On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:53:30 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[continued]
>PM>Maybe yours but this is based on the idea that we can identify
>design and that apparant design needs a designer.
>SJ>There can be no question that we "can identify design". The
sciences of archaeology and SETI depend on it:
PM>We can identify design only because there is additional evidence
>supporting the data. You assume that you can look at the end
>product and conclude from that that it was designed. This presumes
>that you are correct in identifying the design. The pulsar shows a
>very consistent signal which could very easily be mistaken for
>'intelligence or design'. Now we know better.
Yes. But you have unwittingly hit the nail on the head. A "very
consistent signal" is what "could" *not* "very easily be mistaken for
"intelligence or design"! A "very consistent" pattern is like the
regularly repeating order of a crystal, it lacks specified
complexity. Its very consistency means it can carry no information.
A real message that had "intelligence or design" behind its origin
would not be "very consistent". A real message would have to look
like "very" *in*- "consistent", almost like a random string.
Indeed, you may have admitted something without realising it. If in
SETI we can "look at the end product and conclude from that that it
was designed" or in the case of "the pulsar" know that we are
"mistaken" and "know better" that it was not the result of
"intelligence or design", you are admitting at least in principle,
that we can infer design without knowing who the "designer" was.
>SJ>"Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be
>considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for
>extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)...Archaeology has pioneered the
>development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and
>intelligent causes." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and
>People", 1993, pp126-127)
PM>Intelligent design may be considered
I am pleased that you now admit that "Intelligent design may be
considered". We *are* making progress!
PM>but this does not mean that what one presumes to be evidence of
>design is actually such
You seem to be confused between the meaning of the words "evidence"
and proof. ID theorists only maintain that their is "evidence" of
design inferring a Designer. They do not claim it as proof that
there is a Designer.
PM>nor does this mean that this includes appeal to an invisible
>untelligent designer.
I presume that "untelligent" means "intelligent" and not
"unintelligent"?
If a "signal" from a "pulsar" could have been inferred from its
specified complexity back to "an invisible" alien "intelligent
designer" why in principle may we not infer the specified complexity
of living things back to an original Intelligent Designer?
>SJ>And as for "apparant design needs a designer" clearly it doesn't.
PM>Exactly my point.
Well it was never in dispute. *Real* "design needs a designer", but
"apparent design" obviously doesn't. The difference between us is
our metaphysical starting points. You have adopted a materialist-
naturalist metaphysical starting point that matter is all there is
(materialism) and the universe is a closed system of cause and effect
in which nothing external can influence or intervene (naturalism).
Because of your metaphysical starting point, you rule out a priori
that there can be "a designer" and therefore it follows deductively
that all "design", no matter how compelling it may otherwise be, must
be only "apparent design".
I, on the other hand, do not accept apriori your
materialist-naturalist metaphysical starting point. I am open to the
possibility that matter is not all there is and the universe may not
be a closed system of cause and effect in which an external
Intelligent Designer cannot influence and intervene. I therefore do
not rule out apriori that there can be "a designer" and can accept
"apparent design" as *real* design.
>SJ>But it is your naturalistic apriori assumption that the design
>evident in living things (and indeed the whole cosmos) *is*
"apparant design". If it is *real* "design" then it goes without
saying that it "needs a designer".
PM>No, I am saying that what you consider design need not be.
Agreed. I never said that it "need" be "design".
PM>I am not presuming it to be apparant design
Good. So you now accept at least the possibility of *real* "design"
and hence a *real* Designer?
PM>based on the absence of evidence I am asking you for data that it
>is.
I have been giving you plenty of "evidence" and "data". But you just
rule it out of court with demarcation arguments like Occam's Razor.
Before I can give you "evidence" and "data" I need to know what
"evidence" and "data" you would accept, for *real*, as opposed to
"apparent design"?
>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:
>PM>Who claimed that there was other complexity and order?
>SJ>See above. The "complexity and order" of "DNA...RNA and human
>writing" is a *specified complexity* which is fundamentally
>different from the non-specified "complexity" of all "other" things.
PM>So the claim is and I disagree. By making this assertion one
>presumes already a designer or intelligence.
Yes. But you have admitted above that you are "not presuming it to
be apparant design", therefore you must be open to the possibility
that it could be *real* "design" and hence a *real* "a designer or
intelligence"?
PM>Language was designed to communicate our ideas.
That is an interesting admission. *Who* was it who "designed"
"Language" "to communicate our ideas"?
PM>Was DNA 'designed' to communicate ideas?
In a sense yes. Even Dawkins admits that DNA transmits immortal
*information* through the medium of genes:
"DNA exerts these effects initially locally, after being read by RNA
and translated into protein chains, which then affect cell shape and
behaviour. This is one of the two ways in which the information in
the pattern of DNA can be read out. The other way is that it can be
duplicated into a new DNA strand. This is the copying that we
discussed earlier. There is a fundamental distinction between these
two routes of transmission of the DNA information, vertical and
horizontal transmission. The information is transmitted vertically
to other DNA in cells (that make other cells) that make sperms or
eggs. Hence it is transmitted vertically to the next generation and
then, vertically again, to an indefinite number of future
generations. I shall call this 'archival DNA'. It is potentially
immortal. The succession of cells along which archival DNA travels
is called the germ line. The germ line is that set of cells, within
a body, which is ancestral to sperms or eggs and hence ancestral to
future generations." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991,
p122)
He likens life to a "digital river", a "river of information",a "a
river of abstract instructions for building bodies":
"The river of my title is a river of DNA, and it flows through time,
not space. It is a river of information, not a river of bones and
tissues: a river of abstract instructions for building bodies, not a
river of solid bodies themselves. The information passes through
bodies and affects them, but it is not affected by them on its way
through. The river is not only uninfluenced by the experiences and
achievements of the successive bodies through which it flows."
(Dawkins R., "River out of Eden", 1996, p5)
PM>Or is it a mere organization of molecules (and hardly complex)
which we interpret as a message ?
DNA is indeed an "organization of molecules...which we interpret as a
message", because it *is* a "message". It is demonstrably "complex",
being composed of many parts, although its basic pattern is simple:
"DNA is quite simple in its basic structure, although it is
enormously complex in its functioning. By now most literate people
are familiar with the double helix structure of the DNA molecule. It
is like a long ladder twisted into a spiral. Sugar and phosphate
molecules form the sides of the ladder. Four bases make up its
rungs. These are adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. These
bases act as the "letters" of a genetic alphabet. They combine in
various sequences to form words, sentences and paragraphs. These
base sequences are all the instructions needed to guide the
functioning of the cell." (Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B.,
"Information & the Origin of Life", in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", 1994, p205)
Your use of "mere" seems driven by your philosophical neeed to
downplay its significance.
>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
>PM>Nonsense. One is designed, the other has yet to be shown to be
>designed.
>SJ>That "There exists a structural identity between the base
>sequences in a DNA message and the alphabetical letter sequences in
>a written message" is a *fact* Pim:
PM>We disagree. And so does Yockey. It is a hypothesis.
We might "disagree" but Yockey actually agrees with the sequence
hypothesis:
"According to the sequence hypothesis the significant properties of
biologically active proteins are determined by the exact sequence of
amino acid residues in the chain. (Yockey H.P., "A Calculation of
the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,"
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, 1977, p384)
"The sequence hypothesis is equally valid in molecular biology and in
ordinary language. We may therefore perform the same thought
procedure as above and trace the organization of a treatise or other
composition through its sections, paragraphs, sentences and words to
its letters." (Yockey H.P., "Self Organization Origin of Life
Scenarios and Information Theory", Journal of Theoretical Biology,
91, 1981, p24)
"Because the sequence hypothesis applies both to written language and
to informational biomolecules the self organizationists should be
willing and eager to put their scenario to the test." (Yockey H.P.,
"Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory",
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 91, 1981, p25)
PM>And the mathematical treatment is identical which hardly shows a
>structural identity.
You've got it backwards. There *is* "a structural identity" and
because of that "the mathematical treatment is identical".
PM>Even more importantly it does not show that since a message has a
>designer that DNA has to have one.
You continue to confuse evidence with proof. I did not say that "DNA
has to have" a "designer". Just that since "message has a designer"
that is *evidence* that "DNA has...one".
PM>"In the following we will resort to illustrating our points by
>reference to the properties of language. It is important to
>understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence
>hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as
>well as to written language and therefore the treatment is
>mathematically identical." (Yockey H.P., "Self Organization Origin
>of Life Scenarios and Information Theory", Journal of Theoretical
>Biology, 91, 1981, p16)
[...]
>PM>And we agree. There is accumulating evidence that life did arise
from non-life naturalistically.
>SJ>No, we disagree. I made a typo. Here is my correction: "I
>claim merely that (because "they have been trying for *84* years")
>"it is accumulating evidence* that life did" not "arise from
>non-life purely naturalistically."
PM>Again we disagree. Our understanding and experiments have come
>closer and closer to the necessary steps for 'abiogenesis'.
Why are you so vague then? If you had this evidence you would post
it triumphantly.
But in one sense you are right. "Our understanding and experiments
have come closer and closer to the necessary steps for
'abiogenesis'", and they are that all such "experiments" require a
human intelligent designer for their success:
"Notice, however, that the sharp edge of this critique is not what we
do not know, but what we do know. Many facts have come to light in
the past three decades of experimental inquiry into life's beginning.
With each passing year the criticism has gotten stronger. The
advance of science itself is what is challenging the nation that life
arose on earth by spontaneous (in a thermodynamic sense) chemical
reactions. Over the years a slowly emerging line or boundary has
appeared which shows observationally the limits of what can be
expected from matter and energy left to themselves, and what can be
accomplished only through what Michael Polanyi has called "a
profoundly informative intervention.". When it is acknowledged that
most so- called prebiotic simulation experiments actually owe their
success to the crucial but illegitimate role of the investigator, a
new and fresh phase of the experimental approach to life's origin can
then be entered. Until then however, the literature of chemical
evolution will probably continue to be dominated by reports of
experiments in which the investigator, like a metabolizing Maxwell
Demon, will have performed work on the system through intelligent,
exogenous intervention. Such work establishes experimental boundary
conditions, and imposes intelligent influence/control over a
supposedly "prebiotic" earth. As long as this informative
interference of the investigator is ignored, the illusion of
prebiotic simulation will be fostered. We would predict that this
practice will prove to be a barrier to solving the mystery of life's
origin." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of
Life's Origin", 1992, p185)
>PM>Indeed. So there is no scientific evidence of a supernatural
event. So all we have is increasing amount of non-evidence....
>SJ>I disagree that "there is no scientific evidence of a
supernatural event".
PM>Well, in that case show us an observation of such a supernatural
event?
You said "scientific evidence of a supernatural event" but now you
have raised the bar to "observation of...a supernatural event". I
could just as easily ask you to "show us an observation of such a*
*natural* origin "event", like the Big Bang, or a macroevolutionary
"event":
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The
applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique
historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the
time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human
experimenter..." (Dobzhansky T., American Scientist, vol. 45,
December 1957, p388, in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation
Hypothesis", 1994, pp277-278)
>SJ>If the origin of life can only be duplicated by "using the full
>weight of human intelligence" by "man contriving unique
>circumstances where life spontaneously begins", that would be
>"repeatable experimental evidence" of "supernatural creation within
>a scientific arena".
PM>Nope, it would merely show that the origin of life is hard to
>reproduce in a lab since we do not know all the boundary conditions
>and initial conditions.
As usual you do not pay sufficient attemtion to what I said. I said
that "If the origin of life can only be duplicated", that is
scientists succeed in "contriving" the "unique circumstances where
life spontaneously begins". This would assume that they *did* "know
all the boundary conditions and initial conditions".
If then, "the origin of life can only be duplicated by `using the
full weight of human intelligence'" , and not by any plausible
natural circumstances (eg. unnaturally pure amino acids, combination
of unique circumstances that could not plausibly arise in nature,
etc), then"that would be "repeatable experimental evidence" of
"supernatural creation within a scientific arena".
PM>How this shows evidence of a supernatural creation is beyond me.
That is not surprising, since you have never stated up front what you
would accept as "evidence of a supernatural creation".
PM>That we could not simulate flight like birds 1000 years ago does
>not mean that this proved that birds were created supernaturally.
Agreed, but that is not my argument. But if we could "simulate" the
*origin* of "flight like birds" by a plausible, step-by-step
naturalistic process, then that would be *evidence* "that birds were
created" non-"supernaturally". If we cannot, that is *evidence* that
"birds were created supernaturally."
BTW, you keep confusing "prove" with "evidence" Pim. This is
surprising in one who claims to be a scientist. The modern
philosophy of science is that science can't "prove" anything:
"...since any theory has an unlimited number of empirical
consequences, it is impossible to test all of those consequences.
This means that in principle it is always possible that next. Week
next year or next century some new data will come to light that will
contradict the theory's predictions. The upshot is that no theory
can ever, even in principle, be proven conclusively to be true.
There is always the chance that at some point in the future it will
have to be abandoned. Thus the theoretical results of science are
always unavoidably tentative. So although a theory may be very well
confirmed, it never can be conclusively confirmed." (Ratzsch D.L.,
"The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, p110)
"Some claim that the true scientific attitude is to believe only what
is proven, and that evolution cannot be, or at least has not been,
proven. As we have seen, however, proof in any rigorous sense is
simply beyond the capability of science If we accepted only theories
that were or could be proven, we could accept no theories. This
requirement is clearly mistaken." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of
Beginnings", 1996, p138)
[...]
>PM>But they are repeatable as well certainly in principle.
>SJ>I just quoted Dobzhansky, one of the founders of Neo-Darwinism
>who said that macroevolutionary events are not "unique, unrepeatable,
>and irreversible". You assert that they are "repeatable". Please
>state your quotes or references.
PM>Well Dobshansky and I agree, they are not unrepeatable, unique and
>irreversible. Where lies the problem ? That in practice recreating
>the exact circumstances will be hard or even impossible ?
Sorry, another typo! Here is my correction:
I just quoted Dobzhansky, one of the founders of Neo-Darwinism who
said that macroevolutionary events are "unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible". You assert that they are "repeatable". Please state
your quotes or references.
>PM>Perhaps you could give it a try?
>SJ>It have been giving "it a try". You have confirmed my thesis
>that there is no "evidence that could be produced by a theist...that
>you would accept (at least in principle for the sake of argument), as
>evidence of supernatural creation within a scientific arena".
PM>We agree, there is no such evidence possible withing a scientific
>arena other than through the assumption of the existance of
>something we cannot observe.
So what? Science often makes "the assumption of the existence of
something we cannot observe." Science cannot "observe" the Big
Bang but it makes "the assumption of" its "existence".
>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".
PM>No, I agreed with you for the sake of showing that we agree that
>creation has no place within science.
>SJ>We don't "agree" at all. You seem to miss the point. On your
>demarcation criteria, of excluding "creation" events as "outside the
>realm of science", areas of legitimate scientific investigation into
>"unique, unobservable and unrepeatable" events such as "the origin of
>life and life's major groups" and "the Big Bang" would also be
>"outside the realm of science".
PM>How can you be sure that the origin of life is unique,
>unrepeatable and unobservable?
I don't have to be "sure". It is sufficient for my argument that
something "unique, unrepeatable and unobservable" has "a place within
science".
Since "the origin of life" happened about 3 billion years ago it is
by definition "unobservable". Since the genetic code is universal
"the origin of life" is assumed to be "unique". And even if life
could be created in a test tube today, that would not ncessarily
be repeating what occurred 3 billion years ago.
PM>How can you be sure that this applies to the big bang? We are
>presently 1e-34 s away from the big bang, not bad... And getting
>closer all the time.
We may be "getting closer" to reconstructing "the big bang" but that
does not mean that we are *observing* the Big Bang! The Big Bang is
"unique, unrepeatable and unobservable" yet it has "a place within
science"!
[...]
>PM>Try climbing a mountain?
>SJ>Not a good analogy - "climbing a mountain" is a purposeful
>activity carried only out by intelligent living things (ie. animals
>and humans). Non-living things do not "Try climbing a mountain".
PM>Are you sure about this?
Well, how about giving an example of "Non-living things" that do "Try
climbing a mountain".
PM>You wanted to know how small steps can take place far more easier
>than a giant leap. THe analogy is useful as far as it goes.
How is it "useful" when there is no example of what you claimed, namely
" Non-living things" that "Try climbing a mountain"?
PM>You again imply purpose where there need not be purpose.
Once again, I do not claim that "there need....be purpose", just that
there is *evidence* of "purpose".
It is *you* who flatly deny "purpose" apriori and refuse to even consider
any evidence of "purpose".
PM>Other example: Bowl with 500 red and 500 black marbles, select
>10: What is the chance that in 1000 tries you get 10 black ones ?
>Same bowl, now you put back the red marbles and keep the black
>marbles, what is the probability of getting 10 black ones ?
>Clearer ?
No. How does a "Non-living thing" "select" between "red and...black
marbles"? This does not show "how small steps can take place far more
easier than a giant leap." Once you have an intelligent selector he
could indeed "select" all the right colour "marbles" in "a giant leap"
>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."
>PM>As I said, try climbing a mountain.
>SJ>And as I said, non-living things don't "try climbing a mountain"!
PM>You are assuming that the small steps are totally random.
Your original claim was in the context of "amino acids" increasing
by "Small steps" "to a protein of length 500':
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:03:11 -0400
To: sejones@ibm.net, evolution@calvin.edu
From: "Pim van Meurs" <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: Origin of life, thermodynamics
[...]
Small steps can take place far more easier than one giant leap. This is
the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please advise what non-"random" mechanism there is for "amino acids" to grow
by "Small steps" into a "protein of length 500"?
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------