|
Author
|
Topic: Actual Demonstration Experiments, Appeal to Correlation
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 05. November 2003 13:17
Pim inquired:
>For the latter one it has been shown that >natural selection and mutation may be >sufficient. So lacking any positive evidence of >these designers, and given the observability and >testability of mutation and selection, what do >you think the best hypothesis is?
I understand your concern. If Omega Point or God or whatever talked to us and ripped open the sky and said point blank that He created life, there would be no question. Instead, we are left groping around. You have a very reasonable position and your reservations for not accepting intelligent design are much much respected by me!
Personally, being a scientist, I think I have seen miracles and answered prayer so that has been my slight positive evidence for ID in my own life. Reservations concerning the benevolence of the Designer given the existence of diseases is fair game. But such things are excluded from scientific inquiry and would not enter the scientific realm.
But as I said earlier, science detects universal truth, but not all truth, and this fact is attested by scientific laws themselves (irreversible processes, incompleteness, uncertainty, etc.).
People have very reasonable position for rejecting ID, you state those reasons very well, your logic and knowledge are sound on many many points.
Pim wrote:
>Unless of course selection is deemed to be >intelligent your arguments seem to be begging >the question.
I believe the selection pressure "Nature" is the result of Intelligence, that is a reasonable (non-provable) inference from the Anthropic Principle of Physics. Trying to completely prove or disprove intelligent design in the Anthropic Principle results in circular reasoning on both sides. One accepts what one feels most reasonable, no absolute proof is ultimately possible either way short of being God. We accept the real number system by faith as Godel showed, we do not reject it because it is not provable, but we accept it because it is reasonable.
If Nature is not fine tuned, no life, much less no evolution, occurs. We have hints of that just looking at the other planets in our solar system. Nature does not have to be intelligent, but it's author does in my opinion.
>Let me ask you: Do you accept that Adami showed >that random mutation and selection can increase >information?
Mutation and Selection, Yes. Random mutation and selction. NO! RANDOM is a misnomer.
Adami may call it RANDOM mutation, but on careful analysis, random variables only assist in the adaptation, but the process overall is designed.
Adami's program showed that mutation and selection increase information. I hesitate to call those mutations "random" because random variation in the genome and the creature's ability to replicate were very much constrained by the program. If the adaptive mutations are "a strategy not a mechanism", then the reason information increased is that Adami copied elements (mechanisms) of a cleverly designed adaptive strategy.
Random mutation to me means blasting the genes of a creature with radiation or other noise. That's really random. Adami's program constrained the amount of random variation in the genome, and that is a DESIGN constraint. If we want to go to the real world, let's blast flies with lot's of radiation, and induce more randomness into the life form and see what happens. Randomness without intelligently designed constraints both in the creature and the environment results in little or no information increase.
PIM wrote:
> What has ID to offer here?
To my satisfaction, as a scientfic enterprise, ID is worth pursuing. Michaelson-Morley failed to discover the ether, but deservedly won the Nobel prize because of the consequence of their discovery affirmed relativity. Godel tried to prove Hilbert's program and failed, but instead created his famous incompleteness theorem.
I believe more observation and experiment are in order. Conversely, research trying to prove Darwin has been incredibly fruitful, ID wouldn't be around if the evolutionary research didn't yield so many perplexities.
ID has highlighted the problems of using Darwinian mechanisms alone to account for protein "evolution", abiogenesis, and many other perplexities evolutionists themeselves have highlighted. These perplexities beg for answers. The famous WISTAR symposium in the 1960's is an example.
Persisting in blind acceptance of Darwinian theory at this point would be like pre-Keplerians accepting epicycles as an explanation for retrograde motion just because it was the best explanation.
There is unity scientific community about Maxwell's equations (except about it's possible underlying mechanisms). In contrast, no such unity exists in evolutionary theory. There is not even a unified stable hypothesis capable of falsification. For these reasons, ID persists as an alternative to unintelligent causes of life.
You have good and thoughtful points, and I'm sorry we can't be more in agreement because you are obviously very capable in your obvservations.
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 05. November 2003 14:12
Recapping this thread, so far.
Correlation explored as a test of intelligence.
The thread, evolved (pun intended), into discussions of it's applicability.
It seems to me, from the above discussions correlation under circumstances can detect human intelligent intervention in biological systems. (I personally consider that a very small step in the right direction.)
However, correlation must be coupled with other observations to be used as an important tool to support the ID hypothesis in other realms, but correlation in and of itself, insufficient to prove ID or reasonably infer ID.
These "other observations" are still much in dispute and must be further developed for correlation to detect other expressions of intelligence (if they exists).
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 05. November 2003 14:39
Salvador: It seems to me, from the above discussions correlation under circumstances can detect human intelligent intervention in biological systems. (I personally consider that a very small step in the right direction.)
However, correlation must be coupled with other observations to be used as an important tool to support the ID hypothesis in other realms, but correlation in and of itself, insufficient to prove ID or reasonably infer ID.
Does this mean that a truely eliminative approach to infering intelligent design may not be feasible in practical application?
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 06. November 2003 12:21
Pim wrote:
>Does this mean that a truely eliminative >approach to infering intelligent design may not >be feasible in practical application?
Just like our confidence in the unprovable field of mathematics increases with the success of science, so too, the unprovable hypothesis of ID may grow in respectability as eliminative approaches are refined. This has been the case since Darwin.
If spontaneous generation were abundant, ID would have a much tougher case. Pasteur's research eliminated a significant realm of possibilities for undirected evolution. Astrophysical research elimated the possibility that the earth had sunlight for eternity, and the earth having eternity to produce life.
If ID is to progress, more eliminations need to be forthcoming, and as I read the reports, and the growing dissatisfaction even among the anti-ID camp, the unprovable hypothesis of ID seems that it has a chance of being more widely accepted. I've been amazed that the majority of abiogenesis research has consistently been favorable to ID. Likewise cosmology.
Again ID does not neccessarily mean theistic. Tipler's Omega point theory is arguably an atheistic ID: Tipler said he is an atheist in the traditional sense on page 305 of "Physics of Immortality", but he went throught the trouble to do research because the evidence for ID was compelling. I applaud his open mindedness.
More research is in order to clarify what is true. Correlation demonstrating ID may be an afterthought if enough non-ID possibilities are more convincingly elimated.
One thing that is clear, trying to prove that life is not a product of deliberate conscious intelligence is an unprovable hypothesis as ID is unprovable hypothesis. Research will hopefully indicate which unprovable hypothesis is the most reasonable.
Gravity is a hypothesis, it is not provable, but it is falsifiable, therefore it qualifies as a scientific theory in the classical sense. Since much of ID is origin science, not operational science, only some of ID's corollaries are falsifiable. The eliminative approach derives from this.
For example, some forms of ID predict abiogenesis is impossible without intelligence, that claim has not been falsified to my knowledge. I'm continually impressed with the scarcity of plausible experimental chemical evidence for abiogenesis without large amounts of deliberate intelligence somewhere in the pipeline. The impossibility of abiogenesis without intelligence is a falsifiable corollary of ID, and therefore, at least a corrolary of ID qualifies as operational science. Time will tell if faith in this corollary is justified.
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 06. November 2003 13:49
Getting back on topic, proposing a falsifiable experiment regarding correlation.
Consider a self-replicating von-Nuemann style machine containing some number of bits of (uncompressible) information.
Information defined as chemical links being correlated in it's decendant replicas (for example amino acids). Because of correlation between parent and child replicas, specification is not an issue. Complexity is defined by the aperiodic nature of the chemical bonds (it is not crystalline).
ID predicts such a replicator will not arise in any plausible pre-biotic soup without intelligent intervention. Nor will any amount of research demonstrate it is remotely probable to occur without intelligence in the pipeline. Origin of life research can falsify this claim.
Ghadiri peptides are arguably the closest thing to self-replicators that I know of made in the lab from scratch. These peptides were created by intelligence.
With 32 amino acids (assuming 20 possible amino acid choices), using 1-for-1 correlation to determine that an information relationship exists between amino acids in parent versus child, can someone suggest the information content of this self-replicator? I'm reluctant to display my ignorance by venturing a miscalculation!!!
[ 06. November 2003, 14:10: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 06. November 2003 13:59
I take 20 raised to the 32nd power as the level of specification based on the parent to child replica and the space of possibilities given a choice of 20 amino acids.
Corrections welcome!
Even at this low level of specification, I doubt Ghadiri peptides will arise by chance.
[ 06. November 2003, 14:09: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 07. November 2003 00:26
Salvador: Information defined as chemical links being correlated in it's decendant replicas (for example amino acids). Because of correlation between parent and child replicas, specification is not an issue. Complexity is defined by the aperiodic nature of the chemical bonds (it is not crystalline).
But the self replicator you described is neither complex (prob smaller 10^-150) nor specified in the meaning as used by Dembski since the specification is not independent.
Salvador: Even at this low level of specification, I doubt Ghadiri peptides will arise by chance.
But information is NOT equal to 20^32 which is represents pure chance. What if it was not just chance but also other natural processes? Remember Dembski's ideas focus not just around chance processes, also regularities. ALthough he does tend to use the term chance to mean both, leading sometimes to confusions. Also 20^32 is not complex in Dembski terms
Interesting paper perhaps?
Emergence of Selection via Self-Replication in Peptide Ecosystems
Primary Author: Gonen Ashkenasy, Department of Chemistry The Scripps Research Institute
Presentation Type: Poster Presentation
Understanding how communities of molecular species have evolved and grown in complexity to transition from inanimate matter to living systems remains a major experimental and theoretical challenge. The existence of a self-replicating molecule was described as a prerequisite, and probably a sufficient demand, for preparing self reproducing system. Here we describe the design and evaluation of self-replicating peptides as the basis for self-organized molecular ecosystems.[1] We present our progress toward application of such a process for studying the emergence of complex 'behavior' within networks that include several molecules competing for or sharing resources.[2] Specifically we elaborate on the emergence of the following properties: (i) homochirality in natural compounds,[3] (ii) host-parasite and reciprocal catalysis relationships in peptide network, and (iii) selection in peptide based arrays in which several hypercycles operate in parallel.
and this publication
quote:
Nature 390, 591 - 594 (1997); doi:10.1038/37569
Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network
DAVID H. LEE1, KAY SEVERIN1, YOHEI YOKOBAYASHI1 & M. REZA GHADIRI1
Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037, USA
Symbiosis is an association between different organisms that leads to a reciprocal enhancement of their ability to survive. Similar mutually beneficial relationships can operate at the molecular level in the form of a hypercycle, a collective of two or more self-replicating species interlinked through a cyclic catalytic network. The superposition of cross-catalysis onto autocatalytic replication integrates the members of the hypercycle into a single system that reproduces through a second-order (or higher) form of nonlinear autocatalysis. The hypercycle population as a whole is therefore able to compete more efficiently for existing resources than any one member on its own. In addition, the effects of beneficial mutations of any one member are spread over the entire population. The formation of hypercycles has been suggested as an important step in the transition from inanimate to living chemistry , and a large number of hypercycles are expected to be embedded within the complex networks of living systems. But only one naturally occurring hypercycle has been well documented, while two autocatalytic chemical systems may contain vestiges of hypercyclic organization,. Here we report a chemical system that constitutes a clear example of a minimal hypercyclic network, in which two otherwise competitive self-replicating peptides symbiotically catalyse each others' production.
[ 07. November 2003, 00:46: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 07. November 2003 00:51
Salvador: Just like our confidence in the unprovable field of mathematics increases with the success of science, so too, the unprovable hypothesis of ID may grow in respectability as eliminative approaches are refined. This has been the case since Darwin.
Any examples you have in mind?
Salvador: I've been amazed that the majority of abiogenesis research has consistently been favorable to ID. Likewise cosmology.
In what sense? I have heard of the 'God' particle but that is purely metaphorical. Likewise SETI has yet to find any Intelligence out there. On the other hand OOL research has progressed quite a bit in helping us understand potential pathways.
Salvador: For example, some forms of ID predict abiogenesis is impossible without intelligence, that claim has not been falsified to my knowledge.
That is weird, are you saying that if a intelligent designer can do something this means that intelligence is always required to achieve the same? Since it has not been shown that abiogenesis is impossible without intelligence, I'd say ID has a long way to go here.
As far as Tipler, you made the following comment
quote:
Tipler said he is an atheist in the traditional sense on page 305 of "Physics of Immortality", but he went throught the trouble to do research because the evidence for ID was compelling.
Where did Tipler make this statement about the evidence for ID was compelling? What evidence does Tipler quote?
SOme contrary opinions
quote:
Not that Barrow and Tipler are endorsing a design argument; on the contrary, although scientists hostile to teleology are apt to interpret their work as sympathetic to theism and although I have already seen this book cited by two prominent philosophers of religion in support of the teleological argument, the thrust of the book's argument is in the end anti-theistic.
Link
quote:
Do Barrow and Tipler believe in Design? Clearly they are not Young-Earth-Creationists! But they are deeply interested in design (95 pages on the history of design arguments) and purpose in biology (another 95 pages). They do see themselves in the age old tradition of design arguments. They are interested in everything that has been rejected by mainstream science (Teilhard de Chardin, etc.). I found it extremely difficult to pin them down. Let us have a closer look at the Anthropic Principle in operation when applied to a familiar anti-Darwinist argument: the improbability argument of the origin of genes en proteins.
Link
Btw there is a difference between design and intelligent design. The latter is a subset of the former
[ 07. November 2003, 01:03: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 07. November 2003 11:19
Pim,
Thank you again for your contributing from your very large knowledge base, that paper by Ghadiri seems very relevant since I am very interested in aspects of self arising homo-chilarity! Homo-chilarity is a highly specified phenomenon and is a topic of correlation.
In regards to Tipler, I agree he is not a theist. From his book "Cosmological Anthropic Princple", he refers to human consciousness as an an irreducible component of quantum physics. The radical thesis of the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) says the Big Bang, the laws of physics, are tied to our conscious observations. Human consciousness affects the laws of physics and the origin of the universe. Einstein said, "the more one studies quantum mechanics, the sillier it seems".
Tipler's Omega Point is the Ultimate Consciousness, All-Knowing, All Powerful, Ulitmate Observer who ressurects the dead. One reveiwer on amazon said, "Tipler found a God an atheist would love." As I said, Tipler's own book said he was an atheist. However, it's understandable from his views why Tipler became an ISCID fellow.
The general problem in ID is that the definition of intelligence is vague, except that it is like the intelligence we experience in our minds. Penrose believes intelligence is intricately tied to consciousness, and I can't imagine this hypothesis will ever be answered conclusively.
Yet consciousness and intelligent processes are what we directly experience in ourselves, but can't explain. ID seeks to find analogous expressions of this mysterious phenomenon in nature. Our inability to define intelligence does not preclude us from using it. It is an undefined term, just like a point is in Euclidean geometry (having undefined terms is somewhat related to Godel's incompleteness theorem.)
I must ponder your very good comments on the Ghadiri self-replictor in terms of specification and complexity and information content. Offering a meaningful measure of information content in Ghadiri self-replicator is a challenge.
Pim, I rarely ask you questions, but do you believe DNA contains information, and if so, what is a meaniful measure of the information content of DNA? I'm just looking for common ground (not an argument) if possible. Thanks.
I'll actually have to review Dembski's work again. If my use self-replicators is not in agreement with Dembski terms, I will, for the sake of clarity have to come up with something else so as not to confuse terms as you suggested.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic