Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Cher Stewart | August 19th 2009 01:16 AM | 138 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More The Philosophical Scientist articles

All

About Cher Stewart

"Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through... Full Bio

Today, I was met by a science-debunker (laugh a little, you know you want to.) He didn't know that I work in the field of biotechnology, or that I am a scientist. I am often met with the, "you're too pretty to have a high IQ," mentality, so I tend to take the route of listening to the blather before I correct them. It makes their judgment of my level of intelligence seem so much more embarrassing. Cruel? Perhaps a little.

He had heard through friends that I am an atheist (according to him, this is synonymous with devil worship, and he wished only to save me from an eternity in hell.) We proceeded to have a half-religious-half-philosophical conversation discussing the bible, stoicism and how misguided I am, but that's a story for another entry.

Something he said to me really piqued my interest, as I could not figure out where he got the information from. In context, he was attempting to debunk not only our current evolutionary theory, but evolution in its entirety and the possibility of abiogenesis.

Odds of a strand of DNA arranging itself in the right order to create life? 1 in 10^400,000. About the same as YOU winning the lottery EVERY DAY for 15 Billion consecutive years. Good luck.


As a scientist, I could only stare blankly into the screen at a loss for words. Is this really what people believe? How can someone believe they know the odds that the molecules that make up DNA will form a DNA strand that creates a living organism?

There are only four chemicals that make up the nucleotides of deoxyribonucleic acid, the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms. A DNA nucleotide is made of a molecule of sugar, a molecule of phosphoric acid, and a molecule called a base. The bases are the "letters" that spell out the genetic code. In DNA, the code letters are A, T, G, and C, which stand for the chemicals adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine, respectively. In base pairing, adenine always pairs with thymine, and guanine always pairs with cytosine. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out 3-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein. Every single living organism has DNA, and every single one is made up of A, T, G and C.  How these are arranged; and how many base pairs there are tell us what organism it is, and essentially becomes the blueprint of the organism, instructing the cells what to do. This blueprint is read by transcribing stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA.

A - T and G - C form a non-covalent hydrogen bond. What does that mean? The double helix can be broken in half and rejoined with heat or force. When all the base pairs in a DNA double helix melt, the strands separate and exist in solution as two entirely independent molecules. If the chances of DNA functioning properly was so low, why is it that we can place a centi tube with a strand of isolated DNA along with a gene from another organism in a centrifuge, give it a spin and have an organism with functioning recombinant DNA? The free floating nucleotides bond on their own to form the double helix.

The DNA between an egg and a sperm, in a human, has an estimated 91% chance of "getting it right", as it were, once fertilization occurs at arranging correctly to form another human. If you take into account genetic variation from sexual recombination, the number of possible combinations of DNA for the resulting offspring is astronomical. Our entire genome has upwards of 3.3 billion base pairs. If we consider that we have no way of knowing which base pairs will separate and which single strands will connect to which genes, the actual possible combinations is innumerable. If under the conditions in a zygote, the nucleotides bond around 91% of the time in a combination that is correct for a functioning human, the odds he has stated seem highly incorrect.

We know that DNA copies itself within an organism, and we know that small mutations occur in
each copy, which, in part, attributes to the variance among one species of organisms and the continual differences that increase exponentially from generation to generation. This is why a new organism doesn't form in utero, within our cells or any other DNA duplication process. It would seem that organisms either evolved over a substantial period of time from other organisms and/or molecules came together under certain conditions to begin the life of a new organism.

What else do we know? We know that we have a record of about 1.4 million species of living organisms. In a famous study conducted in Panama, 19 trees were "fogged" with insecticide and the dead were collected as they fell through the canopy. In this study, nearly 1,200 species of beetles alone were collected. Of those, 80 percent were not known to science. While it may be dangerous to extrapolate numbers like these to other places, it gives at least a high estimate of the number of species that could exist on earth - that high estimate being around 100 million species. A low estimate is 2 million. The best estimate might be around 10 million. But even if that’s the case, it means we've only known about a small fraction of what is presently there.

Many of the species that we're discovering live in areas that are not often studied. Take the sea floor for instance. Hydrothermal vents along the floor provide a type of chemical energy for bacteria. These bacteria use this energy like plants use the energy of the sun. They then form
the base of a giant food web thousands of feet below the surface. It wasn't until recently have we been able to discover this new habitat. Now scientists believe there could be as many as a million species just on the ocean floor.

If we take the best estimate of number of species living or in fossil form, we estimate there have been about 10 million species. 10 million species all with the same molecules making up their DNA. However, we have no idea how many possible species there are among the seemingly infinite number of genome lengths and base pair combinations. The Amoeba dubia has about 670 billion base pairs that make up its genome, and the smallest genome length discovered of a true organism is 490,885.

The odds of a specific organism being formed under the conditions that these molecules come together is bleak; monumentally bleak. The odds of any species coming together from the infinite number of possible combinations and numbers of base pairs? Not calculable, but considering the current number of species, I would say that the odds are more than likely considerably better than what the science-debunker originally stated.

The molecules have movement and a charge that that forms a double helix shape. Many people wind up thinking that this shape is clearly the work of a God, but if they studied magnetism, they would know that the recipe for a double helix is fairly simple. A strong magnetic field (created by the molecules), rotation (also created by the molecules) and matter (the molecules.) Since we can create the fluids for engineered recombinant DNA, one has to assume that at some point, this combination of fluids (or another suitable liquid) will be present on Earth on its own.

With the millions of species that we have recorded, all with the same molecules forming them and knowing that these bonds between base pairs form without assistance of a conscious being it should be no quantum leap to the idea that DNA forms on its own, and that the molecules that make up DNA tend to fall in an order that creates life.

Comments

Gerhard Adam's picture
I think it's important to note that many complex processes are built upon "conserved" processes that have demonstrably worked before.  The mistake most people make when they quote probabilities, is that they presume that everything most come together in a single instance from a single set of materials, instead of recognizing that they are built up over time.

It would be like arguing the probability of having the Wright Brothers build a 747.  

heterotic's picture
That's exactly correct. We might as well argue the probability that you or I would even be conceived as of 1 million years ago! 1 in 42 x 10^403,149. Of course, that's a lower-limit calculation, because the chances of you or I being here are much lower due to death, pregnancy viability (1/5 chance of conception making it to full gestation) and the maternal lineage's egg viability.

What bothers me most about arguing against evolutionary theories and abiogenesis using probabilities is the fact that they truly are incalculable. We have no idea what the minimum and maximum base pairs are for life, we have no idea how many combinations there could be of the base pairs and we have no idea which combinations of base pairs will result in life. We can only base our information off of known genomes. The sheer number of species we are aware of indicates that there has to be gargatuan possibilities of organisms.

One cannot deny that DNA mutates, both randomly and to adapt to its environment, nor that mistakes are made in DNA copying, so I don't think it's plausible to deny that over an extended period of time that organisms can and do evolve into what is considered a new species.

I tend to use the example of monozygotic twins and their exponentially increasing epigenetic differences as an example of how one copy of DNA can create two different organisms over time without reproduction of the organism. In my opinion, you can't deny evolution without denying biodiversity, DNA mutation and micro-evolution - all three of which are easily proven and obviously true. I just wonder if those who deny the truth in evolution on a grander scale that we cannot experience in our lifetime can't visualize the changes over millions and billions of years, or if they use the fact that since we cannot watch one organism become a new species in our lifetime as an excuse that it cannot be true.

So, when we engineer our own organisms (veteran of early 80's bucket-biochem recombinant engineering here), are we at least hemi-demi-semi-urges? And when the full artificial construction de novo (now in the larval stages) gets going big time, especially if we are using novel bases undiscovered on earth, does that make us more than mere demi-urges, but gods, and able to say "bow down and worship us, oh believers that designing life from scratch is a qualification for godhood"?

What would the fundies say about that?

It'll be even more fun in (probably) less than a century when the physicists start budding off universes with high-energy toys.

So, when we engineer our own organisms (veteran of early 80's bucket-biochem recombinant engineering here), are we at least hemi-demi-semi-urges? And when the full artificial construction de novo (now in the larval stages) gets going big time, especially if we are using novel bases undiscovered on earth, does that make us more than mere demi-urges, but gods, and able to say "bow down and worship us, oh believers that designing life from scratch is a qualification for godhood"?

What would the fundies say about that?

It'll be even more fun in (probably) less than a century when the physicists start budding off universes with high-energy toys.

You're right on one count... it took thousands of inventive minds to go from nothing to the 747. You might even say that each step of the way was intelligently designed.

heterotic's picture
So now there are thousands of intelligent designers in the theory?

Gerhard Adam's picture
Yes, and it's also an interesting property of probabilities, because when someone asks what the probability of DNA forming a living organism is, I always answer 1.00 because we're here having this discussion.  It's like discussing the probability of winning a lottery with the winning ticket holder.

Whatever else we may think, we have to work from the premise that life is a certainty since it's here.  Therefore, everything else that suggests an alternative explanation is clearly missing an important ingredient.

If you haven't seen them already, check out Dave Deamer's posts.

Hank's picture
He got a book deal to do the stuff he wrote here.   He has mentioned to me a few times we should do an anthology of stuff here but I don't know any publishers and self-publishing looks cheesy.

With all the book authors we have we should be able to find a top-tier publisher/agent but I'll be danged if I have the bandwidth to do that also.

heterotic's picture
You could always do a sister site. I know someone with the bandwidth *cough* me *cough*.

Hank's picture
You get us an agent/editor to sign us up with an advance and you're going to get your lone article in the book!   :)

heterotic's picture
Wouldn't that be lucky! I'll see what I can find. *skips away merrily*

heterotic's picture
Thanks for the link! Lots of reading to do.

>Yes, and it's also an interesting property of probabilities, because when someone asks what the probability of DNA forming a living organism is, I always answer 1.00 because we're here having this discussion.

You're begging the question... you're assuming that we're here because the DNA formed by natural causes, which is in fact the questiion we're trying to answer. So you're assuming your answer, and when you do that, yes... the probability is 1.00, but it's a flawed argument.

heterotic's picture
He said "DNA forming a living organism." He is assuming that this is true because it's more than obvious that it is. *chuckle*

I wish that gender was not an issue in this world that we live in, which by the way 50% of 6.5 billion are females. We need to draw all the brain power we can get as we move forward into the future.
RBC

heterotic's picture
I agree to an extent. I hate the idea of a child being raised in daycare, and not many fathers are willing to stay home so that the woman can move ahead professionally.

Cher,

Your argument doesn't work, because you're not addressing the concept of the information that's contained in the DNA code, and information theory in general. DNA of a living organism isn't made up of just any [random] combination of the 4 bases A, T, G & C. Genes contain information which is represented by particular sequences of the base letters, similar to how computer programs contain information represented by 1's and 0's. The bits of a functional computer program are not random. How many 3GB computer programs are there that would be functional? I agree with you that that number is very large. However, I think it is smaller by many orders of magnitude than the total number of possible combinations of a 3GB string of 1's and 0's.

Asked another way, how may novels could be written? Clearly a very large number. But it's still a much smaller number than the total number of novel-sized strings of random letters that could be arranged randomly. The difference is information content.

Hubert Yockey, an information theory professor, and apparently an agnostic (see pg. 291 of "Information Theory and Molecular Biology"), calculated the odds of a single gene coming together in a functional (viable) way as 10^70, assuming all of the letters to build the gene were present (and you can't cheat by saying 1/2 of a double-helix strand already exists, because the same information content is present on that half-strand as well). This isn't a calculation of any one particular gene coming together, but rather an estimation of that much information self-assembling. Considering that there are only 10^18 seconds in a universe that is 13.5 billion years old, the universe would have to try about 10^50 different combinations every second for the entire life of the universe, just to get the information content of one gene self-assembling by chance. But it's far worse than that, since the window of life's origin is less than 100,000 million years (you have to have the elements available to make the letters A, G, T & C, in the first place, which requires about 10 billion years of star formation and supernovae explosions to get the heavier elements, and you have to start after a suitable rocky planet like earth cools off enough). Also, it's worse still because the simplest possible organism is estimated at 260 genes, and we have about 500 (if I'm remembering the numbers correctly... I'm an engineer, not a microbiologist). So just at the right time in our universe, about 10 to 11 billion years ago, life and the incredible amount of information it represents relatively suddenly sprang-up.

These calculations are not a proof of intelligent design, of course, but I hope they make the case that intelligent design is not unreasonable. Lest you be a "statistics debunker." :)

heterotic's picture
It does not make a case for an intelligent designer. I don't really understand how, ONLY because of unknown factors at this time, the probability of abiogenesis (which is a moot point and incalculable  probability, since we cannot know exactly the conditions of where the first molecules came together to form the first double-helix of molecules that formed life nor the possible permutations of these particles that could result in life), can be hard to believe, but a being that needs no creator is believable. Science tells us, that it is possible, given enough time, it will happen. IE; 1 in 10 people will trip on a specific crack in the sidewalk; once 10 people have walked across the sidewalk, 1 of them will have tripped. Trying to prove that life had to come from a conscious being is no case at all, it creates an infinite mystery of where did that life form come from, and so on and so on.

A double-helix itself is no mystery. It happens in space with particles, and anywhere else that there is magnetism and spin.

Why do creationists/ID-proponents find it easier to have faith in a superior being than to observe nature and the universe and the elementary particles at work?

Correction: I said " So just at the right time in our universe, about 10 to 11 billion years ago, life and the incredible amount of information it represents relatively suddenly sprang-up" but it's really only 3.5 to 4 billion years ago (10 to 11 billion years after the big bang).

heterotic's picture
You talk about suddenly springing up, when in reality, there have been many double-helices that resulted in no life. We know that the molecules that form DNA do result in life, and there are likely billions of ways to arrange these molecules and they will still form some sort of organism. Earth is an estimated 4.54 Ga. The oldest fossils we have found are an estimated 3.5 Ga. That means, it took an estimated 1.4 BILLION years for the right conditions and the right molecules to start to form life here on our planet. That's an estimated 4.5e^7 seconds, so any probability of chemical events leading to the first nucleic acids to form prokaryotes becomes highly probable.

Fred Phillips's picture
I wish I knew more about biology. I do know probability, however. (And teach it, with dismaying frequency.) To say, 
What bothers me most about arguing against evolutionary theories and abiogenesis using probabilities is the fact that they truly are incalculable 

is the same as the probabilist's sentiment that, "You gotta specify the sample space."

It's actually very easy to calculate the probability of any particular novel being written at random. Just specify the range and number of characters (alphanumeric characters, not human and animal ones) in the novel - that's your sample space, "all the equally probable novels with x characters drawn from this set" - and stipulate that you have enough monkeys, typewriters, and time. And enough zeroes to put to the right of the decimal when you write the probability.

I hope that paragraph wasn't too nerdy. Anyway, the problem would be the same for a genome consisting of x base pairs. Very calculable. 

What's incalculable is the probability of getting to that genome along a certain historical path. We cannot specify the sample space (all reasonably possible paths). So we have no business talking about probabilities.

Ditto as soon as we allow that Thomas Pynchon did not write Gravity's Rainbow at random. His personal history and the California environment of the 60s were what they were, and we can't hope to specify alternative "equally probable" histories of Pynchon's formative influences.

I heard that any plausible set of early-Earth chemicals includes a lot that were autocatalytic, which makes the (notional) probability of life quite a lot higher than we might naively expect. 

But, as I say, I don't know much biology. The thrust of my comment is that we should discuss genetics, and most other complex subjects, on the basis of the applicable substantive science, not on the basis of "probabilities." Complex scientific areas mean little chance of specifying a sample space. 

This goes triple for cosmologists who put forth multiple-universe ideas. :<(  Don't get me started.


heterotic's picture
When we talk about chemical creation, it's very clear that chemical reactions at Earth's early stages could produce organic molecules, and therefore, likely did. We also know that life as we know it, from beginning to end (of a single life) is a series of chemical reactions. Even without any biochemical knowledge, the notion of of abiogenesis is just not as far-fetched as Creationists and ID proponents want to believe. Same with cosmological ideas in general. We know that physics is a part of our everyday life, we know that forces interact with leptons and quarks to create the molecules that create those chemical reactions. Even with zero competence in particle physics, it's certainly no quantum leap to know that physical reactions caused the birth of our universe.

We can calculate the probability of a specific genome occurring, but we cannot calculate the probability of any genome occurring. We have found that changing just one base pair in a protein producing gene that forms a heart that once had one working chamber, can form instead a heart with two working chambers. We can change one base pair in an expression-control gene that signals the embryo to grow legs, and the embryo will be born without them. The sheer number of possibilities for the very first living organisms is incalculable because we do not know not only how many permutations of base pairs result in life, but we don't know the lengths of the first genomes that could have occurred. We can only keep experimenting with assumed data of the chemical and physical state of Earth leading up to life, because we can only make educated guesses.

Like you said though, arguing probabilities of these theories is ridiculous, and it seems to be one of the only arguments that non-believers are using to deny that it is plausible.

I calculate the odds of a billion monkeys, with caps lock, typing "MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB" since the universe began, assuming they type a billion characters per second to be about 1 in 37. Takes allot longer to get Hamlet.

Informational and Organizational entropy are as real as energetic energy for ALL STATISTICAL processes. Truly random processes are inherently weak. Therefore, a process must be directed in some manner to get towards a more organized and information packed end.

Historically, the ancient Greeks dumped the Epicurean philosophy of Lucretius because they realized that all directed processes that lead to intelligence require at least intelligence, simple and compound intrinsic to the universe (as Principle at least). Unfortunately for Atheists, that usually means the "G" word.

Darwinian evolution cannot occur at random, however, with genetics, there is no reason for Darwinian evolution because genetic mechanisms explain species just fine - and fit the data perfectly. Where do the genetics come from? How does one get a photo-receptor cell that works even in worms, or highly complex and organized structures?

Not through mating and not through random processes. If you say however, that preference is non-random, how come life went beyond Lichen, or Bacteria? They exist just fine without us.

There must therefore be an abundance of intelligence simple and compound to drive away informational and organizational entropy to make complex creatures.

William Paley was right, as was St. John the Theologian - the light (Life) shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot comprehend it.

Facts don't matter - only the religious zeal of the Darwinists.....

rholley's picture
I have read Paley's Natural Theology, and it does have some things going for it.  It shows what one might regard as sound engineering science operating among creatures, rather than "influences", to produce for example sight.  However, Owen Barfield, in History in English Words, had the measure of him:

The influences which go to make up the outlook of an age are sometimes seen working most powerfully – though beneath the surface – in the very minds which believe themselves to be combating that outlook most stubbornly.  The closing years of the eighteenth century produced Paley’s famous watch, a popular cosmic allegory which, in proving the existence of a Creator, at the same time relegates all His activities to the remote past

.
Moreover, Edwyn Bevan, in Symbolism and Belief, wrote:

when the Rationalist asks for a rational proof of the existence of God, he is asking for something which in the nature of the case it is impossible to have.  A rational proof would draw God into the world and make Him a part of the pattern He is alleged to create.

and

It is highly improbable that anyone who had no belief in God was ever led to believe in God by any of the standard “proofs” of God's existence-the ontological, cosmological, teleological proof.  They were thought of by men who already believed in God as considerations harmonizing their belief, for themselves, and for others, with a general view of the universe.  .  .  .  What actually causes anyone to believe in God is direct perception of the Divine.

I generally keep away from topics like this.  As regards mathematics, probability is not a strong point of mine - I prefer quaternions.  The main thing though is, that I find attempts to promote soul-sucking atheism tend to lead to a lot of wind.  However trying to combat them with "Creation Science" type arguments are counter-productive.

If a process is random - we know:

1. Random formation of complex patterns is inherently weak
2. Statistical mechanistic processes are subject to informational, organizational and energetic entropy.

Random processes for machines follow p = m^e (raised to the e power) where p is probability, m is machine elements and e is minimal arrangement. If we accept the simple form for e to be 3 to form a sub machine (input process output and arguably 4 - orientation), sub machines must combine with sub machines to form ever more complex patterns with probability p.

The e might be argued to be 3, but the m of organic chemstry is on the order of millions? billions? - even thousands is daunting. And then once you form a useful machine element, you have to combine those in accordance with what? Preference? Natural Selection?

In the real world, energetic entropy is obviously overcome by the big fusion ball in the sky that is 339,000 times bigger than the Earth to allow for complex intelligent life to ascend to immense complexity.

What overcomes informational and organizational entropy?

Natural Selection is a nice grouping of two words, but what does it really mean? Genetics happens? Randomness assembles itself when preferenced for survival? What is the mechanism that overcomes informational and organizational entropy?

Just as the Uncertainty Principle is a real statistical phenomena that limits knowledge in essence in the universe for all statistical processes (time frequency domain finite convergence limit) - the same exists for assembling machines/mechanisms.

If genetics happens - is natural selection sufficient or necessary? If randomness rules, how does one preference such awesome complexity?

If something is driving the assemblage of the machinary of life, that includes immense sophistication (energy efficiency, photo-multiplication, power management, signal processing, voltage regulation, mechanics, kinematics, dynamics, intelligence) - what is that something?

It seems to me Natural Selection is just a philosophy.

Andy,

You missed Cher's point I think. Her point is that, yes, the probability of getting any particular string of letters like MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB (to use your example) is infinitesimally small. But the probably of getting any 22 character string that is not gibberish is much much greater. How many 22 character strings exist that make sense, conform to the rules of English, do not contain any spelling errors, and make a complete sentence (a complete thought that conveys actual information)? Probably a lot! Let's call that huge uncalculable number X.

Now my point was that X is orders and orders of magnitude smaller than the total number of possible combinations of 26 letters plus a space (27 to the 22nd power, or 27 ^ 22, which is 3^31).

Cher, would you not agree that even though we cannot easily calculate X, it has to be many orders of magnitude smaller than 3^31? Certainly some smart person somewhere can attempt this calculation, or at least come up with some reasonable upper and lower bounds.

As I mentioned in my previous post, in the Information Theory book, Yockey attempts this type of calculation for getting one gene's worth of information content by chance (not a specific gene, mind you, but that level of information content of any type). He comes up with 10^70. How far off can he be? Has anyone refuted him?

My other point is that even if X is, say, 10^10 or 10^15, a very large number, you still get statistically impossible odds of having ANY significant information content spontaneously generating. Sure there are a lot of books in the Library of Congress. What are the odds that you'd get any one of them by randomly typing for a billion years? Even if you had a billion Libraries of Congress, it's a statistic zero in the 10^18 seconds you have (and it's far worse than that because life appears almost as soon as it is possible, given the conditions of earth 3.8 billion years ago).

Sorry, Cher, even if we grant your point I don't see how it helps you. Give me your wildest liberal guess for what X is and it's still not going to be enough.

heterotic's picture
My point is that guessing X to use probability of the formation of DNA or RNA prior to it happening is a ridiculous standpoint against evolution or abiogenesis. The fact that it cannot be calculated, no matter how close you believe your guess is should be enough for anyone using it for or against evolution and chemical creation.

There are variables that may well always be unknown; the state of our magnetic umbrella, the exact gravitational pull of Earth (as it has been proven that DNA becomes less and less likely to bind in reproduction as gravitational pull decreases exponentially), the exact chemical state of our planet and its ocean, and more. When we talk about probability of life forming, it's nonsensical, and my point was to prove that it cannot be used in any case, so the fact that it is nonsensical need not be argued.

I don't need nonsensical arguments to know that chemical creation is correct. I don't need those arguments to know that evolution is merely a theory growing in accuracy with the more we discover of the effects a set of laws on matter.


To put 10^70 in perspective, since the universe began, there have been roughly about 10^10 years, which would be 10^12 days, 10^14 hours, 10^19 seconds, 10^25 micro-seconds. There are less than 10^100 atoms in the universe (I think the estimate was 10^80 some years ago - maybe its gone up).

The lottery is looking like a bad investment.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Sorry, but all this talk of probabilities misses the most obvious point.  Atoms don't randomly come together.  There are rules governing how they are attracted and what kinds of energy are available and the types of forms they may take.

It would be like taking your word example and saying that instead of randomly typing words, vowels and consonants would naturally come together more frequently than other combinations.  In addition, certain "words" might be considered chemically stable (i.e. O2 or H2O would naturally come together, so there would be no need to randomly consider "words" like "the" or "and" using your example).

In addition, when you consider that many processes are conserved, as if once words are formed, they don't need to be re-formed, they are just moved as single entities.  It is erroneous to conclude that organic molecules must come together like a single poker hand.  It simply isn't true.

heterotic's picture
Thank you!

True, but there are billions of possible combinations. Even simple photo-receptors have to take a photon and turn it into a signal within a cell, stepping up the signal considerably and discriminating the type of light to provide useful information - EVEN FOR WORMS!

And I am not subscribing to irreducible complexity either - forget it - complexity itself in essence, every step requires the preference for something that in graduated (not gradual) steps has ascended to a very intelligent form. in the posed selection process. What preferences complexity? Lichen, roaches, grass, bugs, bacteria, viruses survive just fine without complex things around.

The combinations and permutations of organic chemistry is staggering - especially when one gets into long chains like proteins.

What selection rules govern taking a photon, multiplying it, turning it into a modulated and regulated signal (voltage) and sending it to a neural network for processing????? If you only process one photon, the signal is tremendously weak. What orients the sub-components in the correct alignment to actually work? What transports each element togther? What feedback mechanisms exist to govern when one protein versus another is sythesized?

Gerhard,

For the sake of argument, I'll give you the organic molecules (the letters), the double helix, and even the cellular membranes and other machinery necessary for life (the hardware). What I won't give you is the information content in the DNA (the software). There's no reason why particular information like words would come together by themselves, at least from a chemical standpoint. The letters in DNA, the A, T, G, and C, can take any position in the DNA molecule with equal ease. There is no chemical propensity for any particular arrangement of these letters. That's what makes it a good medium for information... just like a hard drive doesn't have a propensity to store 1's more than 0's, or a location on a piece of paper has any greater propensity to accept only vowels than consonants from a typewriter (or alternating vowels or consonants, or whatever). Each next letter in the DNA is independent of the last, by necessity I would think.

What you are trying to argue is akin to this: that my hard drive has a propensity to build the Microsoft Word application, by random mutation of storage locations, over time, even though at any given location on the drive I can put a 1 or a 0 with equal effort. There's nothing about the hard drive itself that compels the data to "self arrange" in ways that over time will build a viable program, or self-assemble information.

Further, it takes a lot of information to make something that is viable and reproduces, like a single cell bacterium. There's no reason to expect that half of a bacterium that self-assembled somehow would stick around long enough for the rest of it to self assemble. If that were true, corpses wouldn't rot. Even if I gave you half of the information in the DNA, the cell wouldn't be viable, wouldn't be able to replicate or metabolize or shed waste or do any of the things that living things do. What do you call something like that? Dead. You need the whole set of information to carry-out the processes of life and produce offspring. Usually when something is wrong in your DNA they call it a genetic disease, but what you're saying is that genetic diseases should somehow "self correct."

I don't buy the argument that "processes are conserved" at all. That flies in the face of experience, scientific observation, and statistics. The only way that happens to a level where you get a significant amount of information is if an intelligence is directing the process (like in the Miller-Urey experiments where they carefully controlled the process of assembling amino acids from a primordial soup... that, it turns out, didn't even exist on early earth, but that's another topic).

heterotic's picture
I think the problem here is that you are making life out to be more complicated than it is.

This statement: "Usually when something is wrong in your DNA they call it a genetic
disease, but what you're saying is that genetic diseases should somehow
"self correct."" DNA does attempt to self-correct errors. Although, not all errors are noticeable (they occur more frequently in satellite DNA, due to the quantity of satellite DNA to 'meaningful' DNA), and not all cause system instability, some help the organism, some have no affect on the species' survival, some cause problems, some stop the organism from progressing past a certain point in development.

What I don't understand is how people have to problem accepting decomposition of particles, and even the composition of non-living organic and non-organic matter, but when it comes to DNA, it had to be a creator (who needs no creator)?

Gerhard Adam's picture
I don't buy the argument that "processes are conserved" at all. That
flies in the face of experience, scientific observation, and statistics.

You don't have to buy it, but it's true.  You're still attempting to argue that everything is random instead of recognizing that the "information" you're talking about isn't absolute.  It gets rearranged all the time (that's what genetic drift and mutations are all about).

Similarly the whole concept of the gene clearly shows that the entire DNA strand is a composite of various sections (often with large gaps of non-protein coding components).  All you have to do is examine oscillating chemical reactions to realize that there doesn't have to be any specific purpose to such reactions for them to exist. 
The letters in DNA, the A, T, G, and C, can take any position in the
DNA molecule with equal ease. There is no chemical propensity for any
particular arrangement of these letters.

That's simply not true.  AT and CG form pairs, so "any" position simple isn't possible.  Similarly, your comparison of 1's and 0's is incorrect since there is no propensity to favor one over the other.  However, the same is NOT true of atoms which are very much dependent on the presence or absence of electrons in the orbitals and the attraction that that generates.  This is why Sodium ions and Chlorine ions readily combine into a sodium chloride compound.  Similarly, this is why two atoms of hydrogen will pair with one oxygen to form water.  These aren't accidental combinations, they are stable precisely because of the laws of chemistry and the attractive energy that each atom experiences.

None of these examples are random in the sense of your 1's and 0's example, because in the latter case, there are no "laws" that establish their values nor is there any intended value beyond those "desired" by the user (or system).  This has no similarity to biology at all. 
...like in the Miller-Urey experiments where they carefully controlled the
process of assembling amino acids from a primordial soup... that, it
turns out, didn't even exist on early earth, but that's another topic

It's also an irrelevant topic, since the purpose of those experiments was to determine whether amino acids could be formed, NOT to establish that this was the precise process that occurred.  This is also a common complaint about such lab research, but it is immaterial, since no one is proposing that the process employed in the lab is precisely the sequence of events.  Instead what is being studied is whether such chemical processes can demonstrate the plausibility of organic molecules being created in that fashion.  That doesn't mean that's how it happened, but it can demonstrate that it is possible.

I'm no scientist, far from it. However, after reading blogs and sites from atheists who believe in evolution it is amazing that they are willing to accept the randomness of life although the probability of it happening is astronomical. But then they tell creationists we must have proof of what we believe and it has to be verified by science. When has any scientist ever verified that all of the molecules that make up any complex organism can create itself? I'm going to go with NEVER. All of the scientific experiments require a creator, and one with extreme intelligence. However we are to believe that life started in the most random of ways and progressed on it's on and on the way developed such complexity that to understand it you have to be a genius. When backed against a corner an evolutionist will try to explain away the most complex occurences by dumbing it down to it's simplest forms and yet they call creationists, 'fundamentalists.'. My observations have led me to the conclusion that evolutionists are nothing more than religious zealots in the faith of Atheism.

Rick Ryals's picture
Dear Anonymous,

I am an atheist who doesn't accept randomness as a mechanism for life, the universe or anything else, for that matter.  But the choices are not limited to ID or chance, contrary to the convenient ignorance of both sides of this political debate.

heterotic's picture
I came to the conclusion not long ago that randomness is a projection, not an absolute.

Things that we have yet to form an answer for seem to fall into these categories with the choice being meaningful or random. Both of these ideas come from human thought, not from the universe before neurological transmissions became what we experience.

I realized there is no need to choose between meaningful or random, because if we change what that means, it is not a biconditional statement at all. If the variables of an occurrence are unknown, and seem from a personal perspective to be out of place, we interpret the event to be random. If the event seems to be inline with what we desire, whether consciously or sub, we interpret that as meaningful. 

Physically speaking, on a particle level, every action has a reaction, so nothing then, is truly random.

Rick Ryals's picture
And if there is a good physical reason for it...

heterotic's picture
Just a physical reason. Good versus bad is human projection, again!

Rick Ryals's picture
LOL... no, I meant like a law of nature that requires the universe to be exactly the way that it is for a very logical and comprehensible reason, and that requires biological life as a mechanism of the process.

heterotic's picture
:) I knew you meant that, I was just being annoying.

You are absolutely right, there is a physical reason for everything on a particle level, and it is logical and can be explained mathematically.

Rick Ryals's picture
But ultimately there may be no way to know... "Why any of this?"... so I guess that meaning is still *possibly* subjective, ultimately, unless there IS some way to know why that I just don't know about... oye!

"exactly the way that it is for a very logical and comprehensible reason"

Cantor, Mandelbrot, and more importanly, Kurt Godel (on formally undecidable propositions) suggest that /exactly/ is a bit strong.

If all of mathematics can never be complete AND consistent, then my guess is that the universe, governed by a very large subset (perhaps all) of mathematic, has many undecidable events, each with consequences, and so the Laplacian boast is just that.

Even theists, given Aquinas' "Even God cannot make the internal angles of a triangle add up to anything other than 180 degrees", combined with Godel, must be forced to conclude that their God cannot have a knowledge of the formally undecidable, and therefore cannot know exactly what the rules of the universe are. (Oh dear, so Xtians must jettison the omniscience bit... or admit their deity is inconsistent, fickle, and thus imperfect).

So, I'll happily project randomness, a synonym for undecidability, lest my head be done in like Cantor's and Godel's.

Rick Ryals's picture
How does that apply if there is a perpetually inherent imbalance in the energy of the universe, (incompleteness?), that drives it to move forever forward in time in a futile effort to reconcile the disequilibrium?

The incompleteness refers to the scope of mathematics. As the scope of the mathematical corpus increases, it becomes possible to create conjectures linking two areas of mathematics that cannot be proven or disproven (the formally undecidable bit). This actually has very practical implications in the field of computing, the halting problem.

The implications of Godel on the philosophy of mind as mechanistic are profound, and an individual mind is (in my opinion) much less complex, and involves fewer fields of mathematics than a universe or multiverse.

The upshot of this is that there exist statements about the universe, those statements being derived from evidence provided by the universe and formal logic, that cannot ever, regardless of how much might learn, be decidable with respect to truth and falsehood. As probability and randomness imply undecidability/incompleteness, this permits statements that have a higher degree of consistency.

Unless, of course, you don't think the universe is governed by mathematics and logic... a condition I find incredibly ugly and discomforting.

As far as DNA sequences goes, the maths involved in determining WHERE the gene is, and thus transcription rates, including the various error detection enzymes, becomes extremely complex, and thus brings Cantor and Godel into play.

How we react to this state of affairs is our business (if we admit to free will). Personally, I am happy to embrace the idea of randomness in the universe, as it allows for a much richer universe to experience and appreciate than a universe that doesn't, and it dooms any Hilbert-like programs to failure, and ensures scientists have something to do until the end of the universe rather than be forced into mere accountancy.

heterotic's picture
Mathematics are what we use to explain the universe. Our mathematics cannot be perfected enough to explain the entire universe, because we are human. Even though when we do something like... divide by x, when x = 0, we say it is undefined because a number can be divided into 0 parts a nearly infinite number of times, in the universe there are, by now, so many conditions based on the actions and reactions of a particle's surrounding particles that only one thing will happen. Can we predict what that particle's reaction will be? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The unpredictability does not make it uncertain, though there may be a large, but finite number of reactions for every action. We only know so many variables, when there surely are many more that we do not have the historical data or technology to account for. Does this eliminate free will? I hope not.

Rick Ryals's picture
I think that it does, but I don't think that we can measure it due to the impractical nature of the immeasurable number of interactions that La Place's demon would need to be able to calculate our fate.  So free-will, and chance will always be real to us, even if the final theory of everything is strictly deterministic.

heterotic's picture
If even our thoughts are determined by the actions that all particles have taken prior to now, I think we are saved with the illusion that we have free thought. Saved by the unknown. My fear is that people who harm others may think determinism is a scape-goat.

heterotic's picture
Atheism is not a religious belief. The prefix a- means without. Theism is the belief in a superior being as a creator and ruler. Atheism then means (a little algebraic logic for you) without the belief in a superior being as a creator and ruler.

Secondly, evolution has much proof. If you knew anything about bacteria and viruses alone, you wouldn't ever call it into question. Evolution does not, however, end the idea that there is a God. You do not have to give up your faith to accept our evolutionary roots. Religious texts, yes, but those are written by other human beings, just like every other written historical artifact. They are fascinating if you look at the evolution of human culture, and you do so subjectively.

Lastly, there is no logical argument for a superior creator or ruler, and many of us don't need a fictitious being to give us purpose. We project onto life what we want to, and if we want something to have meaning, we give it meaning, if we want to have purpose, we recognize our ability to give ourselves a purpose with our advanced neurological capabilities.

Rick Ryals's picture
Ah, but Copernicanism IS the non-evidenced religious dogma of *most* scientists... ;)

http://knol.google.com/k/richard-ryals/the-anthropic-principle/1cb34nnch...

Fred Phillips's picture
Cher wrote,
We can calculate the probability of a specific genome occurring, but we cannot calculate the probability of any genome occurring.

Taking off from Andy Holland's MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB example, kprince responded by calculating the probability of all sentences having the same number of letters as MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB.  Cher, don't let me put words in your mouth, but I believe you were not saying that a calculation like kprince's was impossible; you were saying that we cannot calculate the probability of the existence of genomes in the first place. 


Then Andy trucked in entropy, a concept which carries even more potential for confusion than probability. Claude Shannon remarked (and my teachers agreed) that entropy cannot be interpreted as a measure of our ignorance. Ignorance is a psychological construct that implies not only lack of knowledge of the facts, but also (possibly) lack of capacity or preparation to absorb the facts, and even willful denial.


It's absurd, therefore, to think we can measure ignorance. But, as the judge famously remarked about pornography, I know it when I see it. And there's more than a bit of willful denial in the comments above.
When we talk about chemical creation, it's very clear that chemical reactions at Earth's early stages could produce organic molecules, and therefore, likely did.

There's no merit in denying this. Scientists, including atheist and agnostic scientists, derive a sense of wonder and mystery from this awesome fact. Andy, maybe you get a similar sense from contemplating God. I'll respect your path to awe if you respect mine. That means, don't gimme no nonsense about probability, nor smoke about entropy.


heterotic's picture
Well put, Fred. You were correct in your analysis of my statements.

The ancient Greeks realized (long before Christianity - God has nothing to do with it) that if a process is directed it is no longer random. So forget the "G" word and just talk natural and nature.

Two bike mechanics, the wright brother's looked in the sky, and they noticed how birds flew. They recognized the Bernouli equation (that one has a longer surface on the top than the bottom and this generates lift), and noticed the wing warping characteristics of birds in flight to develop the control system. They created a wind tunnel to test their designs.

So their design of flight - the mechanics and principles came from natural design. Design found in nature. Design indeed exists in nature, nature has design QED (unless you prefer driving cross country).

It is a matter of intelligence to put together machinery. For instance, a machine has input, process and output where output is different from input. Arguably the most simple machine in biology is the Ca or Na atom which receives a photon and kicks out an electron.... But on a subatomic scale, that is a wonderously complex process.

Getting allot more complicated, we hook that Ca or Na atom in some sort of long chain molecule that is wrapped to form something akin to a wire where voltage can be conducted, and transmit the photon to some mechanism that takes that information and does something. In higher forms of life, we have multiplexed, discriminated and amplified signals. For example, an eye spot would be the simpler form but a photoreceptor in a worm or trilobite has to have 100,000 long chained molecules acting as photodiodes with all sorts of wonderously efficient and elegantly designed (in a natural sense) mechanisms all encoded, maintained, constructed, organized and energized within a single cell.

Intelligence flows from the photon to the neural network through a series of machines, mechanisms, electrodynamic entities which must conserve charge, impedence match etc..... to a neural network that receives that intelligence (a photon) and does something with it - move, change direction, or read a sentence on a computer screen.

So intelligence flows in nature. Design exists in nature, intelligence exists in nature. Intelligent design exists in nature because - even with Darwinian thinking - organisms make life/death choices based on information flow and the design is determined by preference. QED.

If you want to ask "why" seek "God" or philosophy - if you want to ask "how" study the how's but don't deny the reality of those "hows" when they don't fit nicely in theocratic or philosophical boxes. Recognizing intelligence and design in nature is stark realism. Its historic fact, its reality.

Also the set of sentences possible that are intelligible is infinitismal compared to the number that are - though both sets are infinite. THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED DIVERGENT SERIES - and the number of things that do "work" is small compared to the number of things that do not work. So I have to get back to work!

heterotic's picture
We cannot definitively say that "design exists in nature." We observe that design exists, but it is subjective. We are looking at what does exist and work as a result of particle action and reaction, instead of looking from point 0 and following logical action and reaction. We are forgetting how many more reactions of particles resulting in "designs" that did not work, "designs" that we have no discovered evidence of, and may never know about.

"THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED DIVERGENT SERIES - and the number of things
that do "work" is small compared to the number of things that do not
work."

This is exactly correct, but that is not an argument for intelligent design, unless we can prove that the things that don't work were never "tried" and failed by nature. There are things in existence now that don't work, how intelligent is that? Adaptation comes into play in the long run in these cases, and other uses for these "useless" things eventually become necessary for survival.

briantaylor's picture
A fine post and interesting discussion.
If it wasn't for the discussions of the illusions of 'free thought' I wouldn't have a place here at the ol' SB.
I'm not a scientist but I study philosophy and can string together words in an entertaining fashion.
My beauty often gets in the way of people taking myself seriously too...

Welcome, I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Another blog here you might enjoy is by Michael White, a biologist who often does philosophy, look up "Adaptive Complexity." and while your at it, look up linguist Patrick Lockerby's blog "The Chatter Box." Patrick is one of the most clever writers here, inventive, charming and humorous.

Design exists everywhere - we get our designs from nature because nature presents us with designs. A design is an elegant balance of forces, mechanics kinematics etc.... For instance string players from antiquity swayed with the music so their left hand would hit the proper place on the string within millimeters - because correct swaying kinematically balances and offsets the movement of the bow.... on and on the physics goes.

Those are all natural - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - elegance, design are intrinsic to nature. The beauty of a snow flake - its design as a Julia set and on and on.

Beauty and design are indicative of efficiency and function. If one looks carefully, one sees this beauty everywhere. The beauty of design is elegance applied.

I've got a patent on a self-verifying computer language program used in the automatic design and safety analysis of nuclears. The adaptation of a genetic algorithm, like genetics itself, directs building block solutions - however, these all have intelligent cause.

Interestingly, using such machinery to design machines is intelligent design and rather natural - because what comes about looks natural as it proceeds from the algorithm employed in nature in our creation.

However, the set of what works poorly is large, that which does not work at all is huge. There are 20 amino acids that form - what, 30,000 proteins. Given the size of the set of useful cellular proteins, even if the set of useful proteins was in the thousands of billions, or even 10 to the 40th power - what actually works in the protein world is relatively smalled compared to the possible combinations and permutations (10 raise to a power far greater than the atoms in the universe).

And calculating those numbers is not scientific heresy. Its a legitimate field of inquiry that needs to be rationally explored with dispassion. If the evidence leads to "God" too bad - if your interest is science and truth, pursue it with dispassion and vigor.

Of course I believe in God - but my God is all natural - especially natural - and I am a Christian Catholic. However, I arrived at this state because I set about to dispassionately prove the religion I was raised with to be incorrect, and found to my own chagrin that the religion of my youth was not only logical, correct and consistent with reality - but very (especially - supra) natural (though I wasn't).

I believe many do not dispassionately look into these matters because they have predisposed opinions. On one hand we have biblical literalists who want to reject what God teaches in His universe, and on the other we have those who are predisposed to an atheistic viewpoint who wish to hide from the some fanciful veangeful god (themselves).

The truth is, God's vengeance is life, health, peace salvation visitation and blessings - and when one realizes this its easier to swallow applied probability theory in natural sciences.

But its easier to judge those who don't share ones viewpoints as being fools, even though the list of fools includes some of the best and brightest in history. As such, why not dispassionately look at the facts - including the numbers?

Gerhard Adam's picture
Sorry, but you overlook the most obvious problem with your assertion.  If there is no need to explain where the original "intelligence" came from that you claim is responsible for the design, then there is no need to postulate the existence of an "intelligence" to create what we do see.

heterotic's picture
I'll repeat what I said earlier, you cannot say as a fact, that nature is full of designs. Yes, we get our designs from nature. We take our intelligent mental capacity and study nature until we know how the particles are working together. We then design prototypes and test them until we have one that works as elegantly as nature does. We also can make machines do intelligent things in very dumb ways. A design is a planned for, it is something formulated by thought. Many take the stance on the mathematics of nature to prove it must be designed because it works so simply, but again, that is far from proof of any designer.

It is not logical to take illogical explanations to explain the obvious logic of the universe.

As for atheists are without the belief in a superior being, it is the theists, deists and polytheists who would potentially be hiding from a god (whether fanciful or vengeful.)

"The truth is, God's vengeance is life, health, peace salvation
visitation and blessings - and when one realizes this its easier to
swallow applied probability theory in natural sciences."

That is not a truth. That is your belief. It is not scientific, and is not mathematically sound or logical in any fashion.

"As such, why not dispassionately look at the facts - including the numbers?"

Anyone who believes in God is passionate about it, and seems to believe it in spite of the nonsensical arguments that must accompany that belief.

I don't see any numbers as proof for a superior being, designer or not, I see numbers as proof of evolutionary thought.

My belief is based on facts. I don't formulate beliefs based on emotion, philosophy or preconceptions any more than any other scientifically minded person should. And I am not alone, plenty of other very hard nosed people have.

It is not nonsense to count the number of amino acids, to look at the number of proteins (the letters and the sentences) and compute the beyond astronomical probabilities associated with formulating those observed through any random or psuedo random process.

Its science. Its also scientific to follow laws of statistics (entropy), chemistry, physics, electrodynamics etc.... in formulation of reality. A cell is infinitely more mechanically, chemically, logically, electrodynamically advanced than any machine or robot or set of machines and robots man has ever produced. If we don't have the capability to construct something as "simple" as a cell, where do "scientists" get off explaining "origin" of species?

Hard scientists like James Clerc Maxwell have come to opposite conclusions (than Darwinists) and did so through logic, experience, computation and thorough investigation.

Don't be afraid of crunching some numbers - be afraid of being afraid to.

It is up to people who propose Darwinian statistical and psuedo statistical processes to show the mechanisms with which known organizational and informational entropic statistical tendancies of open systems are overcome. Failing that, it is worth considering the possibility - even the probability - that on some level, the universe has in it an intrinsic intelligence simple and compound. According to Darwin, William Paley was his best teacher - maybe he was too good.

heterotic's picture
I'm not afraid of crunching numbers. These are numbers that cannot be crunched, unless by some feat you have obtained the knowledge that no one else has - the knowledge of what we don't know.

So far your argument is the balance of the universe needing a creator. Where did the creator come from, oh wise man?

Where do scientists get off explaining the origin of the species? It's science. Therefore, scientists would be the most qualified. Where do religious folk get off explaining anything?

PS - Nature is full of designs, why do you think the US military is now investigating bird flight for design of advanced aircraft?

You seek design where you find it.

It exists in nature, your thesis that it does not is disproven by known and knowable engineering that has in fact used natural design for human purposes. A design is a balance of forces and a use of them. Genetics provides a powerful building block mechanism to create wonderful designs real engineers in the real world mimic all the time - especially in flight.

heterotic's picture
You cannot prove that the universe was planned in advance, so it is not a fact that nature is full of designs.

People in other sciences aren't familiar with this - sorry, should have provided it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
Its a very useful tool

I don't have to prove that the universe is planned in advance to prove it is full of designs. I only have to prove that engineers and scientists use a design one time to prove that it has at least one design. It in fact has many designs. I would also argue, they arise naturally - especially naturally!

Your assumption that designs must arise from a planned universe imply that nature cannot design? But if it cannot design, how does your neural network brain work? Naturally of course! It is mechanism, it balances forces charges etc... it is a design - one we mimic (neural networks) to do sophisticated things - like flush toilets at airports without using hands.

Saying nature doesn't design is illogical because we use designs from nature - and are ourselves natural. But if we are not natural, what are we?

heterotic's picture

Definitions of design on the Web:


  • plan: make or work out a plan for; devise; "They contrived to murder their
    boss"; "design a new sales strategy"; "plan an attack"

  • the act of working out the form of something (as by making a sketch or
    outline or plan); "he contributed to the design of a new instrument"

  • plan something for a specific role or purpose or effect; "This room is not designed for work"

  • an arrangement scheme; "the awkward design of the keyboard made operation
    difficult"; "it was an excellent design for living"; "a plan for
    seating guests"

  • create the design for; create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner; "Chanel designed the famous suit"

  • blueprint: something intended as a guide for making something else; "a blueprint for a house"; "a pattern for a skirt"

  • make a design of; plan out in systematic, often graphic form; "design a better mousetrap"; "plan the new wing of the museum"

  • a decorative or artistic work; "the coach had a design on the doors"

  • create designs; "Dupont designs for the house of Chanel"

  • purpose: an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned
    actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good
    intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of
    answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs"

  • conceive or fashion in the mind; invent; "She designed a good excuse for not attending classes that day"

  • a preliminary sketch indicating the plan for something; "the design of a building"

  • intend or have as a purpose; "She designed to go far in the world of business"

  • invention: the creation of something in the mind



Get yourself a dictionary.

Because something works, does not mean it needs to be designed.

If life needs a creator, if the universe needs a designer, then a creator needs a creator, and so on into infinity.

Nature certainly has plans - what do you think DNA is doing?

heterotic's picture
Please provide proof that nature is planned.

The web is a lousy place for a definietion. I was a design engineer for 20 years - won the American Nuclear Society National "DESIGN" Competition - I think I know what a design is! Designs exist in nature, we use them all the time.

And DNA and Genetics has plenty of plans - DNA is a blueprint. You don't think fairies created you do you - two cells, and millions later....

Go to Frank Loyd Wright's falling water, and see how he used ideas from sea shells to create a corrigated concrete patio cantilever leading from the main house to the guest house. Where did the design come from? Nature.

Or Thomas Jefferson's design of serpentine walls - which form the best wall structures - again, nature's design.

Or beehives......

Our minds pick up on our natural surroundings and we mimic and use those things we see in our designs - which are constructions that work.

heterotic's picture
You got me. I thought fairies created me.

DNA is not a blueprint for life. DNA is an incredibly simple nucleic acid made up of sugars, phosphates, nitrogenous bases and five-carbon sugars. It is widely known that DNA, while replicated, is changing constantly. It is referred to as a blueprint and a design because we are human, and we see the past and the present as it is. Not as it was built.

Take a set of legos. You can start putting them together to form something with nothing more than the laws of physics and you may or may not create something. Failed creations will occur more often than successful creations without a plan. Sound familiar?

Here's a better question... if a designer or divine creator is the one planning and designing nature... changing it as He sees fit... why does DNA need to copy itself repeatedly to exist at all?

I don't have to provide proof that nature is planned to say it has plans. Nor do I have to say it is designs for it to have designs. - Wow - you sound like a Theist!!!! Maybe your real hangup is bad theology?

Nature contains plans - nature contains designs. Heck ants and chimps "plan" attacks.... do they devise and design. Why shouldnt' they? The are ORGANISMS and are hence organized.

However, if you want proof nature is planned, read Mark Chapter 8 and look up the definition of "Visual Agnosia" - you will find that the man who saw trees walking was a textbook case - the first in fact.

Or if you want, do a detailed study on the "Land of Bashan" and specifically the Roman Occupation and use of men of Bashan (tall spearmen) on crucifixions, and read the four Gospel's crucifixion accounts and read the 29th Psalm that begins "My God, My God, why hast thou foresaken me?"

And treat the text as something worthy of real poetic, deep and thoughtful analysis and study - spend time understanding it deeply - read it with ancient Church Saints who weren't a bunch of superstitious morons - but rather very learned especially in philosophy and logic. They weren't fools. Don't presume your generation is so advanced!

DNA is molecular Word - pattern - plan!

Nature contains plans, designs, and intelligence. That is undeniable fact. If you say all things are natural, we are natural, and then 747's are also natural.

I never asserted where designs came from except nature - I asserted what it in fact contains which is the purview of science - "What" - and I won awards in "DESIGN" before you were probably born!

If you want more detailed information, say a quiet prayer, and read the references provided.

heterotic's picture
It is one thing to be a scientist who believes in something out there that caused the creation of our universe; it is quite another to "talk" to a divine spirit.

I can't take anyone seriously who thinks the Bible is a reference point for science or history.

It is a collection of books written to tell a story, with plots and morals. I'll bet you've never even read the oldest copy there is available (written in Greek/Hebrew.)


More detailed information about what? Nature is a constantly working, constantly building collection of particles and energy. Due to the universe's need for equilibrium and balance, we have before us our complex world. What started out as simple becomes complex. It doesn't need a plan, because the forces cause things to be in balance. Things will either work or they won't.

Another example of simple to complex without a plan? Religion.

For a scientific plan - consider that Einstein got his philosophy of space-time and the non-Euclidean Geometry and tensor mathematics from Bernhard Riemann. Riemann was a lover - a prayer of the Psalms (he learned to read using the Psalms). The first Psalm we Christians are to pray in the morning as commanded by St. Peter Himself is Psalm 90 - "a thousand years in thy sight are as a watch in the night..." - speaking of a general relativity of time (true Prayer is entering a time above time). In fact we are commanded by Peter to remember the relative nature of time first in II Peter!

Eddington confirmed Einstein's general relativity prediction using a solar eclipse and noting the starlight/ star position shift behind it. If the moon were slightly larger or smaller, or slightly closer or further away - such an experiment would not have worked. The moon is right sized for Corona investigations and observations of the shift in starlight caused by the curvature of space-time.

God is rather scientific - or we are incredibly lucky! Maybe that is why so many stupid Physicists are theistic?

heterotic's picture
You've still given me no logical reason why God must exist, yet you continue to talk about this being as it is a fact.

It's not.

Hey - I am not arguing a designer - you are - I came here to argue science - not your religion.

You said "DNA is an incredibly simple nucleic acid made up of sugars, phosphates, nitrogenous bases and five-carbon sugars" - Really????

Watson and Crick won a Nobel for cracking DNA's basic structure! And Pauling fumbled on the hydrogen bonding (which he himself discovered) missing out on a potential 5th (?) Nobel. Super computers spent years analyzing genomes and still do -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome

DNA is used to identify individuals in court. Its a molecular blueprint for the body .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

"The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints or a recipe, or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules."

The DNA is where the genome is encoded.

It contains the molecular pattern (LOGOS - using ancient Greek terminology - WORD - pattern) by which your made - literally knit protein by protein in the mother's womb and onward.

============================================================
But if you want me to "prove" the Universe is designed, read the earilier references.

If bird wings and control systems are not a "design" [call it all natural from a natural cause] what is it?

Do you demand a "designer" who is personal if you see a design in nature?

heterotic's picture
You are embarrassing yourself.

I'm an atheist. I am a scientist.

LOGOS - Reason, logic

DNA is referred to as a blueprint for the sociological reasons I already gave you. You are making things far more complicated than they are.

A design is a plan. A blueprint is a plan. Plans come from the mind, from thought, from consciousness.

You observe things you see in nature as being designed. I observe them as nothing more than the forces of universe building for billions of years.

So you do not believe in natural designs. OK -let's go by your definition. T

Then there is no natural design or designs in nature.

The Wright Brothers working un-naturally when they invented the airplane by copying nature?

Does that mean the Wright Brothers were working above nature? That the Wright Brothers were Transcendent somehow?

heterotic's picture
They (and many others) based a design off of naturally occurring phenomenon. They planned a blueprint using their conscious thoughts, and naturally occurring brains to understand how these things worked naturally, without a design, in nature. Using the laws of physics, and mimicking these natural functions, we are able to design useful things to advance ourselves as a species. A good reason why intelligence made its way up the natural selection food chain.

I don't care if your an atheist or not. Its moot.

Can you accept an all natural design?
Can you accept all natural intelligence?

Do those things require an intelligent designer - as opposed to a natural intelligence and natural design?

heterotic's picture
Since I am not a proponent of ID or any form of a divine being, no, they do not require a designer, let alone an intelligent one. That wouldn't be logical, since that designer would also need a creator, which would need a creator, et cetera.

I've already told you that the universe does not need a designer. The energy and particles that make up our universe have been acting and reacting for billions of years. These reactions have compounded over all of this time, much like a snowflake forming. It doesn't have a design or a designer, the laws of physics work to balance and create a shape.

Of course I accept natural intelligence. Since you are unaware of what a design is, you probably don't actually believe in natural design either.

I do believe in natural design and natrual intelligence - but beliefs are beside the point. I see intelligence and design everywhere in nature. That is an observation - not a cause.

At what point does a design go from being a natural consequence of billions of years, and becoming something un-natural?

Is a 747 natural? If it is un-natural, when does the break occur?

My point is one could accept a perfectly atheistic view of ID - totally natural. One would have intelligence and design as part of those natural forces - and in historical point of fact, that was the case for ancient Greeks who believed in intelligence simple compound and intrinsic to the universe as a principle.

I am really curious what your opinions are with regard to the place where design and nature diverge?

I am also curious if there is a divergence, does that imply the individual him/herself is some form of transcendent deity? e.g. "I think therefore I AM".

heterotic's picture
A 747 is natural, but requires consciousness to be designed, built and operated. Planes can not function using only the laws of nature. There is nothing in existence that I do not consider natural, because it is all made up of the same "stuff."

How can you believe that the universe "planned" the universe? That is not logical.

"How can you believe that the universe "planned" the universe? That is not logical."

I did not say the universe "planned" the universe. But there are plans in the universe, designs, and intelligence. They exist at some level. Or do you dispute that?

And you say planes cannot function using only laws of nature - I guess I disagree with that!

You also wrote - "There is nothing in existence that I do not consider natural" - I AGREE 100%.

===================================================================

My God is supra natural - especially natural so agreement does not require me to deny my Christianity - any more than ID requires you to deny your atheism.

I simply believe love and beauty and truth are realities that are timeless and transcend the material - exist eternally etc...... I also believe we fell from that nature, in our own desire to judge others and ourselves - and in so alienating ourselves have polluted nature, and everything we see - living lives outside of that love, truth and goodness that are intrinsically part of the nature created by God.

But ID does not require of you to believe anything, except that entropy is conserved in all its forms - and that is consistent with universal observations in all sciences - including biology.

heterotic's picture
A design is premeditated. ID requires for you to believe in consciousness and planning. That is what a design is.

There is no God, in any form, in my mind. Religion is a most terrible thing. I have never believed in God, that I can remember. I am full of love, and joy, and I do not need a divine being to make me feel connected. I just know that I am.

ID only requires of me that I believe in intelligence, simple, compound and intrinsic to the universe. It is not a religion in any way shape or form - its a set of observations and Fermi problem type calculations that one can profit from in a purely scientific way.

Your requirement of me to believe in consciousness in planning of the universe is not a requirement for me. I know as historic fact it is very possible to divorce those things as the ancient Greeks did in fact do.

==============================================================

It only becomes a requirement for me when I consider other evidence which you have not investigated and do not accept - and apparently have no wish at this time to seriously investigate.

"There is no God, in any form, in my mind" does not mean that there is no God in fact . It would be wise to investigate the facts of various religions - if not for belief at least for the sake of being intellectually honest and informed.

Mother Teresa was filled with Love, Joy and doubts - and did marvelous things and was a wonderful person too. So not everyone who is religious is a child molester, any more than all people who are atheists are - or walk on water.

Religion did not exclude Mother Teresa from doing good or being good - and in fact she credited it with her doing good.

"Religion is a most terrible thing" only when it is purely material - interesting you used thing rather than practice.

It is only a most terrible thing when the religion is terrible - when the God is something more aligned to something we visage in the mirror of reget, un-natural or de-natured acts - guilt, acquisition of things rather than consideration of others etc.....

Good religion (practice) frees a person from the ultimate prison - SELF - as shown by people considered "Saints" who acted in a selfless manner for others - giving themselves to find true love - that love that gives without expectation of any reward except the presence of love itself - "God is Love." (St. John).

heterotic's picture
All religions are terrible. Not all religious people are terrible, but organizations always develop a thirst for power. It is natural, it is the way the entire universe works. Consciousness makes this phenomenon something inherently negative on our species, and many other species in the struggle for power's wake.

Self is not a prison, unless you so choose. You do not need religion to "free" yourself.

I have taken many religious courses. It would not be wise to patronize me because I am an atheist, and I do not believe in God or ID.

When I said, "in my mind," I was being kind, since you clearly believe it to be true. I cannot definitively say there is no divine being beyond our universe, as I cannot substantiate that claim with evidence. I do not present statements as facts unless I can back them up, unlike you.

Planning is not "my" requirement for design. That's what a design is. Pick up a dictionary.

Hank's picture
All religions governments are terrible. Not all religious government people are terrible, but organizations always develop a thirst for power.

You just became a Republican!

heterotic's picture
lol I feel that way about governments as well, I'm an anarchist!!!

Your "kindness" in other posts is lacking as it is in this last post. You initially asked a legitimate question surrounded by the usual put down of others:

"How can someone believe they know the odds that the molecules that make up DNA will form a DNA strand that creates a living organism? "

Read the Fermi problem link provided above. Note that there are only 13.7 billion years since the universe began, and only 10^80 atoms in the universe. Use the number of amino acids, the combinations and permutations associated with Proteins.

Dean Kenyon appears about 40 minutes in - he wrote Biochemical Evolution - he disavows his own theory based on facts - Biochemical evolution was HIS THEORY - and he disavows it about 40 minutes in:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670#

heterotic's picture
"Read the Fermi problem link provided above. Note that there are only
13.7 billion years since the universe began, and only 10^80 atoms in
the universe. Use the number of amino acids, the combinations and
permutations associated with Proteins."

Incorrect, here is the correct way to write what you are saying:

"Read the Fermi problem link provided above. Note that there are only AN ESTIMATED
13.7 billion years since the universe began, and only AN ESTIMATED 10^80 atoms in
the universe. Use the number of KNOWN amino acids, the KNOWN combinations and KNOWN
permutations associated with KNOWN Proteins."

In 2002, a 22nd Amino Acid was discovered (pyrrolysine,) and every year, numerous proteins are discovered.

Care to try again?

You look younger than my children, so please forgive me for being patronizing.

Look at the link provided with the interesting movie and Dean Kenyon, and they will show you where they do those sorts of calculations with the most simple encoding proteins - and they are incredibly unlikely given any set of random or psuedo random processes.

See this reference for my personal expertise in automated "design. "
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL...

It was very interesting work. You could essentially create an objective function to anything programmable, and then the optimizer would check with single or multi-variate results to automate design. No planning - only objective functions and algorithms - press a button and watch it do it on its own. Sort of like genetics (which is a building block approach). There were many plans - but no explicit planning - yet they all worked together to create a design by a process of design that was automated. The verification of the design and of the processes was also automatic - using a computer virus concept.

If humans can do it, genetics can too.

So if I walked into a Courtroom in the US or in the world, and presented my credentials for "design" - as CTO of a biotech company with a compelling international design patent and other patents - I could legitimately be sworn in as an expert witness on the meaning of "design." Could you?

- The current estimate for universal age is 13.7 billion years +/- 1% based on KOBE data. Thermodynamics is compelling evidence - and heck, the planet is only 4.5 billion years old so whats the problem?

- Given a fairly good guess of intersteller density, the estimated number of atoms is 10^79 power - 10^80 is 10x larger for conservatism sake - not 10^(10^124) which is the sort of number associated with probabilitistically arriving at a genome sequence. So randomness has nothing to do with the ascent of intelligent life on the planet.

- If a 22nd Amino acid was just discovered in 2002, then we are is around +/- 4% estimate space of number of amino acids.

If a process is not random it is directed. If a process is directed, and intelligence directs it - then there is an intelligence simple and compound intrinsic in the universe.

If you don't like that as a scientist - tough - reality doesn't care about your opinion, atheism, theism etc.....

Whether that intelligence arose by some process or a consequence of nature itself or stems from the uncreated Holy Trinity is something you can find out with prayer, humility and seeking competent guidance.

Again, Mother Teresa is a counter example to your religion is always bad point of view and I hope you find people like that in your life who will truly show you the meaning of true love and the joy it brings - even in religion!

Peace.

jtwitten's picture
Do not allow the vanishingly small probability of any specific set of events happening distract you from the fact that specific sets of events happen all the time.

 

Precisely - be scientific and search for the cause.

jtwitten's picture
First determine that a cause, other than chance, is needed. As you just agreed, making your intuition hurt and improbability of event strings do not count.

Intuition has nothing to do with it.

If you propose to overcome informational and organizational entropy through a psuedo statistical process of natural selection (which needs to be defined a bit better) - it is on your side to show how the probabilities which are real - are really overcome.

jtwitten's picture
Conflation of problems makes them trickier. Are you discussing the probability of chance producing a replicator? Or, are you discussing the probability of chance producing a particular replicator? Probabilities of a replicator occurring and discussions of the evolution of life once that has occurred are separate issues.

On the contrary, I am first a fan of randomness (i.e., drift, in a genetic context). First, it is incumbent to demonstrate that a phenomenon cannot be entirely explained by chance. Then, it is necessary to demonstrate that a phenomenon cannot be explained by replicative advantage due to random variation.

Where do you believe randomness falls flat? Is there not enough variation? Is replicative advantage insufficient? Because it is not clear if you are discussing biogenesis or evolution, your arguments about entropy and information are impossible to parse.

We have reason to believe randomness falls flat everywhere because of organizational and informational entropy. There is definite knowledge that statistically, without a continuous input of some sort or rejuvenation, all mechanistic, electrodynamic, and information flow processes break down fundamentally.

In real machines - randomness causes problems UNLESS those machines themselves feed on it AND randomness is bounded and regulated by corrective mechanisms (that we see everywhere in redundant genetic information throughout organisms). When a process uses randomness in real machines, embedded in the encoded system, there is mechanism to use failure to make improvements.

The irony is - the more you automate design, the more intelligence is required - and this is a direct consequence of the reality of Informational Entropy. It is a real automated design problem.

And Genetic Algorithms which came from watching biological ones - have this problem fundamentally.

Our computers are plenty powerful enough for AI - nobody has figured out how to overcome the daunting problems of informational entropy intrinsic to the effort.

jtwitten's picture
Your analogy, especially as a critique of natural selection, is lacking (as all analogies eventually are). None of the systems you discuss are self-replicating, which provides a mechanism for dealing with failure (see again my question about whether you are criticizing biogenesis or evolution, if you are not familiar with the distinction that can also be discussed). Information and order in biological systems is fundamental stored chemically and physically. Energy is expended to maintain that order (e.g., from the Jolly Rancher I am currently eating, YUM) with a great deal of that energy being wasted as heat. Local order, entropy universally goes up.

Genetic algorithms may have been inspired by genetics, but they are not the same thing.

William Paley's watch was an excellent lesson that went over Darwin et. als head apparently - but not really.

The more complex a system is - the more likely it is to break down. That's mechanistic reality - and its compounded by electrodynamics etc...

The more likely it is to break down, the less likely it will survive or thrive. The less likely it is to survive, the more likely Darwinian mechanisms go the other way - toward simplicity and nillism......

There is no reason for survival mechanisms to go beyond Lichen, or single celled organisms, or proteins or carbon, or Monkeys - at any point in the chain. Darwin explains exactly nothing.

But in fact we have life - so we have genetics and now we have to account for genetics to ascend to highly complex forms of life and genetics must contain information sufficient to overcome all of the above very real mechanistic, probabilistic realities.

Informational entropy (same as mechanistic) again comes into play. You now have to pack loads of information into DNA - and the more information you pack in, the less likely it occurs randomly - again. The problem is even worse than it was in 1860 - infinitely worse. Darwin would not have bought it had he a scanning electron microscope and saw with his own eyes, that the photoreceptor of a worm has 100,000 long chain polymer diodes (protein diodes) to multiplex a light signal to create a voltage impulse to transmit to a ganglia - and I have greatly, greatly simplified the actual mechanics in that description (and the probability of forming the words for that greatly simplified description since the universe began is astronomically small). Which means genetics is now immensely efficient as well..... hmmm......

This was fought over 1700 years ago and the Epicureans lost for very real mathematical and logical reasons. How it was resurrected is a fascinating lesson in human psychology.

The real reason you guys hold onto this Darwinian 19th century hocum, is the same reason Joe HOOKER and Huxley were collaborators with Darwin, the same reason I get messages from "Heterotic" in my email, the same reason Cher talks about "power" (and its lust) - and noticably gets angry when I mentioned Mother Tersa and true love - the same reason the gag order from the courts and on and on...... The lust for power.

Its a theological reason.

"This is the condemnation of the world - the world loves the darkness (death) more than the light (life) because its deeds are dark."

Darwin gives you an intellectual place to hide out while you sort out what your really about. OK - I get it. But don't feed me the bologna that your "scientific" - if you uwere, you'd run the numbers with dispassion and not formulate Piled High and Deep nonsense non-stop.

Give it some years, - before the Ark sails and your found in the darkness that never ends.

Peace.

jtwitten's picture
Wow, Andy, you managed to cram a whole bushel of unhinged into that one, while answering none of my rather reasonable questions. I do not know what Darwin thought about Paley's watch, but I do know that it is no better than an analogy, and a bad one at that. I'm afraid your probabilistic thinking is deeply flawed, essentially by your need to find "reason" and "purpose" in biology. Call it nihilism if you will, but the scientific method requires that approach. At home, you can believe what you want.

I'll repeat myself, because I find my words so witty:
Do not allow the vanishingly small probability of any specific set of
events happening distract you from the fact that specific sets of
events happen all the time.

For the record, my "hocum" is 21st century "hocum" involving 150+ years of research, not just one guy's book.

It is simply fallacious to extend a comparison between man-made technology and biological systems beyond that of analogy.

Not a calculation, not a simulation without some form of directed intelligent input.

Every machine we have on the planet proves it - explain how one gets photodiodes for worms in cells from gradual statistical change processes!

You can't because it can't .

If you were honest, you'd show how 20 amino acids can be arranged through population based dynamics to produce some sort of beneificial change - you can't - certainly not with randomness!

Even the peppered moths and the beaks turns out to be genetic machinery. And the more machinery, the less likely any random process is involved. You don't get cars by kicking about metals - you construct them - genetics is constructing the constructors and designing the adaptation - IN FACT microarray studies are showing changes in genetici expression INTRA-generationally (and that has to be the case for observed rapid speciation).

And when the ID guys do real calculations with Fermi problems - your only come back is insults - you can't show where the calculations are astray. Why?

The only reason I can come up with is that it is your fundamental religion - a sort of pschyological fanaticism that refuses to put pencil to paper and do simple math. Your afraid - and frankly you have reason to be. Your hiding behind an increasingly vanishing fig leaf.

PS - the Caloric theory stood for centuries. Count Rumbsford knew it was Hocum (for whom the Royal Society was formed) 60 years before the "scientific" community finally acknowledged the gross error.

And that error involved an understanding of statistics and entropy as well...

rholley's picture
Gesundheit!

What has entropy got to do with Sir Benjamin Thompson FRS, aka Reichsgraf von Rumford (1753 – 1814)?  The concept wasn't even around when he was alive. 

As late as the end of the 19th century, when a certain professor was challenged over repeatedly setting the examination question "What is Entropy", he replied "Yes, but every year I change the answer!"

Of course it was - the caloric theory held that things had internal energy in themselves - it was ancient going back to Earth, wind fire as elements.

BT saw it was flawed when he was making cannons and noticed they heated up under friction when he was a Colonel in Bavaria I believe. Nobody listened to him either of course - their bad theology got in the way (or was it good theology - after all E=mc^2).

Consider the wishful thinking about Mars - the canals - the face - whatever. You see allot of random things, and tricks of lighting make you see patterns where there are none.

Now flip it around in Biology. People see goo for a cell - and say there is nothing but goo and it comes together depending on what eats what when and how and people come up with a theory of natural selection.

Then they place the goo under scanning electron microscopes and see amazing complexity. Mental inertia and wishful thinking (there is no God, I can screw around, there is no God, I am accountable only to myself) works on the mental processes - and people continue to see randomness because it fits a belief system that is mentally beneficial - to heck with reality.

Dispassionate science requires a brutal search for truth. If the implications are there is a creator [Mechanics, electrodynamics, entropy, probability, information packing, logic] - too bad - crunch the numbers, ask the questions, get the answers and stop trying to muzzle and brow beat those who do critical analysis and look at the numbers and try to get the message out - the canals are an illusion - the face on mars is lighting - but the cell - its not goo anymore guys - its a machine of amazing complexity.

Tis the small things, the despised things that confound the wise.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Wow, it's hard to imagine how you could get more things wrong in a single paragraph.

A cell is not a machine, it's not even kind of a machine, it's not even close to a machine. 

Making comparisons to illusions serves no purpose since no one ever seriously thought that there were such things, except for the same people you're claiming are the one's being rigorous about design.

Science is dispassionate and brutal in its research mechanisms.  What is amazing is that the general superstitions held by the population at large, are what you consider factual.  What rigor was it subjected to?  Repeatedly the proposition is that there is an "intelligence" that designed life, but not a single word explaining what such "intelligence" means or how IT was created.  Instead we're simply to accept that on faith.

It seems that the stated position is that since science doesn't know everything, then let's fall back on superstition and whatever we feel like making up. 

To suggest that biology is "designed" is simply foolish since it would be an extremely incompetent engineer to design so many things so imperfectly.

Your calling me an incompetent engineer Gerhard - would you care to defend that libel in court?

I am confused by your statement - if a cell is not a machine - then it is what, a dance of the fairies?

"What rigor was it subjected to?" Fermi problems - Fred Hoyle, noted atheist astronomer came up with 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power for the probability of life "evolving" - so he concluded, as the ancient Greeks did, that life was ever existent - that life must come from life, intelligence form intelligence. Being a hard nosed physicist, either you accept the laws of physics, or you deny them for what - fairies?

For every action there really is an equal and opposite reaction - chemical balance, force, energy, logic - there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe, and when you perform a Fermi problem on 20 amino acids with only 30,000 proteins (and then you have to arrange and adapt and repair and construct the Proteins) - what rigor does evolution have? 200 to 1000 codons for the simplist proteins - good luck! The lowest numbers I have seen for coding have ironically come from Debemski and those are 1 in 10^150 - so you only need 10^70 universes to get life started.

Evolution is a binary selection on survival and with genetics, thriving and populations. It does not begin to explain information packing.

If I looked at a planet, and saw gleaming cities and nuclear rocket engines and wonderous technology, I would conclude that an advanced civilization of thinking beings formed it. It would be a logical deduction based on the facts of observation. When we see living machines - cells - we see something infinitely more sophisticated in physical operation, information packing, adaptation, energy efficiency and function than anything man has ever devised.

Your logical conclusion then is that this is all "simple" and explained by Darwin. Who is being superstitious?

Hank's picture
You threatened Gerhard with ...
Your calling me an incompetent engineer Gerhard - would you care to defend that libel in court?

If you are the kind of engineer he described ... 
 it would be an extremely incompetent engineer to design so many things so imperfectly.

then I would call you an incompetent engineer too and be happy to defend it in this court you speak of, since truth is a valid defense.    I mean, open an ASME book or something.  Even the worst engineer has to get a few things right.

I'm the guy with a patent on a self verifying computer language compiler....

What DNA and genetics does, and what simple cells do is infinitely beyond that technology.

A nuclear reactor power plant, or a Saturn V rocket, or NERVA, or a robot - even a theory android robot - is trivial compared to a cell - which must self replicate, repair, and produce function. For example a photoreceptor in a worm does what our photo-multiplier/intensifier tubes do but:

1. Much smaller
2. Much more energy efficient
3. Self maintaining
4. Self creating
5. Self adapting.
6. Using efficient polymer materials rather than metals
7. Self plug in
8. and it springs from another cell which creates it and organizes it in due course!

We are only now toying with nano-technology, and a long, long way away from anything like what cells do.

I have a way you could prove your "truth" that would demonstrate your superior knowledge of science. Go out and make a self replicating solar powered unit to take CO2 out of the air.

Use an initial mass the size of an acorn, and let it grow using the stuff around it automatically - and have it pump out O2

---- then you will be qualified to tell me how bad an engineer whoever, whatever created this living planet is.

Just do the Fermi problem analysis with 200 to 1000 codons.... and start looking for God.

heterotic's picture
Darwin didn't explain everything; how could he have?

And yes, it is quite simple the way a cell works. It's not as complex as you make it out to be.

"And yes, it is quite simple the way a cell works."

Tell me the feedback mechanism that triggers a genetic adaptation - or fashion a cell from scratch materials molecule by molecule and prove it - or even simulate a virtual cell that would work on computer!

When people have done genetic computational simulations, and Monte Carlo computations (I believe Penn State did one and has a recent paper on it) - they find as with the Fermi calculations that the probability of forming living things by chance or adapting on a chance basis is idiotically low.

And don't forget Maxwell's non-evolution of electric charges - atoms don't evolve in any way.

Darwinian causality is an existential causal violation - it violates informational entropy - that is to say, at every stage there is no mechanism or reason for life to "evolve" to more sophisticated forms.

What is in fact occuring is genetic combination and a combinatorial graduated ascension from less complex forms to more complex forms in graduated stages.

The issue is not one of fossil record, or age of universe or anything else. The real scientific issue with Darwinism is now and always has been going to cause - death and processes of death do not form life.

Cells are infinitely more sophisticated machines than anything man has devised. They are not incompetent engineering - sorry, read your sentence too fast.

heterotic's picture
This sentence is in fact, quite hilarious. Cells are no more sophisticated than a group of people working together to move boxes from point A to point B to help produce result C.

" Cells are no more sophisticated than a group of people working together to move boxes from point A to point B to help produce result C."

"This sentence is in fact, quite" - sad. Its a very 19th century view of things.

So tell me, how does one move boxes from point A to point B to produce 100,000 photodiode polymers for a worm's photoreceptor cells? Explain to me the biochemistry associated with signal discrimination. Tell me the DNA codon's involved. Tell me how what enzyme and how they are triggered, that allow certain photoreceptors to discriminate blue and green light.

Don't tell me how "simple" something is and then turn around and tell me how you cannot fully describe it. Be scientific, real - be humble!

What does a cell do - two of them form you and me - they have all the information for the super computer brains, the automated repair mechanisms, the sophisticated light gathering devices. Take a hard nosed mechanistic scientific view of life - and consider who much information is packed in DNA.

Look at single celled creatures (and they are creatures) - from a force, charge, chemistry, information packing point of view, they are far and away the most sophisticated machines on the planet. They are far higher intelligence than we have yet constructed - even if we had talking computers - those computers would not be as sophisticated because they cannot self replicate, or form a planet from dust into a living world with a balanced ecosystem.

Gerhard Adam's picture
In every post your assertions for intelligence have one central premise; if man hasn't created it, then it must be created by a super intelligence greater than man.  In addition, simply because humans can't replicate such a system doesn't presume an external intelligence.

By equating biology with machinery (especially regarding natural selection) you're completely caught up with the notion that everything has purpose and requires direction.   As I've said before, cells are not machines and simply because you don't understand how they work or came to be doesn't make them machines either.

Once again your argument regarding probabilities begs the question.  Like so many others you presume that all events are equally likely (and therefore can be treated randomly), in addition you also presume that they must all occur simultaneously in a singular event of creation.  Neither is true.

So a photoreceptor cell that takes photons, acts as a sophisticated photodiode - is repeatable and outputs a voltage for a neural network isn't a machine?

Then it is a creation of God?
Is it magic?

Hey, Fred Hoyle, Albert Einstein - plenty of Atheists have done these Fermi problem calculations. They did not believe in deity - but they did come to a notion of an intelligence simple and compound pervading the universe at least as principle. Fred Hoyle thought perhaps life had to be eternal - again - going to cause.

If all events are not equally likely (and they are not), then there is a bias or direction. A probability is a perfectly valid metric to describe the degree to which something must be directed to come out with a logic result. Its the only good metric we have (Heisenburg et. al.).

The true problem with Darwinian biology is that people take open systems, perform dramatic one dimensional experiments and confirm (based on confirmation bias) a Darwinian outcome. But all outcomes have in fact genetics - which is a combinatorial building block mechanism that can intrinsically adapt.

However, to have the genetic mechanism that intrinsically adapts, one has to have the informational process or logos (logic) for it to do so.

Gerhard Adam's picture
So a photoreceptor cell that takes photons, acts as a sophisticated
photodiode - is repeatable and outputs a voltage for a neural network
isn't a machine?

What you are using is an analogy, and whether it fits completely or not is irrelevant since it isn't an accurate description of the biology.  You seem to think that if you can describe something in terms that resemble human systems that it somehow bridges the gap and allows you to ask questions.
Unless you're prepared to discuss biology in terms of biology then you're point is always going to go askew.
A probability is a perfectly valid metric to describe the degree to
which something must be directed to come out with a logic result. Its
the only good metric we have (Heisenburg et. al.).

Except that if you don't know what the possible output likelihoods are, then you can't simply invent a probability out of thin air.  In addition you miss the obvious.  It doesn't matter what the probabilities are, any more than they do to the lottery-winner holding a winning ticket.  But you compound your problem why suggesting that each and every reaction must be equally probable, instead of recognizing that particular events may well accelerate activity in specific directions and radically modify the probabilities.  The trouble is that you're insisting on a calculation for which you have no basis.
But all outcomes have in fact genetics - which is a combinatorial building block mechanism that can intrinsically adapt.

It isn't that it CAN adapt, it's that it DOES adapt.  There is a tremendous difference since the former implies an intentional direction, while the latter is simply a function of selection (i.e. the "last man standing" syndrome).

What you and many others keep forgetting is that biology doesn't have to work perfectly, but rather that it only has to be "good enough" to survive into the next generation.  Over time some imperfections may be selected out, but it isn't a requirement.

Cher and Gerhard,

Still... you haven't addressed the main issue Andy and I have made. You have to seriously address the information content problem. There is 3GB worth of information in every cell in your body. Don't give us (again) the excuse that it's only one of an incalculable number of possible sequences... I asked you, Cher, for your wildest optimistic answer for the values of the two divergent series, and you didn't respond. But it can't be good news for you, because the genetic alphabet can result in gibberish just as easily as the English alphabet can. There are rules to both English grammar and the genetic code. I don't see why the analogy between the genetic language and any other language (English, binary, etc.) is flawed. Help me see why.

Gerhard: "In every post your assertions for intelligence have one central premise; if man hasn't created it, then it must be created by a super intelligence greater than man."

So what? Aren't you doing the same thing in reverse? If man hasn't created it, certainly God hasn't either?

Gerhard: "Once again your argument regarding probabilities begs the question. Like so many others you presume that all events are equally likely (and therefore can be treated randomly), in addition you also presume that they must all occur simultaneously in a singular event of creation. Neither is true."

But that's not "begging the question" (circular reasoning). In the genetic code, all combinations are equally likely, because the genetic letters do not have a propensity to self-arrange in any particularly order (other than their pairs, of course, but I'm talking about one side of the strand which has the same information content as the other side). Or are you saying that the genetic code for a liver, for some as-yet-unknown reason, has a propensity to self-assemble? Maybe that's the case, but it's not circular reasoning to argue against that... it could just be wrong, but not circular.

Also, entropy really works... how would a non-reproducing DNA fragment survive in what must be the furious pace of nature trying different combinations of genetic sequences to find one that works? What magic force is it that keeps half of a potentially-working DNA strand around until the rest of it can be assembled? Even assuming you're correct, that the assembly of life-giving code can happen over some long period of time, why should we assume that the forcing bringing the rest of the DNA together don't also work to tear the non-working as-yet-unfinished DNA strand apart? After all, if you're busy trying DNA combinations, you need those handy raw materials.

And here's another staggering problem... information density. How many years have humans endeavored to increase information density? In the 50's and 60's we had computer punch cards. I remember our first computer, the Apple II, had a cassette tape drive. Then we went to 5.25" floppies. Then decent hard drives and 3.5" disks. Then CDs. Meanwhile information density in memory chips was getting better and better. This whole process has taken, say, 60 years of intense effort from intelligently-directed human beings... engineers at IBM, Toshiba, Motorola, TI, etc. And guess what we have to show for it? The information density in a single cell is 12 trillion times (12,000,000,000,000) greater than our best chips (see "The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry" by Fazale Rana). How does that kind of information density just happen without intelligence? Seems to me the burden of proof on this one is in your court, since I can show you how it happens with intelligence (I just did... many man-hours of engineering). If you've got another way, do tell.

Now it may be that some natural process will be discovered that somehow accounts for what appears to be amazingly intelligent design. Or, it may be that some transcendent God created us all, all the animals, the plants, the very conditions of the planet and solar system and galaxy that we live in. Either way, it's faith. You have to admit that, because neither you nor we can "prove" our positions 100%. We can show evidences, but there's not absolute proof.

As Einstein said, "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

You might say it's too convenient that God has set-up the universe in a way that requires faith, where His existence cannot be 100% proven. Okay, I'll grant you that. But the best selling book in the history of man, purportedly written through men by the Spirit of God, has an answer for that. It's God's purpose in this universe to deal with the problem of evil and free will. If we were all robots programmed to love God, then we wouldn't have the free will that produces true love. A convenient answer? Sure it is! But that doesn't make it false.

I gather you've each chosen the side of "no miracles," and that's your choice to make. And while the expected value of your choice works heavily against you (that is, if you're wrong then you've got infinitely more to lose than we do if we're wrong), I agree that's not a compelling reason, by itself, for you to change your mind. But I hope that it's enough to at least convince you to some day take an open-minded look at intelligent design as at least a possibility. Like former atheist Anthony Flew, perhaps you'll come to recognize the evidence for intelligent design in what appears to be a most miraculous universe.

heterotic's picture
You have completely missed my point. I told you that I will not "guess" as to how many possible permutations of bases to form a living thing, because there's no way to tell if it is accurate. Even at this point, we don't know what the first living organism was - we can only speculate. We don't have an accurate accounting for the state of the atmosphere, the exact gravitational pull, the state of our magnetic umbrella at the time - all things that play key roles in the formation of the first DNA or RNA strand(s). We don't even know if there was more than one nucleic acid formed during this time! If you remember correctly, Darwin speculated that there was either one or a few organisms to begin with. This is still an unknown.

God and/or Intelligent Design does not provide answers. It gives people a reason to stop looking, and accept an illogical explanation that requires no explanation of its own. Like I've said thousands of times, there is no reason to believe in God. Believing in anything metaphysical, mystical or divine is nonsensical.

Miracles are subjective. Like most of the reasons proponents of any religion or ID give; miracles are a personal projection onto an event or object. The universe itself is just action and reaction. We might say something like, the K-2 boundary was a fortunate event, but it wasn't fortunate nor unfortunate. It was just an event. Anything we use to describe this mass extinction that isn't scientific is subjective.

The universe isn't miraculous for this very reason. The universe just is. Do I think that it's amazing that the actions and reactions of particles building over billions of years has led to the life I live? Absolutely, but I'm intelligent enough to realize that it is my opinion, not a fact. Even living with the projection of awe and wonder onto everything in our universe doesn't require a creator or a designer.

The only unanswered questions I have that will probably never be answered is why there was energy to begin with and what lies beyond on our universe that causes this seemingly never-ending expansion. I certainly don't need to answer that question with someone illogical to quiet the questions in my mind. In fact, I can't. I tried that when I was a child, and it didn't work.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Sorry, but simply invoking magic, miracles, and divine entities answers no questions at all.

You could accept as Hoyle did, intelligence simple and compound intrinsic to the universe as principle - and that would be consistent with informational and organizational entropy.

========================================================================================
The Judea Christian God is not hocus pocus magic - God is 100% natural. He is especially natural.

That is the point of 4000+ years of religion. God is above nature in transcendent qualities such as "love" which is giving without expectation of return - and faith - which is _loyalty_ beyond reason - and Spirit which is pure motivation above mecahnism.

For example, God hardened Pharoah's heart by revealing the natural events associated with the Santorini explosion at every phase, including the CO2 gas that killed the first born of Egypt (who all slept on the ground to be close to their ancestors) - while the Israelites were standing eating the passover feast, and passed over the cloud even as death passed over them.

At every stage, Pharoah (pride and exaltation) saw the universe and thought - oh - its simply this or simply that, and at every phase Moses called for him to repent of his hardness of heart - and at every phase God hardened Pharoah's heart by revealing himself in nature as nature by nature.

And he revealed is transcendence above nature by revealing to Moses - who was humble - the key to escaping disease and death and Egypt.

Gerhard Adam's picture
The Judea Christian God is not hocus pocus magic - God is 100% natural. He is especially natural.

... and therein lies your problem.  While I don't care what you personally believe, but what I object to is that you want to invoke this kind of belief as a scientific principle which is disingenous, at best.  The point is that you have never been interested in the biology or the probabilities.  You've always accepted the principle that there was divine intervention so your arguments ring hollow and it is clear that you aren't interesting in discussion as much as preaching.

I was responding to someone who asked questions as to why I would believe in God, and was careful to differentiate between scientific answers and theological ones. Hence the ============== separator.
========================================================================
So lets talk biology:

"The chromophore photoisomerization is the beginning of a remarkable cascade that causes electrical signals (called action potentials) to be triggered in the optic nerve. In response to the chromophore photoisomerization, rhodopsin causes the activation of hundreds of transducin molecules. These, in turn, cause the activation of cGMP phosphodiesterase (by removing its inhibitory subunit), an enzyme that degrades the cyclic nucleotide, cGMP.

A single photon can result in the activation of hundreds of transducins, leading to the degradation of hundreds of thousands of cGMP molecules. cGMP molecules serve to open non selective, cyclic nucleotide gated (CNG) ion channels in the membrane, so reduction in cGMP concentration serves to close these channels. This means that millions of sodium ions per second are shut out of the cell, causing a voltage change across the membrane. This hyperpolarization of the cell membrane causes a reduction in the release of neurotransmitter, the chemical that interacts with the nearby nerve cell, in the synaptic region of the cell. This reduction in neurotransmitter release ultimately causes an action potential to arise in the nerve cell.

All this happens because a single photon entered the fray. In short order, this light signal is converted into a structural signal, more structural signals, a chemical concentration signal, back to a structural signal, and then back to a chemical concentration signal leading to a voltage signal which then leads back to a chemical concentration signal.

This incredible cellular signal transduction design is the biochemical foundation in image-forming eyes. But it is also found in the third eye. In fact, the third eye includes two antagonistic light signaling pathways in the same cell. Blue light causes the hyperpolarizing response as described above, but green light causes a depolarizing response. How is this done? By the inhibition of the cGMP phosphodiesterase enzyme. Specifically, there are two opsins, one that is sensitive to blue light which activates the cGMP phosphodiesterase enzyme, and another that is sensitive to green light which inhibits the cGMP phosphodiesterase enzyme. It appears that initially these are two separate pathways and they come together at the point of influencing the cGMP phosphodiesterase enzyme."

Simple - ehhhh?????? Come on!

That is a simple eye - a third eye! Reality is that you have to balance forces, voltages, structures etc, etc, etc....

Oh and then there is this interesting tid bit:

"As had been noticed, the code’s [DNA's] arrangement reduces the effects of mutations and reading errors. They often result in no change to the amino acid sequence, or merely a slight change as a similar amino acid is used in place of the original amino acid. And the degree of this safeguarding is now better understood. As one research study found, the DNA code is “one in a million” in terms of efficiency in minimizing these effects. This structure found within the DNA code was “unexpected and still cry out for explanation.”

Several other studies have confirmed these findings and yet other studies have discovered even more unique and special properties of the code. For instance, the code’s degeneracy means that it is capable of carrying other messages, in addition to the protein amino acid sequence encoding. That is, such a code can, in theory, allow the DNA sequence to carry multiple, parallel, messages, and this is precisely what researchers have found. For instance, the DNA sequence tells proteins where to bind to the DNA structure and where to splice its duplicate copy that is created when creating new proteins. The DNA sequence also determines the structure of that duplicate copy. In addition to allowing for multiple messages, the DNA code also reduces the effects of harmful errors by increasing the chances that such errors will result in a stop codon.

What is important for our purposes here is not only that the DNA code has these capabilities, but the degree as well. Research has found that the DNA code is a very rare code, even when compared to other codes which already have the error correcting capability."

BOTTOM LINE - Your theory is dying - its dying just as the Caloric theory died, just as the Cosmic Geocentric theory died - just as all bad theories accepted for decades or centuries die - a slow, painful, agonizing death through thousands upon thousands of cuts.

Force, energy, voltage, current, logic, chemistry - all these real sciences along with real probabilistic analysis and Fermi problems to gauge the level of directed assembly in "evolution" - are all killing the theory.

You can only isolate biology and bandy about "simple" for so long. Eventually reality bites - and it bites hard.
========================================================
'but this is the condemnation of the world, men preferred the darkness to the light because their deeds were dark' - you prefer mechanisms of death to explain life - because you do not yet realize that life is light - and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkened mind - darkened eye cannot comprehend its beauty, love, goodness and joy. True love that conquers all....... Herein lies OUR problem in the world - 'if the eye is darkened, great is that darkness.'

The same questions were discussed in two other recent articles.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/truth_universally_acknowledged/ringsid...

http://www.scientificblogging.com/mark_changizi/%E2%80%9C_evolution_fast...

I believe Gerhard took the high ground with the opinion that after an event has occurred the probabilities change.

Andy seems to have missed out on the opinions of Schrödinger and the third law of thermodynamics. It isn't his fault. A lot of the best science isn't taught in college or even written in the text books.

"The book is "What Is Life" and dates from the 1940s. It talks about the nonrandom processes, the thermodynamics of creation, and how the odds improve over time.

A lot of disagreements about evolution are found in biology and geology. When cosmology is added, many debates disappear.

Opinions change over time. First the Earth was the center of everything. Then the sun was the center. Later the galaxy was the center. Now there isn't any recognized center.

Not long ago a group of scientists tried to prove with statistics that there is only one living Earth in our universe. They didn't try to say how many universes there are or have been.

Quantum mechanics on the other hand embraces the Many World Theory with extra dimensions and all sorts of things that aren't found in biology and geology. Experimental data doesn't make sense without the many worlds and Sum Of Paths. Feynman’s sum of paths goes everywhere including the past and future.

If you allow the opinion of Richard Feynman that antimatter goes backward in time, or the research at CERN about Time Reversal of neutral mesons in CPT, then the cosmology of evolution creates a blog space that is large enough to lose most of the arguments.

Engineers have an unusual place in society between the theoretical and the practical. If an opinion is offered about atheism, then it is just an opinion. I didn’t hear any one offer proof.

Once the cosmology of many universes, or the quantum space of many worlds and many dimensions is included in evolution, then it is reasonable to ask on what basis an opinion is offered.

Certainly since the time of Heisenberg, there has been some uncertainty about these questions.

DVDs polarize light in one wavelength. Shrimp eyes apparently polarize it evenly in all directions and are being studied for that reason - to improve data storage (tremendously). Pretty sophisticated given any set of random processes - and shrimp - rather low on the scale of creatures. But they have too - they are seeing in a much darker and differential environment.

Engineers do have a practical understanding of science - and they have a practical knowledge for how complex things can indeed be.

Darwin cringed at the complexity of the eye he saw, but noted the worm eye was "simple."

Had he an electron scanning microscope and knowledge of function - whether worms or shrimp - he would have cringed far, far more - he did not have a good feeling or understanding of just how complex machinery has to be to work - and how complex ancient life forms eyes (trilobites being very sophisticated) were because the planet was once very dark.
================================
"I didn’t hear any one offer proof. " - Read Mark Chapter 8 and look up Visual Agnosia. Very interesting - the first documented case of VA from a person born blind and having his sight restored.

But hey - if you aren't willing to treat the subject with scholarly investigation, attention to detail and respect - you'll never gain anything from it.

"If the chances of DNA functioning properly was so low, why is it that we can place a centi tube with a strand of isolated DNA along with a gene from another organism in a centrifuge, give it a spin and have an organism with functioning recombinant DNA?"

I believe this is the basis of the article?

The answer is a simple one: because they're existing strands. If the bible-nut was trying to debunk evolutionary theory, he certainly is wrestling with a proven fact. But if he was trying to discredit abiogenesis, he would have had a strong argument had he been able to cite sources.

The problem with the argument is that while DNA indeed consists of only a handful of proteins, there are too numerous a number of naturally-occurring proteins that the mathematical probability that those specific proteins would arrange themselves into the correct order to form a living object are infinitesimally small.

Andy, I'm willing to treat the subject with scholarly investigation, attention to detail and respect. What was it you thought that I was expecting to gain from it?

The story of Mark didn't begin in chapter 8, or end there, and Visual Agnosia is not in dispute, at least not in this message.

Where science falls short is the failure to explain or even to attempt an explanation of how a big bang or other creation could occur, what preceded it, and how the entropy was made low in the past so it can be increasing now. Surely for evolution theories these things are the most fundamental questions.

Engineering falls short too because it fails to call science to account for the origin of low entropy.

So I believe you put up a good fight, but left out the most convincing evidence.

Education in science and engineering leaves out some of the most important knowledge, because it impacts on our understanding of energy supplies and how we use energy. The missing science has been available for a long time, but is difficult to find and not politically correct to teach (except in blog space). You only find it here.

It takes a life time of reading original works from pioneers in science like Schrödinger and Feynman to discover the missing parts and understand why they are left out of college studies. What we get from Feynman and Schrödinger is the science of how time can go backward or forward, and how entropy can decrease or increase. We also get many more dimensions than the ones we see, and calculation rules about how subatomic particles travel into all of those other times and spaces before they return to our world.

The message I would like to deliver is that the boundaries on this discussion are a lot larger than the comments are embracing, and the science that describes the larger boundaries is decades old.

I’m of the opinion that there were other universes before ours, and more universes existing at this time beyond our view. Also I expect there are other living worlds now and were others in the past in other universes. So the space time my statistics is large enough to contain any of the probability arguments.

Before Mark chapter 8, there was Ezekiel Chapter 1. From Ezekiel we get a report of two flying machines made of bright shiny metal landing in a farming community of illiterate manual labor, on the water front at Nippur, Iraq on 31 July 593 BC.

One of the flying machines went down in flames with a loud rumbling noise, a cloud of smoke, and an electrical fire in the high voltage engine. The other flying machine came to the rescue commanded by someone who said he was God. Ezekiel was under age for the job he was doing. His education was cut short 10 years by war, and he didn’t read or write very well. So I ask you, is it likely that Ezekiel saw flying machines, or did he just imagine it.

The part of the science that is not taught in college is necessary to understand the workings of the flying machine that went down in flames. For the other flying machine Ezekiel didn’t give enough information to describe the technology.

A lot of claims are made that don’t impress me. Fuzzy photos don’t help at all.

The science of Boltzmann, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, and Feynman are telling me the same things that Ezekiel was saying about the wheelworks machine.

With scholarly investigation, attention to detail and respect, they are saying the boundaries of your discussion are lot larger than the concepts these several comments are exploring.

The conversation continues at:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/philosophical_scientist/late_night_ram...

for those who would like to know what other science was left out of college.

I think everyone is missing that lack of information is not evidence of a divine being or a creator.

Not knowing the origin of something does not make it magical or mystical. It is simply an unknown.

It seems to me though, that when one rightly points out hey - we have between 200 and 1000 codons involved in creating certain "simple" amino acids for a particular mechanistic task - and get probabilities associated with randomness on the order of lotteries in which the balls would be the atoms of the entire known universe, and people don't delve into that reality - it begs the question, is the theory of Evolution a religion?

I think it was St. John Chrysostom who called religion the science of sciences. We seem to have a secular science of sciences in evolution - where evolution is the a priori answer and all other questions cannot question its authority because it is taken for granted.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Your understanding of the probabilities is wrong, your understanding of biology is wrong, and your statement of science being a religion is wrong.  In short, virtually everything you've said is wrong and yet, it still doesn't make your notion of a creator correct.

>>>>>>"I’m of the opinion that there were other universes before ours .... so my statistics is large enough to contain any of the probability arguments."

Actually that is a fallacy - because in fact statistics tend to diverge - which is the point of entropy. Its at every step - you have to get very lucky to get order in statistical system (clusters) and they are not generally repeatable.

But if you do take Mark Chapter 8 seriously with regard to visual agnosia, and other things, then there is a more critical issue with respect to cutting neurons that are not useful to provide a clear view.

Once you get an understanding of relativity, it isn't necessary to choose between evolution and a divine creator. Relativity removes the argument about time and the age of Earth. So you can have both creator and evolution. Or you can make an argument based on arbitrary assumptions.

I would argue that evolution of life is occurring on Mars now, based on the microbes that went with the scientific probes. People who worked on those programs are not claiming to be divine.

They tried to kill all of the microbes before launch date, but it resulted in too many equipment failures. So they settled for killing most of the microbes, and taking a chance on the others.

It is quite possible that something like that happened on Earth. Nearly all of life on Earth has the same genetic language and the same genetic alphabet. The other small segment of primitive life has an older language and an older alphabet of the same type, but with fewer words and fewer rules, that lead to a lower success rate in replication.

You could argue that every living thing we have examined is derived from just one single event in the distant past, maybe on Earth, or maybe some other place. Evolution theory is rather hard pressed to say why there are not more genetic languages or more genetic alphabets in different stages of development.

Here is a link to a previous discussion about probabilities, with comments about Schrödinger and the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/mark_changizi/%E2%80%9C_evolution_fast...

The job of science is to make opinions about unknown things in ways that can be tested. It seems likely that a prediction of life originating elsewhere is an opinion that can eventually be tested.

I believe it was already stated that a believer in God/divinity/creator etc does not need to deny evolution to believe in their higher power.

Relativity isn't evidence for a creator, though.

Relativity - in the Einstein sense - is absolutism - everything being relative to the speed of light. The term was coined from Galileo's error (along with Copernicus). In reality - the speed of light, or more properly C, provides THE metric for space-time relativistic comparisons.

Fascinating the timelessness of light.... even created light.

Einstein's absolute constant light speed c, is under attack, since 1993, when Einstein was proven wrong about quantum wave entanglement. To hold light speed completely constant requires infinite power at every point in space. So the constancy of light speed will definitely be over turned, in favor of a light speed that is nearly constant in most places much of the time.

The metric for space time is constructed from the g(uv) of the coordinate system, not from light speed. Multilinear analysis is the place to find the mathematics. Here is a link to the volume I use often.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Multilinear-Analysis-Students-Engineering-Scienc...

http://www.amazon.com/Multilinear-analysis-students-engineering-science/...

Maybe you remember Einstein was working with technology from 1916. Considering what the other technology from 1916 looked like, it is not a bad idea to deliver him to the antique dealers and move on to a modern view of science.

About 30 serious attempts have been made to improve on Einstein's work, and many of those predict the experimental data as well as Einstein did. Accuracy of measurements is not great enough to say which theory is best.

We know for sure that Einstein's general relativity contains structural errors, that fail to describe a black hole correctly.

**** "the black hole solutions from Einstein’s field equations shows the theory predicts a black hole to contain no volume" ***

http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock_physicist/cosmic_flash_memory

We need to have space travel capabilities to test the new theories and discover the next steps in understanding general relativity.

---------------------------------------

From your earlier comments I would say that for people who live in 4 dimensions, any actions that originate in 5 dimensions ( Kaluza–Klein et al ) would be miraculous, although those actions might be considered a work of technology in the 5 dimensional world.

The 5D people have the same response to actions from a 6D world, although by now they should have caught on to the 6D concept.

I under stated the case, because most of science in high energy physics is now supporting a 10D model of local space time and a 12D cosmology.

It doesn't end there. A unified field string theory requires 26 dimension unless a special case is claimed of super symmetry. That's not the end of it either. There are serious theories of 52 and 208 dimensions. I'm not saying you will find a divine creator in 26 dimensions or 208 dimensions of supernatural space time.

What I'm saying is that we are very small. We live in something like a net of 4 dimensions, surrounded by things we don't understand.

To get an understanding for the next level of science, we will need to develop ability to travel between stars and measure the space and time near black holes and neutron stars. That requires a minimum of 6 dimensions ( three of space and three of time). Until then we are stuck with the antique theories of a previous century.

When we achieve star travel and the time travel that goes with it in the same technology, the questions you asked and the issues you raised will not be answered in 6, 10, or 26 dimensions.

Those discussions will always go with us to the next level.

Poor Charles Darwin was working from 19th Century technology, and had he a scanning electron microscope to see how complex even a third eye is, he would have agreed with his highly esteemed (in his own eyes) teacher, William Paley - that when you stumble upon a watch, you know it was designed.....

Interesting the GW Carver's first request of God the Father, whom he met as a flower as a boy, was to find a knife so that he might carve William Paley's watch. He promptly found a rusted knife in a log from the encounter, carved the gears of a clock, and learned that someone had to continuously wind it to make it go. His first biology lesson in entropy delivered from God the Father the Almighty.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."

Even science. How many saw the star, and how many bothered to follow it?

Oh well.

Search for intelligent life everywhere - except right under one's own feet!

About Entropy, I believe you largely missed the point of creation energy, or maybe you just rejected the Third law of Thermodynamics as described by Boltzmann 1899, and Schrödinger 1945. That information is key to the understanding of energy and the situation we are in now with fossil fuels.

Thermodynamics as I learned in college and you learned in college is defective and incomplete. That deficiency is deliberate and beneficial to a status quo. Here is a link to some of the missing parts.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/philosophical_scientist/late_night_ram...

In particular the topic about radiant energy focusing shows a very well known way to move energy from a cold source to a hot destination without expending any work, or discharging any energy to a lower temperature. So the popular concept of entropy is incomplete and misleading in the way it is taught.

A simple experiment that most people have done with a magnifying glass makes utter nonsense of the explanations that are give to us about why we have to struggle with energy shortages and pollution.

The contest is between good science and bad science, those who are looking to the future and those who are clinging to the past, not between science and religion. With science and religion giving opinions of each other, all you get is an argument that never ends. Another link is here.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/truth_universally_acknowledged/blog/to...

http://www.scientificblogging.com/truth_universally_acknowledged/ringsid...

With science you eventually get a prediction that can be tested.

When someone tells me about God and divine creation, I ask where did God come from and how did he get so much power.? To give any type of answer you need more than 4 dimensions of space and time, more than one universe, and a concept of time that can go forward and backward continually in different dimensions.

A lot of bright young scholars have asked the important questions during my experience of more than 20 years in universities, and more than 40 years in private industry and government service. What they are saying is that the teaching of science is missing some vital components in the origin of the universe and the understanding of energy.

While biology has been arguing miniscule issues with you of a history that can not be tested, the pioneers of physical science and astronomy have been offering the frame work for a new understanding of energy.

From Schrödinger and Boltzmann we get a correct and complete view of Entropy (Third Law of Thermodynamics ) that can increase or decrease depending on the different numbers of random and non random energy states. Feynman gave us a science of time (CPT , Time Reversal) that can go backward and forward for different particles continuously. Quantum mechanics gave us many hidden dimensions we can't see, also many worlds with particles that travel between the worlds. Cosmology has given us relativity of space and time, expressed in the light cone that provides a frame work to contain many universes. Optics gave us experimental proof of quantum entanglement and a science of how particles are connected together when they are miles apart.

So, from the previous paragraph, when someone tells me about God and divine creation, I reply that modern science has provided the necessary frame work to explore those topics and is open to any predictions that can eventually be tested by scientific principles.

Every time I hear science and religion giving opinions of each other, I really wonder what type of science and religion is involved and is all of this leading to predictions that can be tested.

When you solve a mathematical problem like calculus, there is usually more than one possible answer. To choose the best answer, a boundary condition must be met. You have to know what the boundary is.

I notice in this conversation that the several people have gotten different answers from different boundaries that are imposed, and none of those answers are likely to the best one, because the boundaries are not set wide enough to contain the question or the answer.

The bright young scholars from my experience received really good answers to their questions for many decades from all sorts of university professors, research scientists, and high school teachers. Then there was no follow up or encouragement to explore the missing parts of science. The teachers know what is missing, and will tell you if you ask, but that's as far as they are allowed to go. The next step is left for you to choose.

Information is certainly capable of overcoming energetic entropy - that is the point. However an abundance of energy does not overcome informational entropy. It tends to make things more random - going from instability to instability - consider Poincare.

The proof is the Fermi-Pasta-Ullam problem - where a very small amount of information introduced as a non-linearity can overcome a highly energetic instability and immediately return it to the normal mode.

This occurred historically in 4D when Jesus rebuked the winds and the waves and they calmed - God had become man, the Divine nature was asleep in the back of the boat (according to ancient Church Fathers).

Technically this is possible, but it requires infinite point information of state. So Jesus Christ is the only begotten Word of God, and where the Son is there the Father is also.

"There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard." - even science and physics.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.