70 bits, will always be
produced by an intelligent agent.
Question:
>> Please explain exactly how this could be falsified. If someone says,
>> "look at all these natural proteins which to all appearances
>> developed gradually during evolution" you will say, "they contain
>> over 70 bits of CSI, therefore they must be designed." If we could
>> directly observe that they came about by a string of individual
>> mutations, you could still say, "it contains 70 bits of CSI,
>> therefore God was directing each mutation and its fixation along the
>> way."
>>
>> So what could possibly count as falsification?
>>
>> Preston G.
Response:
First, just a couple points of clarification.
I'm not familiar enough with Dembski's work to use the term 'CSI'. I
would prefer to simply use the term 'functional information' as
discussed in Jack Szostak's very brief article 'Molecular information',
Nature 423, (2003), 689. As for why I prefer to use Shannon's approach
to information rather than the Kolmogorov-Chaitin approach, see Adami &
Cerf, 'Physical complexity of symbolic sequences' Physica D, 137 (2000),
62-69. Also, I think Shannon information is reasonably well understood
by biologists and relatively uncontroversial. I do look forward to
reading Dembski's works, but have not yet had the time to do so.
There are some problems with the question. I will respond to each of
them and then suggest two empirical approaches to verification or
falsification. First, I want to point out that both predictions use the
term 'observed'. Of course, proteins already exist; we have not observed
their initial construction. All we can observe today is the copying or
replication of existing functional information which, itself, requires
no new information. There is danger of circular reasoning when proteins
are described as 'natural' (in the question). Referring to proteins as
'natural' assumes that they were produced by natural processes. We do
not know that. We did not observe how they came into existence. Thus the
problem we are faced with is that the average 300 residue protein
requires roughly 500 bits to encode. We do not observe any natural
processes at all that can do such a thing. Therefore we are left
wondering how such a thing happened. Calling them 'natural' and then
concluding that, since they are natural, then natural processes can do
such things is an obvious logical fallacy; it is circular reasoning. We
cannot assume that they are 'natural'. Of course, it is an empirical
fact that intelligent agents, such as humans, can produce vast amounts
of functional information. Couple that with our empirical observations
that nature cannot seem to produce more than a few dozen bits of
information at best, and the resulting hypothesis I suggested is the
most rational position to hold, supported by empirical observations.
With respect to the possibility that God might be tinkering with
experiments behind the scenes, when we do science, we make a tacit
assumption that God is not doing such things. There is a way to test if
we had such suspicions, but I see no reason to believe that He is.
Furthermore, the same objection could be raised against any possible
falsification for any hypothesis. One could always claim that hypothesis
X was not really falsified, since God was tinkering away behind the
scenes. So we need to assume that God is not tinkering behind the scenes
if we are going to do science.
There are probably a large number of ways to test the hypothesis that I
presented, but I will only outline two. The first method would be to
focus on a bacterial protein that has at least 6 highly conserved
residues, any one of which, if substituted, would render the protein
non-functional. Population A would have only one of these residues
substituted for. Population B would have two, population C would have 3,
and so on. Knowing the size of each population, and having an idea of
replication times per population, and having in place some way of
detecting when the gene (protein) became functional within a population,
and so forth, one could then observe how many trials were required to
mutate the gene back to functionality. One could then compare the
experimental results with the number of trials predicted from
probability calculations and see what kind of correlation there was
between the two. For amino acids that must be conserved, the functional
information they carry is maximized at 4.3 bits/highly conserved
residue. Armed with the experimental data, one could then plot the
results along with what probability theory would predict, and
see if there is an upper limit to the amount of functional information
that natural processes can produce. Similar work has already been
underway for a number of years at the U of Wisconsin and the data thus
far seems to correlate well with what one would predict from probability
theory. Also, there seems to be an upper limit for the amount of
functional information that can be regenerated that is surprisingly
modest, significantly less than 40 bits. Also, we note that the more
functional information that has to be regenerated, the more likely other
areas of the temporarily non-functional gene will be degraded during its
non-functional state, so it is not simply a matter of adding more time
to the experiment. Rather, the experiment works against time. This
suggested experiment will do two things. First, since the experimental
data correlates well with what theory would predict, we can be more
confident in our assumption that God is not tinkering away behind the
scenes. Second, since the experimental data seems to indicate an upper
limit for the regeneration of functional information that is well below
70 bits, the hypothesis is not falsified.
There is a second, computational approach. One can run a simulation,
such as Lenski's et al. 'The evolutionary origin of complex features'
Nature 423 (2003), 139-144, to see what sort of informational jumps can
be accomplished through a random walk. Of course, I am assuming that
computers work within the laws of nature, God's not tinkering with the
processor, and the simulation is not designed to cheat. We can then
compare the results with what we would predict in theory to see if there
is a correlation. Again, the results appear to correlate well, and there
seems to be an upper limit. Lenski's simulation could achieve smaller,
intermediate functional information jumps, but it could not achieve a 32
bit jump. I have worked the numbers, and in theory, Lenski's simulation
can achieve a 32 bit jump, he just needs to run his program a bit
longer. He will never, however, achieve a 70 bit jump, and I can say
that with confidence. Incidentally, something Lenski either does not
realize, or chose not to discuss, is that one can achieve 32 bits by
building in intermediate, selected for states, exactly as he did.
However, he neglected to note that he will always have to input at least
32 bits of information into the virtual fitness landscape to do so. In
general, one can reduce the amount of information acquired through a
random walk by inputting the information into some sort of fitness
landscape that will guide the random walk. The problem is then shifted
from explaining where the information in the protein came from, to where
the information in the fitness landscape came from. The point is moot,
however, because the fitness factor in the regions of sequence space
between real-world regions of folding sequence space, is zero and
perfectly flat. There appear to be no closely spaced islands of stable,
folding sequence space between the major 3-D structural families in
protein topologies.
If, in either of the two above proposed experiments, we saw one of the
predictions falsified, then the hypothesis would have to be either
abandoned, or reworked. For the present, however, all the data seems to
verify my hypothesis.
Cheers,
Kirk
-- To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to www.designorchance.com My next book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) will be published Spring 2004.To order, call Castle Quay, 1-800-265-6397, fax 519-748-9835, or visit www.afcanada.com (CDN $19.95 or US$14.95).
Denyse O'Leary 14 Latimer Avenue Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5N 2L8 Tel: 416 485-2392/Fax: 416 485-9665 oleary@sympatico.ca www.denyseoleary.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 15:50:15 EST