SJ: My point all along has been that "the...order found in the formation
of a snowflake" has little or nothing to do with the specified
*complexity* found in living things.
So you claim but the SLOT addresses entropy. If you claim that life
has specified complexity, you presume something which has yet to be
shown. I disagree that there is any specified complexity other than
governed by the laws of chemistry and physics.
SJ: A snowflake has high order but little complexity. Living things (eg.
proteins, RNA, DNA) have low order and high complexity, and that of a
special sort, ie. they are specified in advance to perform a function
(see Dawkins example of a combination lock below).
Please describe in terms of entropy a snowflake and living things. Using
order
and complexity are very subjective terms. The suggestion that they are
specified in advance is both incorrect and unsupported by fact and logic.
The use of information theory confuses the issue of entropy. If your
claim is that life violates a law of information theory, feel free to
pose such law and provide evidence.
PM>Unless you can identify why the origin of life follows different
>laws there is no reason to assume beforehand that the origin of life
>violates the SLOT because order can increase without violation of
>the SLOT.
SJ: Pim, nowehere have I said that "the origin of life violates the
SLOT". I have pointed this out many times. If you keep alleging it
despite my repeated denials, then I can only conclude this is a
*deliberate* misconstrual on your part, which must be necessary to
save your argument.
So where is the problem then ? Evolution, abiogenesis etc do not violate
the SLOT ?
PM>If your argument is that origin of life is somehow different from
>other physical/chemical process then I encourage you to identify the
>differences and show how the SLOT is violated.
SJ:
The "origin of life" no doubt occurred with an Intelligent Designer
*using* "physical/chemical process".
no doubt and no evidence ?
SJ: But I do claim that "physical/chemical process" *alone* is incomplete
to account for the "origin of life". For example, ink on a page follows
the laws of
"physical/chemical process", but that is incomplete to account for
writing.
Irrelevant comparisson. Your suggestion that chemistry/physics alone is
incomplete is an interesting one but requires some evidence would you not
suggest ?
PM>No I agree that there is no comparisson between far and near
>equilibrium processes. The former ones can exhibit increase in
>order and complexity far easier than the latter ones.
SJ: You now say "there is no comparison between far and near
equilibrium processes", yet you then turn around and compare them:
"Far easier" is a *comparision"!
Yes and there is no comparisson in the inevitibility of far equilibrium
processes increasing order and complexity.
PM>That hardly is a good definition of complexity though.
SJ: Make up your mind, Pim! You said you were "confused about specified
complexity" and wanted to know "how does one specify he complexity?"
No you want to know what the "definition of complexity" is!
I still want a definition of specified complexity and how one determines
such.
PM>I still do not understand specified complexity? You are looking
>backwards from the end result and claiming that this was somehow
>specified beforehand?
SJ: Yes.
That is a poor method based upon the idea of design which has already
been shown circular. You observe complexity and assume it has to be
specified and therefor it requires a designer. Highly circular.
>SJ>"The origin of life requires the initial encoding of specified
>blueprints, a non-Darwinian process.
PM>I do not understand why this is required. The origin of life
>does not require any specification of blueprints but rather relies
>on adaptation to environmental pressures to reach one of the many
>blueprints.
SJ: Sorry Pim, but "adaptation to environmental pressures" is a feature
of *living systems*. Non-living chemicals do not "adapt to
environmental pressures".
But they do, they do.
PM>The assumption that there is specified complexity appears to be
>the fallacy here. Looking back and stating how unlikely is it that
>this happened while ignoring that the end result could be one of
>the billion of possible end results.
SJ: No. That is a different issue, which I might address later. The
current question is "How then did specified complexity...arise from
any amount of nonspecified complexity...?
Presuming that it is specified complex ? But then it is circular.
PM>Nonsense, order is order. Giving it a name of specified
>complexity which appears to be based on a faulty assumption does
>not make it so.
SJ: No. Something with "order" (eg. snowflake) has little or no
information content. Something with "specified complexity" (eg.
DNA, human message) has little "order" but high information content.
So please link information content to entropy. Or is your argument not
based on entropy after all but some law of information ? And how
is information content established ?
>SJ>2. The order of information-bearing macromolecules like DNA is
>qualitatively different from that of crystals like snowflakes, since
>it does not arise solely from physical forces within matter:
PM>It doesn't? what other forces are there?
SJ: Mind!
And there are observations showing that DNA order is different from
snowflake order ? Your hypothesis is founded on this unsupported assertion.
>SJ>Through the application of information theory, it is now
>realized that there are actually two kinds of order. The first kind
PM>And the information theory entropy has no relationship to the
>entropy as defined by thermodynamics.
SJ: Someone better tell the author of my daughter's university physics
textbook! As he points out, there is a "relationship" between
"entropy as defined by thermodynamics" and "information theory":
I disagree since there is not second law of information content.
PM>So perhaps the argument is that evolution violates a 'law of
>information theory' but then you have to show the existance and
>validity of such a law.
SJ: I do not claim that "evolution violates a 'law of information
theory'" either!
Hmm, so what do you claim then ? You presume specified complexity so
that you can or have to invoke a designer ?
PM>There is no such thing as specified in advance order.
SJ: Oh? How do you think they sent a man to the moon? Just threw 30,000
components together at random and hoped for the best!
Aha, but now we have a designer. So your insistance on using specified
complexity is obvious, it presumes a designer. Thank you for your frank
response.
Now about the moon, evolution is not just the random act of mutation but
the directed force of natural selection. however neither mutation nor
natural selection can predict the form and shape of the end product many
million
years later.
PM>That is based on the fallacy that we see an end product and
>perceive this to have been specified in advance.
SJ: Why is this a "fallacy"? This is our 100% uniform experience.
Maybe yours but this is based on the idea that we can identify
design and that apparant design needs a designer.
PM>Furthermore there is plenty of evidence of the formation of
>complexity and order at the chemical level (like DNA) which shows
>that such order and complexity can indeed form purely through
>naturalistic processes.
SJ: There is no other "complexity and order at the chemical level (like
DNA)", except RNA and human writing:
Who claimed that there was other complexity and order ?
SJ: "There exists a structural identity between the base sequences in a
DNA message and the alphabetical letter sequences in a written
message, and this assures us that the analogy is "very close and
Nonsense. One is designed, the other has yet to be shown to be designed.
>SJ>Actually, according to Yockey, they have been trying for *84* years:
PM>Wow, 84 years and that is somehow proof that it cannot be done?
>I guess the fact that it took 2000 years of civilization to create
>atomic power shows that it could not have existed?
SJ: I did not say it is "proof that it cannot be done". I claim merely
that it is accumulating *evidence* that life did arise from non-life
purely naturalistically.
And we agree. There is accumulating evidence that life did arise from
non-life naturalistically.
SJ: Even if using the full weight of human intelligence, man succeeds in
contriving unique circumstances where life spontanreously begins, that
would be an analogy of *creation* by an Intelligent Designer, not the
product of undirected physical forces:
Poor logic. I guess this means that our experiments are useless in all
sciences ? Of course not.
>PM>Your conclusion is mistaken. There is no such evidence of
>>supernatural creation within a scientific arena.
>SJ>What "such evidence of supernatural creation" would you accept, Pim?
PM>Repeatable experimental evidence, predictions, falsifiability.
SJ: Thanks at least for finally answering! But this is not "evidence",
it is just demarcation criteria designed to rule out "evidence of
supernatural creation". That makes your claim that "There is no
such evidence of supernatural creation within a scientific arena"
just a tautology.
Indeed. So there is no scientific evidence of a supernatural event. So all
we have is increasing amount of non-evidence....
SJ: Unfortunately, your demarcation criteria would rule out
macroevolutionary events since these are not "repeatable":
But they are repeatable as well certainly in principle.
SJ: So, please post actual "evidence" that could be produced by a theist
in this debate, that you would "accept" (at least in principle for
the sake of argument), as "evidence of supernatural creation within
a scientific arena".
Perhaps you could give it a try ?
>SJ>If that is the case, so are the other singularities, like the origin
>of life and life's major groups "outside the realm of science"
>because they, like the Big Bang, are unique, unobservable and
>unrepeatable:
PM>Fine, if you want to argue this that is fine with me. At least
>we agree that creation has no place within science.
SJ: No. It is *you* who "want to argue this"! By your own demarcation
criteria, you have just ruled out "the Big Bang" as "science".
No, I agreed with you for the sake of showing that we agree that creation
has no place within science.
>SJ>There is a slight problem. The probability is not improved by
>trading one big jump for a lot of little ones, because then the
>little steps must be in the right animal, the right body-part
>and in the right sequence, as Milton points out:
PM>That is incorrect on several counts. First of all it assumes
>that only one protein can have the required abilities.
SJ: No. I said nothing about "only one protein". That was *your*
example: "...a protein of length 500 for instance and getting the
same protein....". But I fail to see how more than "only one
protein" can help your claim that "Small steps can take place far
more easier than one giant leap".
Try climbing a mountain ?
PM>Furthermore it assumes that there are only random forces at work
>in the formation of the proteins.
SJ: Bradley and Kok examined the claimed non-"random" preference in
proteins and found none:
This is the bonding part but that is not the only factor. Availability of
material, selection etc.
PM>You are incorrectly assuming that the outcome as we observed now
>was the only possible outcome and that the 'evolution' of the
>protein was totally random in its steps.
SJ: I am not "assuming" anything. I am testing your claim that: "Small
steps can take place far more easier than one giant leap" and that
there is a "difference between the probability of specifying one
giant leap from a mix of amino acids to a protein of length 500 for
instance and getting the same protein through intermediate steps."
As I said, try climbing a mountain.