On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:51:49 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
>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.
>PM>Irrelevant comparisson.
>SJ>More of what you once called "argument by assertion". Please explain
>*why* you claim that it is an "Irrelevant comparison".
PM>Evolution or abiogenesis is more than a random variation on
>physical laws.
Please elaborate. This seems to support what I have been saying ("that
`physical/chemical process' *alone* is incomplete to account for the
`origin of life' and undermine what you have been saying ("that origin
of life is" not "somehow different from other physical/chemical
process"):
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:04:18 -0400
To: evolution@calvin.edu
From: "Pim van Meurs" <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Origin of life, thermodynamics 2/2
[...]
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>PMYour suggestion that chemistry/physics alone is incomplete is an
>interesting one but requires some evidence would you not suggest ?
>SJ>I just gave some "evidence" of some thing that "chemistry/physics
>alone is incomplete" to explain, ie. "ink on a page follows the laws
>of "physical/chemical process", but that is incomplete to account for
>writing"!
PM>And what is this suppose to show ?
That there are things (eg. "writing") that "physical/chemical process"
alone is "incomplete to account for.
SJ>equilibrium processes", yet you then turn around and compare
>them: "Far easier" is a *comparision"!
>PM>Yes and there is no comparisson in the inevitibility of far
>equilibrium processes increasing order and complexity.
>SJ>Previously you said that "far...equilibrium processes...can
>exhibit increase in order and complexity far easier than" "near
>equilibrium processes". Now you claim that the difference is the
>"inevitibility of far equilibrium processes increasing order and
>complexity". Does this mean that "near equilibrium processes...can"
>still "exhibit increase in order and complexity" but not inevitibly? If
>so, this is still "a comparison between far and near equilibrium
>processes".
PM>WHy not address the issue Steve that far equilibrium processes
>show an almost inevitable increase in complexity and order ? The
>comparison between the two is relevant since neither one violates
>the 2nd law of thermodynamics when they increase in order and
>complexity. However for far equilibriun processes this process is far
>easier.
First things first. Please clarify about "near equilibrium processes"
before we go any furher: "Does this mean that "near equilibrium
processes...can" still "exhibit increase in order and complexity" but
not inevitibly?"
>SJ>In any event, please give some examples and/or references to back up
>your unsupported claims.
PM>Prigogine did a lot of work on this. Nicolis is the editor of a
>volume addressing some of these issues. Let me look up the references.
Good. You are going to actually quote some "references"!
Here are some of mine from "Prigogine" and "Nicolis":
The ordering principle responsible for ordered structures such as crystals
cannot explain the formation of biological structures:
"The point is that in a nonisolated system there exists a possibility for
formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low
temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the
appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the
phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot
explain the formation of biological structures." (Nicolis G.,
Prigogine I. & Babloyantz A., "Thermodynamics of Evolution,"
Physics Today, November 1972, Vol. 25, p23, in Bird W. R., "The Origin
of Species Revisited", Vol. I, Regency: Nashville, 1991, p317)
The probability that at ordinary temperatures molecules assembled to
give rise to the highly ordered structures characterizing living
organisms is vanishingly small:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number
of molecules is assembled to giver rise to the highly ordered
structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living
organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of
life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even on the
scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution
occurred." (Nicolis G., Prigogine I. & Babloyantz A., op. cit. p23)
So much for equilibrium there=modynamics. But even in non-equilibrium
dissipative structures, Prigogine just says "It is very tempting to
speculate that they corresponds to prebiotic evolution:
"Prigogine's speculations lend comfort to his fellow evolutionists
among the biochemists and molecular biologists, they are only too
eager to bow to the authority of this Nobel Prize winner. Actually,
although he believes that he is on the right track, Prigogine does not
claim he has solved the problem of the origin of life or the origin of
complex biological organizations. In a book he co-authored in 1977,
the year he won the Nobel Prize, Prigogine says:
`There seems to be no doubt that dissipative structures play an
essential role in the function of living systems as we see them today.
What was the role of dissipative structures in evolution? It is very
tempting to speculate that prebiotic evolution corresponds essentially
to a succession of instabilities leading to an increasing level of
complexity.' (Nicolis G. & Prigogine I., "Self-Organization in Non-
equilibrium Systems", 1977, p12).
What is the answer that Nicolis and Prigogine give to their question,
`What was the role of dissipative structures in evolution?'-It is very
tempting to speculate! No doubt it was tempting for Nicolis and
Prigogine to speculate about such matters, but since when have
tempting speculations become scientific solutions to an extremely
vexing and complex problem?" (Gish D.T., "Creation Scientists
Answer Their Critics", 1993, p187)
Berlinski observes:
"When Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize for his work in
thermodynamics, the reaction among mathematicians was
thankfulness that no one in a position to disburse funds, or anyone
else for that matter, had any idea of what he was talking about."
(Berlinski D., "From Bad to Worse", "Black Mischief: Language,
Life, Logic, Luck", 1988, p59)
>PM>I still want a definition of specified complexity and how one
>>determines such.
>SJ>Here are some "definitions" and examples "of specified complexity":
>SJ>1. The highly organized arrangement of parts in chemical machinery
>in order to accomplish specialized functions:
PM>Why is it specified? It suggests that it required some
>intelligence. Now it means specialized rather than specified.
No. The "functions" are "specialized". The "chemical machinery"
specifies the "functions".
SJ>"Specified Complexity. The highly organized arrangement of
>thousands of parts in the chemical machinery needed to accomplish
>specialized functions originated gradually in coacervates or other
>protocells." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People", 1993, p46)
>SJ>"There is neither solid theory nor promising experimental basis for
>the belief that specified complexity-the highly organized arrangement
>of thousands of parts-arose spontaneously." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H.,
>"Of Pandas and People", 1993, pp55-56)
PM>There is no solid evidence that it could not have happened either.
There can never be "solid evidence" that something "could not have happened".
That would require a universal negative. But there *certainly* "is no
solid evidence that it could" "have happened"
PM>Perhaps this strawman of specified complexity, similar to irreducibly
>complex presumes the exiastance of a specification in advance when in
>fact it is us looking presently at the end result and marveling at the
>efficiency.
I agree that we are "looking presently at the end result and marveling
at the efficiency" of it. But that is because we know that "specified
complexity" uniformly in our experience "presumes the existence of a
specification in advance".
Besides, I think you have got your metaphors mixed up. A "strawman" is
a false representation of an opponents argument which is then easily
demolished. Since I am the one presenting my own argument, I am hardly
likely to erect a "strawman" of it!
PM>Specified complexity now refers to a highly organized arrangement of
>parts. Yet we observe such highly organized arrangements all the time and
>do not presume that they could not have arisen spontaneously?
Here you are using the universal negative ploy again!
The real point is that if "we observe...highly organized arrangements"
we normally "presume that they" *have* "not...arisen spontaneously". If
we saw a machine with a "highly organized arrangement of parts" we would
assume "that" it had "not...arisen spontaneously".
>SJ>"...consider how living organisms and manufactured products both
>exhibit the property of organization or specified complexity.
PM>Another blatant assertion of specified complexity. If organization
>is the key word then why not use organization.
Because it is a particular form of "organization" that is found only
in "living organisms and manufactured products".
PM>But then it would not give the illusion that there is something which
>specified the complexity.
It is your unsubstantiated *assumtion* that it is an "illusion". Maybe it's
your materialist-naturalist philosophy that is the "illusion"?
PM>Perhaps to confuse?
Or "Perhaps to" clarify?
PM>Specified to me implies a designer.
That's right.
PM>But organization could happen without an intelligent designer. Physical
>and chemical processes are very capable of increasing organization, not
>just in the simple forms of crystals but also in the form of far equilibrium
>dissipative systems.
While no doubt there is some limited form of self-"organization" found in
nature, eg. crystals, sorting of pebbles on the seashoreetc., there is no
evidence that it is "capable of increasing organization" to anything like
the level of "organization" found in even the simplest living thing. If
you know of any examples, please post them with references from the
scientific literature.
>SJ>The pickup truck has many parts that make up a working whole and they
>all obey discoverable physical and chemical laws; but the truck does not
>form spontaneously as a result of these laws...an engineer or team of
>engineers had to take the physical properties of these metals into
>account in arriving at the design and manufacture of the engine. Is
>the kind of complexity found in living cells more nearly like the
>complexity of proteinoid microspheres or pickup trucks? Pickup
>trucks, of course." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People',
>1993, p57)
PM>A truck also does not mutate or procreate.
The analogy was used of non-living chemicals that allegedly formed
"spontaneously" to make the first "living cells". It therefore was
*before* there was mutation or procreatetion.
>SJ>The assertion that it is more like pickup trucks is ridiculus given
>the fact that protonoid cells show evidence of life in that they respond
>to stimuli, divide, grow etc.
How about some *evidence* for your unsubstantiated assertions, Pim? I
have posted counter-evidence from authorities that "protonoid cells"
"evidence of life in that they respond to stimuli, divide, grow etc"
is a mere "shadow" of what real cells do:
"During my childhood, I learned that I could make the shadow of a
dog with my hand. I needed only to point my thumb out, bend in my
index finger, and hold my hand before a light to produce the image of
a dog's head on the wall. I could enhance the effect by moving my
pinky while making barking noises. But this form was not a dog, nor
could it ever become one; it was merely shadow play. In the same
way, the properties of the microspheres, while entertaining, may be
merely shadow play." (Shapiro R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the
Origin of Life", 1986, p201)
Fox's proteinoid hypothesis has not persuaded the biological community
and criticisms of it are overwhelming:
"There is no widely accepted, remotely plausible scenario for the
emergence of life on earth. The proteinoid hypothesis of Sidney Fox
and his colleagues (S.W. Fox, "Molecular Evolution to the First
Cells," Pure and Applied Chemistry 34, 1973) has not persuaded the
biological community of its strength. Criticisms of it are
overwhelming (W. Day, Genesis on Planet Earth; K Dose, "Ordering
Processes and the Evolution of the First Enzymes," in Protein
Structure and Evolution, eds. J.L.Fox, Z. Deyl, A. Blazy, 1976; C.E.
Folsome, "Synthetic Organic Microstructures and the Origin of
Cellular Life," Die Naturwissenschaften 7, 1976; C. Ponnamperuma,
"Cosmochemistry and the Origin of Life," in Cosmochemistry and the
Origin of Life, ed. C. Ponnamperuma, 1983; and so forth) (Berlinski
D., "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics", Commentary,
September 1996, p33).
The great Oparin, who was a friend of Fox, and wrote an introduction to
one of Fox's books, was unpersuaded by Fox's proteinoids:
"Fox's microspheres, since they are obtained thermally, do not present
very promising results from this point of view [i.e., evolving to
include metabolic processes]. Their structure is static. This... creates
many difficulties when it comes to converting them into dynamic
systems which could be used for modeling the evolution of
metabolism." (Oparin A.I., "Genesis and Evolutionary Development
of Life, 1968, p105, in Coppedge J.F., "Evolution: Possible or Impossible?",
1973, p261)
In any event, proteinoids are so much contrived, far beyond anything
that could be found in nature, that if anything they are evidence of
intelligent design:
"Fox, however, demonstrated that if an extra-large portion of one of
three different amino acids is added to a mix of purified amino acids
and heated in a laboratory oven, then the amino acids do join. But
even then they do not join to give proteins the structure they form is
chemically different. So Fox and collaborators called the structures
"proteinoids," then went on to show that the proteinoids had some
interesting properties, including modest catalytic abilities, that were
reminiscent of real proteins. The scientific community has remained
deeply skeptical of these experiments. As with our imaginary baker, a
heavy odor of investigator involvement hangs over proteinoids. The
special circumstance needed to make them-hot, dry conditions
(putatively representing rare spots such as volcano rims) with exact
amounts of already-purified amino acids weighed out in advance casts
dark shadows over the relevance of the experiments. Worse, because
proteinoids are not really proteins, the considerable problem of
producing authentic proteins remains....Other researchers have
proposed some other ways whereby amino acids might join to give
proteins. All suffer more or less from the problems that plague
proteinoids, and none has attracted much support from the scientific
community." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p170)
>SJ>The use of the term engineer presumes intelligence when in fact
>the 'engineer' could have been a non-intelligent force. To conclude
>that living cells have a complexity more similar to trucks than to
>protonoid cells ignores that protonoid cells show evidence of
>growth, division, response to stimuli etc. Something trucks have yet
>to show. Thus the suggestion that living cells are more similar to
>trucks than to protonod microspheres because both appear to need a
>designer presumes the answer rather than prove it.
No. The hypothesis of an Intelligent Designer is a *inference* from
the evidence, using the same methods that other sciences use, like
SETI, archaeology and forensic science. The boot is actually on the
other foot. It is *you* who "presumes the answer" that there is no
"designer", when the evidence supports it.
>SJ>"The origin of life requires the initial encoding of specified
>blueprints, a non-Darwinian process.
PM>Assertion without foundation in fact.
Pim. You make *hundreds* of "Assertion without foundation". Your
arguments are built on double-standards and would collapse if you
applied the same strict standards you apply mine. It is actually
countre-productive to your arguments. I would be *really* impressed
if you showed some consistency.
PM>What did the blueprint specify?
Wilcox explains what these "blueprint specify", namely "a
hierarchy of described reality...for specific cell types,
organs, organisms, hives":
"...the information encoded on the genome reveals hierarchy. It is a
hierarchy of described reality, of blueprints for specific cell types,
organs, organisms, hives-blueprints of immense stability. Further,
these blueprints are organized in a form analogous to a linguistic
hierarchy, in which the definitions of the "markers" are written in the
code they define-e.g., amino acid code in the encoded description of
the structure of the aminoacyl proteins. Nor are these simple
descriptions of morphology, but a cybernetic hierarchy of controls,
with the goals of the more comprehensive levels buffered by flexibility
in the lower levels....The information that dictates error-checked
homeostatic/homeorhytic phenomena must itself be error-checked
and cybernetic." (Wilcox D.L., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?",
1994, pp196-197)
PM>Why assume that there was a blueprint which presumes some form of
>intelligence.
Why "assume that there was" *not* "a blueprint", when all the evidence
points to it? The only reason you reject it out of hand is not because
of the evidence but because it "presumes some form of intelligence".
PM>One presumes that the origin of life requires the initial coding of
>a specified blueprint. What did this blueprint specify
See above.
PM>and why presume that it was specified in advance rather than that the
>end result was a combination of chance and selection?
Because "chance and selection" presumes the existence of mechanisms that
already can "select":
"The first problem is a matter of simple logic. How can natural
selection be Gould's creator of new morphology when it does not
write genetic messages. but only chooses between them? Rather than
a creator, it is a critic. It brings no information into the genome, but
only selects forms already created by the mutated genome.... the
informational characteristics of the genome itself and the probability
structure of genetic phase space..determine what selection is able to
produce....Clearly, then, the nature of the information encoded on the
genome, the genetic programs that can be mutated, are central to
understanding natural selection's ability to "create."...The information
that dictates error-checked homeostatic/homeorhytic phenomena
must itself be error-checked and cybernetic." (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J.
& Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", 1994,
pp196-197)
>SJ> Specification involves arbitrary definitions for the "letters" used
>to write the "messages." How then did specified complexity (blueprints and
>their described products/"machines") arise from any amount of nonspecified
>complexity (complex machines, but no blueprints)?" (Wilcox D.L., in Buell
>J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", 1994, p201)
PM>Chance and selection? Why presume that there is a blueprint
>when in fact there is no evidence of such?
There *is* "evidence of such" a "blueprint". Here are some references
from two biology texts and an origin of life specialist:
"The blueprint for an organism's organization and metabolism are
contained within the genes, the hereditary factors that are passed on
when an organism reproduces. In all organisms, the genes are
composed of the complex chemical DNA, which can be copied so
that all the cells of a multicellular organism, including sperm and
eggs, receive a copy." (Mader S.S., "Biology", 1990, p5)
"Nucleic acids are enormous molecules that store the hereditary
blueprints for the synthesis of proteins." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on
Earth", 1973, p47)
"The nucleic acids are, of course, the hereditary material. They
contain the blueprint for the organism which is passed from parent to
daughter cells. DNA duplicates during replication, to provide a
blueprint copy for each daughter. The design of DNA, with its two
complementary chains, makes this event possible." (Shapiro R.,
"Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life", 1986, pp133-134)"
PM>perhaps the end result is what confuses you in believing that there
>was an initial blue print but there is no evidence that such a blueprint
>is required or even was present.
See above references. There is a "blueprint" contained in the DNA.
PM>Specified complexity is a poor choice of words as it appears to
>presume a building plan or blue print/intelligence without providing
>evidence of such.
See above. I have provided "evidence" that there is a "blue print" and
you have provided *none* that there isn't.
>SJ>3. The sequencing of amino acids to give a functional protein:
>
>"There is little similarity between the ordering associated with
>crystals, vortices and the like and the specified complexity required
>in the sequencing of amino acids to give a functional protein.
PM>Of course not, the latter one is far equilibrium/dissipative.
So now you are abandoning your "far equilibrium/dissipative"
structures argument?
PM>However specified complexity is again not defined but presumed here.
I have "defined" "specified complexity" at length. Please re-read
what I posted.
PM>If through random variations a protein arises which can be helpful in the
>survival or if a protein arises which can more effectively reproduce
>itself and this protein is then selected for, does this show evidence of
>specified complexity?
There is no evidence that a "protein" can "arise" "through random variations".
Yockey has calculated the minimum number of amino acids that could arise
by chance in a billion years as only 49 amino acids long, which is much
to short to code for a living system:
"Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the
longest genome which could be expected with 95% confidence in
10^9 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much
too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could
not get started." (Yockey H.P., "A Calculation of the Probability of
Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 67, 1977, p377)
In any case, a "protein" on its own doesn't show "specified complexity".
It is the DNA which codes for "proteins" which "show specified complexity".
>SJ>"The discovery that DNA conveys a genetic message gives the argument
>from design a new twist. Since life is at its core a chemical
>message system, the origin of life is the origin of information. A
>genetic message is a very special kind of order. It represents
>"specified complexity."...
PM>Once again, a buzz word without substance. It is presumed to be
>special kind of order without evidence. We disagree, that we
>presume a message in DNA does not mean that there is such a
>message or that such an apparant message is nothing more than a
>coincidence.
I have produced "evidence" that the complexity of living systems
is "special". Even Dawkins admitted living things were "specified in
advance" (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, pp6-9). Here is
another from Crick, the co-discoverer of the double-helix structure
of DNA:
"Living things, as we shall see, are specified in detail at the level of
atoms and molecules, with incredible delicacy and precision." (Crick
F., "Life Itself:", 1981, p37)
But you have just relied on what Dawkins calls the "Argument from
Personal Incredulity" (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker" 1991,
p38) and have just denied everything, while providing no "evidence"
to support your position.
>SJ>By contrast with either random or ordered structures, complex
>structures require many instructions. If we wanted a computer to write
>out a poem, for example, we would have to specify each letter. That is,
>the poem has a high information content.
PM>Not if the poem were written in a language known only to the
>writer.
How would this make a difference?
PM>We presume the existance of information or message in
>DNA when there need not be such a message.
See above. I have provided evidence to support my position that
living things exhibit "specified complexity" but you have produced
no evidence to support your position that they don't.
PM>DNA: Information in this context means the precise determination,
>or specification, of a sequence of letters.
That's right.
PM>With a letter the ordering of letters is to a certain extent
>specified in advance and since we understand the coding we can
>read what we consider a message.
That's right.
PM>In case of DNA there is no need to require that the ordering was
>specified in advance.
Please explain then how the cellular machinery can "understand the
coding" of DNA's "message" and produce a specific "proteins",
without it being "specified in advance".
>SJ>We said above that a message represents "specified complexity."
>We are now able to understand what specified means.
PM>So a message is specified complex and DNA is specified complex
>therefor >?????
Therefore, since "a message" originates by an intelligent designer,
so by analogy this is evidence that "DNA" originates by an Intelligent
Designer.
PM>Even assuming a valid similarity this does not prove that since one
>required an intelligence, that the other requires one as well. More
>importantly it still asserts that DNA is specified complex, that life is
>specified complex without presenting proof.
You keep confusing evidence with "proof", Pim. I did not say that the
fact that "DNA is specified complex" that it is "proof" that it "required
an intelligence". I simply claim it is *evidence* that it "required an
intelligence".
>SJ>The more highly specified a thing is, the fewer choices there are
>about fulfilling each instruction." (Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B., in
>Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, pp206-207)
PM>This is reasoning after the fact. Marveling at the end result and
>wondering how could this ever have happened.
Well, so what? But in any event what has that got to do with what
Bradley and Thaxton say in the above sentence?
>SJ>"No nonliving things (except DNA and protein in living things, human
>artifacts and written language) have specified complexity...
PM>Assertion without proof. There is no evidence of specified complexity
>in DNA or protein that would suggest proof of an intelligent designer.
More confusion about "proof" and "evidence". I at least produce
"evidence", but all you produce is "Assertions".
PM>The attempt to create an artificial similarity between language and
>artifcats and DNA and protein is meaningless.
There is no need to "create an artificial similarity between language and
artifcats and DNA and protein". They are similar in every respect. This
is evident by the very language that geneticists use:
"Cairns-Smith also describes the `messages' contained in the genetic
information stored in the "library" of each cell's DNA, which are
transcribed and translated to direct the synthesis of proteins. His
language is entirely typical of others who write about this subject:
practically all stress the appearance of design and purpose, the
immense complexity of the simplest cell, and the apparent need for
many complex components to work together to sustain life. Everyone
uses the vocabulary of intelligent communication to describe protein
synthesis: messages, programmed instructions, languages,
information, coding and decoding, libraries. Why not consider the
possibility that life is what it so evidently seems to be, the product of
creative intelligence?" (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
p112).
PM>If specified complexity means, the appearance of order or design it
>presumes intelligence, if it means organization then it does not prove
>that it was specified in advance from a blueprint or that there is the
>need for an intelligent designer.
I have supplied evidence from atheists Orgel, Dawkins and Crick that life
has specified complexity. You have supplied no evidence but your own
argument from personal incredulity. I don't claim that "specified complexity
...presumes intelligence", because Dawkins, Orgel and Crick obviously don't
think it does. I simply claim that just that it is *evidence* that life had
an "an intelligent designer".
>SJ>The sequence of nucleotides in DNA or of amino acids in a protein is
>not a repetitive order like a crystal. Instead it is like the letters in
>a written message.
PM>Only the appearance of a written message.
I am pleased that you finally admit that "The sequence of nucleotides in DNA
or of amino acids in a protein" has "the appearance of a written message".
But how do you *know* that it is "Only" that? You would need to know for
certain that there is no Intelligent Designer to assert that it is "Only
the appearance of a written message".
But in any event, it is sufficient for my argument that you acknowledge that
"The sequence of nucleotides in DNA or of amino acids in a protein" has
"the appearance of a written message", because that is *evidence* (not
proof) that it was the product of intelligent design.
PM>Similarly the many layers of sediment appear to have a message
>as they form a very well ordered structure which can tell us a lot
>about the physical and chemical processes which took place but to
>suggest that this 'order' is specified or should be construed as a
>written message suggests the need for an intelligence where such
>intelligence is not required. Aapparant similarity is hardly evidence
>that it is a valid comparison to extend the similarity.
No one has claimed that "many layers of sediment appear to have a
message". Indeed, this is a good example of how "a very well ordered
structure" produced by "physical and chemical processes" does not
contain a "message"
>SJ>A message is not composed of a sequence of letters repeated over and
>over. A message construed from random mutations and selection of the message
>which works best will eventually give the appearance of design when in
>fact it is a mere product of naturalistic processes. Was the end result
>specified in advance?
PM>No, only the rules for selection are specified. We cannot read a message
>which is not written in a language we do not understand. Does the message
>have information content then?
I cannot "understand" French, but that does not mean that everything written
in French does not have "information content"!
>SJ>"What distinguishes a message is that certain random groupings of
>letters have come to symbolize meanings according to a given symbol
>convention."
PM>So it is an apparant message? We have assigned them meaning and
>it becomes a way to communicate.
What would be a *real* "message" then? *All* messages have "assigned...
meaning" that "becomes a way to communicate"!
PM>Therefor a message presumes an intelligent designer, and does not
>prove such.
Agreed - "a message presumes an intelligent designer" but it "does no
prove such". All I claim is that "a message" is *evidence* for "an
intelligent designer".
PM>The meaning however might be specific but this does not mean that a
>specific combination of DNA was specified in advance and certainly it
>does not mean that there was an intelligence required.
It "does not mean that a specific combination of DNA was specified in
advance" and "it does not mean that there was an intelligence required",
(in the sense of conclusively prove) but in the absence of any plausible
naturalistic explanation, it is *evidence* that "there was an intelligence
required".
PM>It appears that specified complexity refers to the appearance of
>purpose or design which in itself is a circular reasoning.
It would only be "circular reasoning" if I provided no independent
evidence that life has "specified complexity", but I have from atheist
scientists like Dawkins, Orgel and Crick. It is *your "reasoning"
which is "circular". You reject a priori that there is an Intelligent
Designer and just deny any evidence that there is.
PM>Why is it specified complex? Because it appears to have a purpose or
>design.
No. "DNA" has specified complexity because it specifies in advance
complex functions, namely specifying by a genetic code that complex
cellular machinery produce specific proteins.
PM>What is the evidence for purpose or design? Well it has specified
>complexity.
No. The argument is not "circular" and it perfectly logical:
1. DNA has specified complexity (as acknowledged by Dawkins, Orgel
and Crick);
2. The only other thing that has "specified complexity", namely a
human language message, is the product of intelligent design;
3. Therefore DNA it is probable that DNA is the product of Intelligent
Design.
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------