|
Author
|
Topic: Is 2nd Law a special case of 4th Law?
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 25. May 2005 21:32
Andy: When I was talking about life being 'remarkable' I was talking only about the pattern aspect (i.e. the specificity part of the CSI) and NOT the low probability aspect (i.e the complexity part of the CSI). If you agree with me on this - then it will follow that it is an entirely separate (albeit important) question as to what the probability is of getting a flagellum naturalistically - (it must we hope be smaller than the UPB - thus placing the flagellum as a CSI classified object)
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 25. May 2005 22:18
Quick note to Jerry:
quote:
Andy seems to think there is only one kind of specificity: that as explicated by Dembski. This could not be further from the truth.
No, I don't think that - but I think it is important that if people use a word such as specificity, then there should be agreement about what the word means in the context of the discussion. Specificity complexity sensu Dembski may mean something very different to specified complexity sensu Leslie Orgel. That's all.
If it's any consolation, this is a perennial problem in my own field of developmental biology.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 25. May 2005 23:15
Actually some stimulating conversations going on in here for a change and many bios logos types in the scrimmage. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'll just jump in when I think I can add clarity. I would like to stick some chemistry into Sal's assumption that a racemic mixture of amino acids would be expected:
This is not an assumption on his part, but a tenet based on a principle of chemistry called Le Chatelier's Principle, which dictates that in reversible reactions (please see the arrows pointing in both directions, above), the reaction will always go in the direction needed to maintain equilibrium between the products and reactants. An overload of a propensity on one side will always force the reaction to proceed away from the side with the excess.
Taking this a step further, the laws of chemistry predict that in nature it will not be possible to find a solution of Ls and Ds in anything other than a racemic mixture (outside of a designed organism, of course). The L and D amino acids have the same Gibb's free energy, so the free energy difference (deltaG) is always zero and this relationship can be shown between these quantities at any temperature (degrees Kelvin) (T) as follows:
K = exp(-DG/RT)
What this means is that we are left with a chemical solution that seeks equilibrium via natural law. A racemic mixture is not only expected, it is the only state possible under equilibrium conditions.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 26. May 2005 13:31
Christopher wrote quote:
When I was talking about life being 'remarkable' I was talking only about the pattern aspect (i.e. the specificity part of the CSI) and NOT the low probability aspect (i.e the complexity part of the CSI).
From my point of view, biological life is "remarkable" in the sense that it invites an explanation. But I don't see biological life as evidence that someone is trying to tell us something, which is where Salvador seemed to be heading. I am still having problems with the notions of divining conceptual information and intent, and am finding that analogies to everyday objects or situations are not illuminating in this regard.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 26. May 2005 18:44
Jerry wrote:
quote:
The L and D amino acids have the same Gibb's free energy, so the free energy difference (deltaG) is always zero
Apparently, L and D amino acids (and sugars) have minute but calculable energy differences. For example:
Origin of Chirality
This was one of the explanations for homochirality I heard as a student a long time ago. It seems people are still working on this.
[ 26. May 2005, 18:51: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 26. May 2005 21:58
quote:
My answer is that I would arrange them in some pattern that you would recognize as being either simply out of the ordinary (such as a k-simple pattern), or as part of a code (say Morse code for “Hi Sal, how’s it hanging?”, or just using the coins to make the shape of words).
That is right. You are making patterns that you expect would match the set of independent patterns that I can recognize. This may not be obvious, but the number of patterns I can recognize in such a space of possibilities is exceedingly small! The calculations of course can be done but are tedious. The important thing is you, the designer, have some idea of the independent patterns I can recognize because we are like minded.
Now, seriously, rather than coins, think of what you a chemist would make, such that another chemist would recognize it as designed.
At least for the same of argument, let us say that abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are not assumed to be true (and in fact they are assumed, and it can be argued that compared to other scientific theories, like say Electro-Magnetism, they do not have the same level of support). Given this working hypothesis, what general principles, you as a chemist, would employ to make a molecule look designed. I postulate that indeed, the most broad ranging set of rules you could come up with would include the architecture of life.
Seriously, try the idea out with molecules, and you'll begin to see where Dembski and ReMine were headed. The MIND that made us, is like-minded, in a sense we are claiming our minds are made in that MIND's likeness.
Salvador
[ 26. May 2005, 22:08: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 26. May 2005 22:06
quote:
I would, however, ask you to address my point about the danger of sequence B* being due to regularity (hence no design) - this to me is dangerous - as the last thing we want for the complexity-specification criterion to accept a false positive. [A crystal of III-V semiconductor, i.e. gallium arsenide incidentally exhibits the 353535 ... regularity where the number corresponds to the valency of the atom traversed in one direction!]
But the Gallium Arsenide 3535... regularity is a frequent occurrence, much like the Na-Cl-Na-Cl... regularity of salt. It is a very likely configuration, and thus it fails the "improbability" (probabilistic complexity) criterion. You are right to be concerned that an ordering law may be present which we've not yet detected. Thus the homo-chiral argument has caveats, but it's still a very substantial argument......
That said, to avoid these problems, K-complex structures are very desirable to analyze. In lieu of fully K-complex structures or fully K-simple structures, K-medium-complex structures are desirable. Guess where life falls? K-medium-complex.
Multi-cellular structures, a colony of bacteria are K-medium-complex because of the numerous duplicates of k-complex structures. A human being for example is an algorithmically compressible structure from a symbolic stand point. Why? Recall we algorithmically "de-compressed" from a single zygote!
Thus we being to suspect design because of that. But then we attribute the k-medium-complexity to the duplication capacity of life. But then what is a salient feature of life? It is a self-replicating Turing Machine, which by the way matches the independent specification of such machines as outlined by the Turing Number above.
I just sped through the proof and we can go a few steps back to see the details, but that is basically it.
I expect we'll need a few iterations to fill out what I just outlined.
Salvador
[ 26. May 2005, 22:10: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 26. May 2005 23:32
If L and D amino acids (and sugars) have minute but calculable energy differences, they are so minute that they do not affect a racemic mixture of them because we know that these mixtures will STAY racemic and we also know that if we begin with a propensity of Ls over Ds or vise versa, the mixture BECOMES racemic due to Le Chatelier's Principle. That's all that matters.
And taking the chemical evolution step a degree further, we find it is not a tendency of nature for more complex organic molecules to form from simpler ones in ANY biotic system. The natural tendency is just the opposite.
It matters little whether we consider the polymerization of amino acids to polypeptides or of nucleotides to polynucleotides, these processes proceed through condensation reactions.
It's not hard to calculate the enthalpy change in the formation of polypeptides from amino acids. This has been done by Hutchins and was found to be 5-8 kcal/mole for a variety of amino acids. Chemical work must be done on these systems to get polymerization to occur. For bonds to form requires an input of work, while the breaking of these bonds is exothermic and spontaneous which brings the second law of thermodynamics front and center in these reactions: with any spontaneous reaction or event entropy (disorganization) will tend to increase.
Furthermore, Morowitz (H. Morowitz, 1968. Energy Flow in Biology. New York: Academic Press, p.79) has calculated that the chemical work, or average increase in enthalpy, for macromolecule formation in living systems is 16.4 cal/gm. Also in that same book he states that the average increase in bonding energy in going from simple molecules to an E. coli bacterium is 0.27 ev/atom.
It's not hard to see that chemical work must be done on biomonomers to bring about the formation of macromolecules like those we see in living systems. Who/what was present to do that work?? When we find these far-from-equilibrium systems in nature we can identify them as counterflow, or existence that goes against the normal flow of nature. Intelligent design may be highly suspected in these cases.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 27. May 2005 12:28
quote:
If L and D amino acids (and sugars) have minute but calculable energy differences, they are so minute that they do not affect a racemic mixture of them because we know that these mixtures will STAY racemic and we also know that if we begin with a propensity of Ls over Ds or vise versa, the mixture BECOMES racemic due to Le Chatelier's Principle. That's all that matters.
Two points Jerry:
1. Your statement of what happens when a system is in equilibrium is just that - only a statement of what happens in equilibrium.
2. Did you know that there are examples of racemic mixtures precipitating in such a way that the R and S forms crystallize out separately?
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 27. May 2005 12:42
quote:
At least for the same of argument, let us say that abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are not assumed to be true (and in fact they are assumed, and it can be argued that compared to other scientific theories, like say Electro-Magnetism, they do not have the same level of support). Given this working hypothesis, what general principles, you as a chemist, would employ to make a molecule look designed. I postulate that indeed, the most broad ranging set of rules you could come up with would include the architecture of life.
My first question would be this:
Look designed to whom? A human? A Vogon? The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal? (apologies for the HHGTTG refs.....)
If I was to design a DNA molecule that someone else on Earth would recognize as being designed, I would use commercially available cloning vectors such as pBluescript or pGEM.
If I was to design a molecule of any sort that an alien would recognize as being designed, then (and I am saying this in all honesty), I have no idea what I would do.
I would not use an example of a living thing to indicate design, because at the moment, we have no evidence that living things are designed. I would view that as giving out an ambiguous message!
This argument is starting to stray from how we can use the concept of CSI to infer design. We have taken the path of defining specificity as including conceptual information, and have established that conceptual information can only be accessed by an observer if the designer makes an effort to advertise her/his intent. You are know trying to convince me of the fact that living things "obviously" (and I'm not attributing that word to you directly, but you seem to be implying it) imply design. To me that's just begging the question and making the argument circular:
Are living things designed?
- A designed thing exhibits a confluence of physical and conceptual information
- Conceptual information may need to be advertised to make it noticeable.
- One way of advertising the conceptual information is to make it obvious
- Life has the appearance of being designed.
- Therefore life contains conceptual and physical complex information
- Therefore life is designed.
See the problem? If you disagree with my analysis, lay out the steps yourself.
quote:
Seriously, try the idea out with molecules, and you'll begin to see where Dembski and ReMine were headed. The MIND that made us, is like-minded, in a sense we are claiming our minds are made in that MIND's likeness.
That statement seems to me to be either intuition or religion, but not science.
[ 27. May 2005, 13:10: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 27. May 2005 13:46
quote:
That statement seems to me to be either intuition or religion, but not science.
The state of a person's mind is a scientific reality. A person's mind can recognize specifications in line with his mind's specifications. Ironically, the fact that you can read what I'm writing is proof that you can discern such specifications. The question then arises, what specifications do we have for biological systems since, DNA is not written in English?
You highlighted some ways you can design a molecule such that it corresponds to activities which create similar systems. I now point you to a description that shows the concidence of the modern worlds designs to that of what we see at the molecular level. See if you can discern the source of independent specifications as flowing from 21st century technology:
quote:
Michael Denton writes in Evolution a Theory in Crisis:
We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.
The Turing machine provides a very nice, independent specification. We can go into it in more detail. Linguistic structures (K-medium-complex sturctures) also provide an independent specification.
The issue of "Vogons" actually is signifcant. Unless the intelligence that designs, is capable of understanding what designs we recognize, or unless it is like minded, there is little chance of design detection. Ironically, that is a fundamental assumption of SETI researchers.
So it is a doubly wonderful phenomenon to detect design, it means we have uncovered a characteristic of the designers, namely, he has some degree of like-mindedness!
Salvador
[ 27. May 2005, 13:54: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 27. May 2005 13:49
quote:
If I was to design a molecule of any sort that an alien would recognize as being designed, then (and I am saying this in all honesty), I have no idea what I would do.
Design it as you would for another human being with the provision that no reference be made to known human languages (i.e. no hidden texts).
Recall we did something similar with the Voyager Spacecraft in trying to make it an artifact recognizable by aliens.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 27. May 2005 14:14
quote:
In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.
Sal, I'm sorry to be blunt (and I assure you I am not attacking you personally, just your argument), but this quote, and the whole direction in which your argument is going is just warmed-over Paleyism, and as I said just now is simply begging the question. I think you can do better than that.
Dembski's work purports to provide a mathematical tool to infer design. If his methodology can only work by appealing to human subjectivity as you seem to be saying, it is not useful.
(postscript: I just noticed that Michael Behe has been taken to task by PZ Myers in far less temperate terms for saying similar things to Denton here )
quote:
Recall we did something similar with the Voyager Spacecraft in trying to make it an artifact recognizable by aliens.
The Pioneer spacecraft's artifact contained physical images of the Earth, its occupants and some basic information about chemistry and math. The Voyager craft carried an artifact that was an example of human fabrication, encoding human sounds, with instructions on how to actualize the information.
Golden Record Pioneer plaque
I have no idea how to encode such information in a molecule.
[ 27. May 2005, 14:41: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 27. May 2005 17:29
andyg,
I would suggest a very simple model for inferring design. The input of specified information must address the organization needed to achieve a target state that serves a useful purpose. It would have a requirement to be conjunctive with a global meaning that connects the thing, event or process to the goal state. This global meaning and the specified information’s connection to it - is the marker for design input.
A process should be apparent, which transforms an initial state to a final state where some gain in output or productivity is achieved. The initial state should have a set of available resources, which can step-by-step can be converted into the goal state. The specified information will organize the resources, or some part of them, needed to achieve this transformation. The deduction of the purpose associated with an organized configuration is from evaluation of its transformed state - in light of a desired goal, paying attention to the progression of changes required.
In the case of a process where only left-handed amino acids are produced, one needs understand why this is a goal state and specifically how the process is organized to obtain. From this understanding, due to the global wholeness of the process, one can examine from tacit knowledge the past steps and purposes with some degree of insight.
I just read a great paragraph that speaks to M. Polanyi’s concept of tacit knowing and about the global “wholeness” of a complex concept. I think it speaks to both Messrs. Orgel’s and Dembski’s conceptualizations. The quote refers to the thinking of G. Leibniz
“We must begin to understand what a monad is by beginning from the idea of a complete concept. As we said above, a substance/ monad is that reality which the complete concept represents. A complete concept contains within itself all the predicates that are true of the subject of which it is the concept, and these predicates are related by sufficient reasons into a vast single network of explanation. So, relatedly, the monad must not only exhibit properties, but contain within itself 'virtually' or 'potentially' all the properties it will exhibit in the future, and also contain the 'trace' of all the properties it did exhibit in the past. In Leibniz's extraordinary phrase, found frequently in his later work, the monad is 'pregnant' with the future and 'laden' with the past. (e.g. Monadology §22) All these properties are 'folded' up within the monad, and they unfold when and as they have sufficient reason to do so.”
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/leib-met.htm
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 27. May 2005 18:13
Stephen,
Using your formulation, do you think that the existence of exclusively L-amino acids is indicative of design, or that it is impossible to tell? In either case, explain how your model led to that conclusion.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
