From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Fri Oct 31 2003 - 00:49:12 EST
John W Burgeson wrote:
> ...
> Viewed from my myopic perspective, as one trained in physics, and who
> spent most of a career in computer sciences and market research, I accept
> the GTOE (Grand Theory of Evolution; all life on earth as coming from
> primeval chemicals > 3.5 BY ago) as simply the best (scientific) model we
> have in the early 21st century for answering the gut question, "Why do I
> exist at all?" In that sense, I have no problem with identifying the GTOE
> as "fact," in the scientific sense, although not in the sense of "truth."
>
> Still in the scientific sense, however, I have two fundamental problems
> with the GTOE. The first is the puzzle of why the arrow of time seems to
> point in the direction of ever increasing complexity. That it DOES SO,
> seems to be without question, it is a "brute fact." The YECers cite the
> 2nd law of thermodynamics to argue against it, and that seems sort of
> silly because its existence seems to be without question. If the 2nd law
> denies it (I don't think it does, BTW), then it is "so long" to the 2nd
> law. But the question remains, what mechanism is in place to drive ever
> increasing complexity?
I remember having seen an explanation, but don't remember where. So my
description may not be reliable. If we begin with some bacteria, the
history of life evidently shows an increase in diversity. If you order
them in almost any way, you first have a narrow distribution, later a
wider one. Now, an increase in diversity by itself is not very
interesting. One in complexity is. But if you order the divers organisms
by increasing complexity, you first have (like before) a narrow
distribution, later a wider one. But now, you have a brick wall on the
simple side, representing the minimal complexity compatible with life,
which no organism can brake. But there is no such wall on the other
side, and increasing diversity will necessarily increase the maximal
complexity found.
I am not persuaded, though, that this type of complexity is really what
we are looking for. What we need for humans etc. is _organized_
complexity, not just any kind of complexity. A long sequence of random
numbers has a very high complexity, in the sense of the model above, but
no useful information at all (although its Shannon information content
is large). But I don't see a way in which we could formulate the kind of
information and complexity needed in a more stringent way, although it
is "obvious" to all (or most?) of us that there has been an ever
increasing complexity.
> The other problem I have with the GTOE is the relative lack (to this
> admittedly untrained reader) of quantification which drives change of any
> kind. Even with 3.5 BY, the amount of change seems to be overwhelming.
> Perhaps in some future year we will revise the 4.5BY earth age estimate
> to something 10 or 100 times that -- although such a sea change seems
> very unlikely.
>
> My recollection is that John Polkinghorne raised the two points above a
> decade or so ago -- I know they have been addressed from time to time --
> the stuff I've read seems to have been a combination of arm waving and
> just so" stories. As a physicist, I want to see numbers. I'm sure they
> are there in the professional literature.
>
> Burgy
I agree with your second point, although I would say "amount of
constructive change", rather than just "amount of change". But you are
hardly serious, I think, in suggesting upping the age of the earth 10 or
100 times! ;-)
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 31 2003 - 00:47:46 EST