|
Author
|
Topic: Is ID theory falsifiable?
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 23. January 2006 23:43
Hi Stipeck
Thanks for your patience -please have more in hearing my response to your other points. You quote Huxley.
quote:
If an infinite number of monkeys are given typewriters for an infinite amount of time, they will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare
Huxley lived at a time when Kantian cosmology was believed by almost everyone in science – namely that the universe was infinite and unchanging and had always been. The discovery of the microwave background radiation gave confirmation that our universe at least (I cannot deny there might be others) started in a super-high temperature “Big Bang” (conditions where bio-information could not exist). This severely limits the amount attempts one has at producing evolutionary advance – first in the production of genetic material in space (as many astrobiologists tend to hypothesize) but perhaps more poignantly in the evolution of new biological function in replicating organisms on earth. In neither case do we have infinite time – nor infinite number of replicators. Take the time from the origin of life some 3800Mya and a very fast cellular replication cycle of 1 per 10 mins – this would give a total of 2x10^14 replications (cf. key typings per monkey). Take the case of evolutionary advance in the earth's ocean ( volume 1.4x10^24cm3) filled with densely populated bacteria or protists ( max concentration ~ 2x10^9cm-3) giving a total of 3x10^33 organisms (cf: maximum number of monkeys-typewriters). The total replication resource is thus 6x10^47. Although this is a large number it is not sufficient to give a credible chance of producing a novel protein from an existing one – since number of bits of information in a typical protein is around 200 thus giving a probability of 2^-200 , or 10^-61 Yockey p29 . Even with these most optimal probabilistic resources there is insufficient opportunity to discover even a single new gene – and novel biological functions often require more than one new gene. What about natural selection? The problem is that there can be no selection in the genomic space between functional genes which is most likely a desert. The problem is equivalent to transforming one written sentence into another by randomly altering letters asking for meaning on all intermediates. It is this observation that one cannot “hit” functional genes by random neutral mutations that essentially leads to the 4th law - i.e. CSI information conservation (or decrease under noisy transfer conditions).
quote:
The idea that biological information must only decrease has no basis in any observations
Extinctions may well “take out” certain genes. The fact that the gene for fur is switched off in man Hoyle p101 , and the gene for bilateral symmetry seems strangely present and switched-off in sponges strongly indicates reduction in bio-information either by gene dudding (deleterious mutation) or some other mechanism.
In the case of anti-biotic resistance the evidence points to either a conservation (type 1 resistance) or a decrease in bio-information (type 2 resistance). This is explained nicely by Dr. Lee Spetner in his book Not by Chance.
Type 1 resistance : This occurs when the bacteria under chemical attack – receives a gene enoding for a “resistance enzyme” from either a virus or another type of bacteria. The bio-information for resistance lies elsewhere and has not been produced by the neo-Darwinian mechanism – this is CSI conservation.
Type 2 resistance : This occurs when a mutation occurs that produces a defective ribosome (its not hard to harm a working machine). However the defective ribosome has an advantage in the antibiotic environment – it prevents the “receiving” of the (death blow) antiobiotic molecule. The ribosome’s is thus capable of carrying on producing the proteins for cellular function but with reduced efficiency. We have here a reduction in specificity and thus a reduction in CSI. This is also demonstrated by the fact that when the resistant strain is placed back with the “wild-type” bacteria – the “wild-type” with its higher fitness (efficient ribosomes) quickly takes over from the resistant strain by natural selection.
[Diagram taken from Spetner's book]
hoping we can agree on some of this - Chris
[ 24. January 2006, 00:37: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 24. January 2006 19:19
quote:
I’m rather new to these two ideas but specific complexity was explained to me using the following analogy. A letter in the alphabet is specific, and a string of a bunch of meaningless letters in complex. But sonnet of Shakespeare is specific and complex.
You missed the part about it being independently specific. It's the part most people miss...
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 24. January 2006 19:28
Stipeck
You cited: The Scientific Method
quote:
The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins. How do we test the theory of evolution? We don't have the luxury of having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory.
So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in same the boat. No absolute way to objectivity test their assertions. No eyewitnesses... Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with nature for consistency.
That is the point I was making. Please read Meyers paper which explores this in detail. Evolutionists have the challenge that the probability of macro-evolution is of the order of 10^4000. That is far beyond any possible combination of all particles over all time over the fastest exchange rate. e.g., ~ 10^120. Thus macro-evolution is blind faith self justified by excluding alternatives.
In Reverse Engineering design methodology, there is some basis for exploring "Why?" - It helps identify objectives or principles that the designer may have used.
Thus male nipples etc. have a very simple explanation of applying the principle of economy or elegance in design.
1) Use a common genetic design for both male and female where applicable.
2) Use different levels of hormones to achieve desired differences in male vs female growth.
This provides a very simple method of forming breasts in females and not in males.
Thus encourage you to evaluate the data from the point of view of a designer versus a random generator.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 01. February 2006 10:25
Hi Melvin,
In your post of 12-01-06 you quote in regard to the game of solitaire:
quote:
Is it pure supposition that for a large enough deck, a true random shuffling would preclude the desired outcome? That is to say, if the deck were sufficiently large would it be impossible to shuffle the deck randomly and achieve a permutation from which success could be derived?
Sadly I am not a card player. I have had to ask my wife and daughter to teach me about solitaire -and now have a basic grasp! I asked my wife what the probability was of her winning a game (as she is something of an expert) and she said she didn't know - but that most times she could win. What I am wanting to know is how the probability of winning depends on the degree of randomness in the pack (and I think this can be measured by means of mutual entropy). Is it true that the more random the stack the higher the probability of being able to win? - Hope you can clarify: Chris
[ 01. February 2006, 10:26: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. February 2006 19:55
I have never been impressed with Popper's views on falsibility. Hypotheses are either verifiable or not. Darwinism is a dismal failure, being unable to demonstrate anything beyond varieties and many life forms are incapapble of even that. Natural Selection is anti-evolutionary and sexual reproducion is incompetent as a creative device. Intelligent Design is transparent everywhere in both the animate and inanimate world. I regard ID as a given without which nothing in either ontogney or phylogeny will ever make sense. Ergo the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Sorry to seem so arbitrary but those are my convictions.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is their room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 07. February 2006 14:19
Chris, with my apologies to John for all this fuss over probabilities:
Ok. I have just convinced a computer programming student of mine to write a program that will play solitaire over and over recording the result, win or lose, each time. This way we can get empirical data for the probability of winning or losing the game with the standard deck of 52 cards.
It’s too bad I did not save my father’s data. He was an English teacher for 30 years and played golf and solitaire all summer long. He recorded reams of stats on both games, all of which was discarded after his death.
Once we have established the empirical probability of the standard game, we can then consider larger and larger decks. I investigated the mutual entropy idea you suggested and concur that this might be the way to go. I will have to understand the procedure for calculating better in order to employ it in this scenario however. I will update you and others on our progress as interest persists.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 07. February 2006 14:48
"The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins. How do we test the theory of evolution? We don't have the luxury of having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory.
So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in the same boat. No absolute way to objectivity test their assertions. No eyewitnesses... Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with nature for consistency."
Evolution posits that natural selection weeds out bad mutations right?
We have empirical evidence of the ratio of bad mutations vs. good mutations from the fly experiments right?
Then by examining the fossil record by MSR method we should be able to immediately point out all instances when a creature was weeded out based on structural error's produced by random mutations and since the ratio of bad to good is about 1000 to 1 we should be able to identify a significant amount of error's pointing to evolution as the engine of change. If not then we can posit a designer as your only other option.
[ 12. February 2006, 20:21: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic