|
Author
|
Topic: Mechanically Specific Relativity
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 08. February 2006 21:53
"Then just as before I can see that the peak to valley ratio can be specified complexity....possibly; however, it must be specified independently, and I don't think you've done that yet."
I do agree that with just a few factors considered you can come to a determination that could lead one to say:
"Well it sure looks like the tear was not random but there may be a 1 in billion chance that it is still accidental"
And this exactly how the current state of affairs is in biology.
"The undirected action of any object used as a template for a cut would yield the exact same cut over and over again."
I think however that this is where MSR's may be used to differentiate undirecte vs. directed. If you were to observe that certain specifications remain constant as each change was to occur in an evolutionary manner. If one were to posit that a system arose randomly that was capable of controlling all the specified shapes of your bone structure allowing for cookie cutter type reproduction then you would have a balanced control subsystem within your DNA that could act as a template as the same system replicated. At this point I could bring the arguement that if such a system arose randomly then how do you posit its ability to maintain balance as mutational events continued to change at random the forms that the original system was keeping constant? to infer that random mutation could continue to modify this same control system over millions of modifications and keep its balance at every step would require the faith of Job to believe.
The great thing about the MSR perspective is that it allows one to monitor mechanical shape and form relationships over time and the one thing we can empirically state is that the very act of random effects precludes the assumption of balance over time. The essence of random is the idea of negative or positive without regard to future goals. I believe that continuous balance times change over time equals independant specification and the ability of the MSR perspective to identify balance as we measure the change over time is the perfect tool to use when we wish to point out independant specification.
In my previous post I worked with MSR's that identified specifics within a single system or "tear" and as I said earlier in this post it is possible to just over rule what it is pointing towards and chalk it all up to chance anyway but if we could monitor hundreds of thousands of tears that changed over time but continued to exhibit a specified balance in each one without ever seeing one that was unbalanced then the argument to chalk it up to chance dissolves as we know as an axiom that randomness cannot keep continuity of balance over time.
It is at this point of realization that we can truly see that the scorpion {random chance} could not in fact ride the otter {balanced changing systems over time} without stinging it. In his own words it is revealed 'Because,' replied the scorpion, 'it's in my nature.'
Irving you state:
"Now if your claiming that the fossil record doesn't contain the sufficient ratio of failed speciation attempts (at the macro level), equal to the empirical ratio at the micro (non-speciation) level...well..there you may have something. But that's unrealted to specified complexity."
I think I must persue this line of reasoning with you.
Specified complexity is essential to form complex arrangements such as living systems and if the system is to continue it is essential that it remains in balance during system change over time correct?
This leads us to the possible question that an observation by MSR's would pose, that if specified complexity is subject to mutational change over time then where are the mutitude of systems that are formed by "randomized" specified complexity that are not in sync with the requirements of the enviroment that the system must operate within?
I would say that the presence of specified complexity is definable by MSR and independant specified complexity is also identifiable by this same method.
If we can show that systems arose over millions of years without missing a beat and failing because of mechanical errors originating from the complex specified control that forms them then we would have empirical evidence that the specified complexity was independant since if specified complexity was random and undirected it would have failed inumerable times in an environment that it could not have compensated for without intelligent direction.
Hence specified complexity is bound to the relics it creates and the observations {MSR's} we can glean from them.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 08. February 2006 22:08
See: Topic: Finding needles in haystacks - Higher order in chaotic background
Recommend studying this paper regarding detecting design in interfaces.
i.e., what is the stochastic background, and what is the ordered interface "signal" that we detect above that background to infer design?
Irving
Your example of drying cracks is well modeled by
Adrian Bejan, Shape and Structure, from Engineering to Nature, Sect 3.8, pp 45-50, 2000, ISBN 0-521-79049-2.
This uses a principle of minimizing energy of fluid flows in natural processes. It gives statistical means of the optimal crack distance for fastest cooling (or drying). I expect an evaluation of the cracks will show very substantial variations of crack width and orientation along the interfaces, that provide the chaotic background.
This is in sharp contrast to the laser cut jig saw puzzle. This suggests that there may be several parameters of interest in distinguishing the physical features of designed interfaces:
1) Statistical distribution of relative difference between complementary interfaces measured along the interface.
2) Distribution in the rate of change of the interface taken along the interface.
Pilla's methodology suggests evaluating these changes for multiple regions relative to a stochastic background model.
For your replicating design examples, in
1) The displacement between replicating designs is ~zero. (or some finite value.)
2) the orientation is either 0, or 90 deg, and the rate of change is 0 or infinite.
Compare these with the stochastic distribution of the crack width along the dried cracks, and the stochastic variation in the change of direction of the crack along the crack.
Another natural example would be crystal formation, or the hexagonal rock columns. These have more structured order based on underlying structure of the components.
Showflakes would be another example of much greater complexity, yet still controlled by underlying physics of the structure of water.
Designed systems would be distinguished by having order that is substantially more complex and specified compared to that provided by the underlying structure. e.g. the optical function along each edge of the design.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 09. February 2006 07:23
KBC,
Okay, here's where your at...as I understand it.
Complex structures exhibit MSR. MSR cannot be maintained through random action. Attempts at speciation through random action will result in failure due to MSR. The fossil record contains insufficient evidence of the proper ratio of these failures. MSR can only be maintained by independent (i.e. directed) control. Ala DNA. Ergo DNA must have been designed to allow MSR scaling, since un-intelligent, random processes would not build a DNA that would have the intelligence to understand MSR and build the control mechanisms for it.
Close?
quote:
Specified complexity is essential to form complex arrangements such as living systems and if the system is to continue it is essential that it remains in balance during system change over time correct?
Specified complexity is an independently specified complex pattern...which may or may not be essential for living systems. I don't think we can go that far yet.
I can see where your headed, but Darwinists would claim that selection is sufficient as the "directed" force for the development of the control programming. That the complexity of the control programming was built-up over time in conjunction with the build-up of MSR. A tough call to make, since in the early stages "control programming" would not confer sufficient benefit for selection.
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 09. February 2006 12:20
Irving,
I have modified your condensed version of my intent to what is below as there were certain points that were not quite in line with my reasoning.
Complex structures exhibit Mechanically Specified Relationships which cannot be regulated at the individual structures level so a control system would be required to ensure the application of relationship specifications. I assert that no control system can occur that remains "SUBJECT" to mutational change that is capable of reapplying these balanced specified mechanical relationships within each new form supposed to be the result of these same mutational variations. I further assert that no control system can arise that would not be "SUBJECT" to mutational change as this would in application result in no further changes occurring.
Attempts at speciation by random mutation will result in a multitude of failures due to the inherent property of randomization and I believe the fossil record will show insufficient evidence of the proper ratio of these failures after identification of these MSR's. Mechanically Specified Relationships that continuously show balance of application over time can only be the result of an independent (i.e. directed) control. Ergo the DNA of each creature was designed separately with the same mechanical relationships exhibited in each design thereby revealing the hand of the intelligent specifying agent using foresight of application.
You say:
"Darwinists would claim that selection is sufficient as the "directed" force for the development of the control programming. That the complexity of the control programming was built-up over time in conjunction with the build-up of MSR."
At which point we could ask "how a mutational addition of a unique form added to an existing system could occur unless at the exact same time the relationship specifications that control the integration of said unique form with existing forms would be added to the afore mentioned control system also by random mutation."
They run into the chicken and egg scenario for every attempt to explain any obvious unique change that would be evolutionarily attributed because without the relationship control at the DNA level the other components would remain conformed to the previous control set and relationships. All relationships observed within living systems typically require each separate component to mechanically act in harmony in order to exert an advantage and thus be selectable.
[ 09. February 2006, 12:50: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 09. February 2006 16:30
David,
I see your point, then, as essentially the one I mentioned in the 3-year old thread I linked to earlier...
That uniformity in an environment subject to randomness is an indicator of design.
Your version being that:
Order in excess of that mandated by the underlying structure is an indicator of design.
The Darwinist response would likely be a Nature of the Gaps arguement that the there is an yet un-discovered, natural, underlying structure causing the excess order. Much like a regular perbutation in a planetary orbit is due to a yet to be discovered body yielding a gravitational pull... They would also point to Selection as providing the necessary "underlying structure," and rebuff all claims that there is some sort of limit that "Selection" can only provide so much Order.
The trick is to show that the order is Independently Specified and sufficiently complex. A Pulsar is uniform and Independently Specified...it's just not sufficiently complex.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 09. February 2006 16:36
KBC,
It appears your building a Super Irreducibly Complex construct. Darwinists response to IC is co-option. Describe how co-option fails with regards to MSR.
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 09. February 2006 19:47
Irving,
You have hit the nail on the head and yes you had it right 3 years ago and I like the absolute simplicity of the phrase:
"That uniformity in an environment subject to randomness is an indicator of design."
I am especially impressed with your understanding and feedback and I hope you don't feel that I am trying to run over ground that you brought to light so long ago. I have hopes that a specified method such as MSR observation could be a scientific tool allowing us to show why your phrase is true. I know the truth as an axiom in my own mind but until recently I just couldn't figure out how to make it numerical in order for others to see the same view.
I'm not sure if you or others have contrived a similar method in the past, please let me know if there is already a method being worked out that can give us the scientific methodology to define these things as I don't wish to beat an already dead horse.
In response to your next post:
"It appears your building a Super Irreducibly Complex construct. Darwinists response to IC is co-option. Describe how co-option fails with regards to MSR."
I must agree that when I reflect upon my surmising that indeed it is a super version almost becoming a web of interrelated component relationships that are essentially impervious to to randoms ability to form or change without absolute failure.
co-option is a unique concept that posits multiple subsystems with differing functions combining to exhibit a new function and then losing 1 or a few components that become unneeded under the new function.
My initial thought is how the components providing specific support within a controlled closed system could possibly change their function without affecting the balance already existng in a fully operational and balanced system. Did you notice the appearance of balance in this surmising?
We must also consider that the control system within the DNA that is supposed to be regulating all aspects of a highly complex bio-mechanical system cannot possibly rebalance the regulated chemical flows without highly specified changes. These are the areas in current arguments that are little touched upon.
If you think about about this logically the idea that you could introduce a new chemical into a controlled closed system that could exist without bad interactions among existing chemistry and at the same time alter the chemistry of two or more other components who's presence and function that existed within the system up to this time were necessary for the life of the organizm as a whole is preposterous.
[ 09. February 2006, 19:58: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 09. February 2006 21:50
Don't worry about re-treading ground. That's the purpose of "Brainstorms" anyway. To incubate and develop ideas. If you review the thread from years ago, you see that the antagonists weren't critiqueing to build-up a theory, they had an entrenched position and wanted to defeat ideas outright.
While Uniformity in a Random Environment is a fine construct...the difficulty is in proving an environment to be truly random...especially a historical one.
I think the idea of "super" IC might have some traction, as the co-option would need to co-opt not just the MSR, but the control programming as well. You'd need to demonstrate that a mutation to the control programming wouldn't result in a co-opted MSR. And I wouldn't forget that we're talking about scalability here.
Do ALL MSR structures scale if the MSR remains the same? How is the control programming constructed? For example, if the control programming is represented as A(Fn). Where Fn is the MSR regulator, and 'A' is a co-efficient. Would a mutation to 'A' yielding A+1, result in a larger scale structure with the same MSR? Is the regulator programming the same as the build programming? Would "both" scale with the same co-efficient mutational change?
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 10. February 2006 00:02
"The antagonists were... entrenched"
Point confirmed.
"You'd need to demonstrate that a mutation to the control programming wouldn't result in a co-opted MSR"
I think that we may have some leverage in this area when we consider the alterations needed to even modify existing systems. Consider that unlike the odds against protein formation which are based on a defined number set {being 1 in 20 for each part of a proteins length}that the values that can possibly be attained in a mutational event that alters size is now an infinite set, and consider further that each of the mechanical forms in your body are defined by a number set that is infinite for each of their properties of size {l,w,h}. We can now consider the interrelationships among any two components to depend on 6 parameters and these have a very narrow margin of possible number sets that will allow function to occur and this relationship set is defined by the ratio range that these 6 numbers stay within being defined as 5% or less differentiation which can ultimately be confirmed by measuring extant MSR values and comparing them with fossil record values...
I believe that the controls for each bone in your body have more than just 3 parameters that define them in the DNA which leads me into the next point you made:
"And I wouldn't forget that we're talking about scalability here"
If you were to posit that an entire component in your body had the ability to scale to exact percentage values then the interface points where one bone interacts with another would also change at the same ratio right? so if there was say a gap within the socket of the pelvis and the ball of the femur that was say 1/8 inch, then when you do an exact scaling this amount changes proportionately and becomes 1/4 inch if scale doubles, so with this in mind we can answer your question:
'Would "both" scale with the same co-efficient mutational change'
With a resounding yes
And since we know that it would be impossible to scale up and maintain interface MSR's we must conclude that the interfaces must scale in a different but still defined way that is not equal to the size change of the rest of the component in order to keep MSR parameters. right?
I figure that we have not only our 3 original parameters with their infinite value possibilities, but we must add 3 more for any components interface between itself and any others, in the case of a femur we have 2 connections and this brings us to 9 parameters that must change within a definable % range and we also have 6 of these values that must change within a range of about 1% {the interfaces are very exact}. I wonder how many more relationships of properties that can be defined btween these same components? Can you devise a formula that could figure odds based on the above criteria? we could also throw in bilateral symmetry ratios here to add to the improbability values.
And when we are done with that lets say we tackle a vertebrate spine!
This mechanical system is composed of 33 vertebra which have specific defined properties ....
{...The spine has four natural curves. Two are lordotic (lor-dot-ick) and two are kyphotic (kye-fah-tick). The cervical and lumbar curves are lordotic. The thoracic (thor-as-ick) and sacral (say-kral) curves are kyphotic. The curves help to distribute mechanical stress as the body moves.}
And now consider this monstrosity of interrelated parameters that must be controlled within a tight margin to allow function
[...Facet Joints (fah-set) are also called Zygapophyseal Joints (zye-gap-o-fiz-e-al). These joints are located in the posterior spine and help to enable spinal movement. The cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae each have a pair of facet joints. The facets from the upper and lower vertebrae join together (like entwined fingers) to form a facetjoint. Like other joints in the body, the articulating surfaces (ar-tick-you-late-ing) are coated with smooth cartilage to facilitate movement.}
33 vertebra with connections at each end and 32 cartilage for a total of 603 parameters that must all fall within a range that is less than 5% and most must be within 1% and any of the parameters can be an infinite value.
OMG I am attempting to define infinity and this is only one system in an organism that has thousands of subsystems all with varying relationship ratios.
Maybe now this verse make real sense:
Matthew 10:30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
sorry to pull anything from religion in here but for some reason I remembered long ago not understanding how this could be possible and now I am formulating a way to do it.
[ 10. February 2006, 23:13: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 11. February 2006 00:00
Gentlemen,
I thought it may be worth observing just what does happen to a mechanical joint when it is scaled proportionate to the rest of the components they are attached to.
In my line of work I model the real world in 3D with CAD on a daily basis so I formed joint that was fairly similar to the pelvic joint and at the interface point I used a perfect sphere for the femur head and a hemispherical negative to represent the pelvic cup allowing 3mm on each mating surface for the cartilage that is typically present at this point. The mating surfaces were a perfect fit to .001" which may exceed the parameters of the real thing but should be close enough for preliminary testing. I then proceeded to scale both components 1% at a time to observe how it affected the interfaces. Surprisingly there was more to be seen than just the fact that the interfaces became disproportionate to each other.
I found that the area of the femur head that was in contact with the pelvic cup developed a very bad condition in this relationship. Even small percentage changes going up in scale changes how weight is translated from one part to the next, as the cup got larger than the sphere of the femur head the contact area between the two got quite small meaning that instead of weight transfer over a large suface area it reduced by nearly 80% within just 3 to 4% of scaling essentially creating a weak point that would destroy the surface cartilage that provided the smooth slippery connection that allows free movement which in evolutionary terms means it would get selected out when it couldn't perform as well as what was unscaled.
I believe enough information exists from medical studies to confirm that alterations in either cup size or ball size that isn't highly constrained can be shown to debilitate the organism.
Mechanical evidence can show that scaling has zero chance of happening in any component or global way. The only option left is component alteration that must exhibit greater than a 99% relationship conformation at the component interface.
Two separate components must change at exactly the same time with differing amounts of change that keeps a relationship intact otherwise evolutionary garbage.
If anyone trys to say this happened then how would they explain the disproportion of the overall size of the components themselves as the two halve of the joint can never change at exactly the same ratio.
We see the ever present hand of balance and continuity is required just to make movement possible.
[ 11. February 2006, 11:57: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 11. February 2006 08:57
KBC,
I think you need to differentiate this concept of scaling...from infancy growth to maturity.
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 11. February 2006 14:48
"I think you need to differentiate this concept of scaling...from infancy growth to maturity."
Ok let's look at the concept of scaling as used in a biological concept.
When the term scaling is used in a biological setting it typically is just a general term to denote changes in overall size without regard to individual component size aspects.
This manner of generalized use tends to give one the idea that a possible change to one control within the DNA can affect overall size in one fell swoop. This is one of the resons why I have been portraying its use in mechanics as I have. once one is made to realize that scaling is not just a one point differenciation then they must come to realize that biological scaling is a result of a multitude of separate controls that must affect each point of proposed change. My simplification of the scaling idea coupled with the observation of relativeties contained within a component and between multiple components should serve to open the understanding that global changes within a system require specified changes to controls that have relationships to multitudes of other controls that must exist for every aspect that defines shape and function for every component contained within the system.
Once someone begins to realize these necessities required to alter form it is easier to get across the idea that random mutation cannot possibly accurately alter a form without consideration of its specific relativeties and the need to observe and conserve the highly specific relationships that must always exist for the function to continue past alteration.
So the when we consider the mechanical changes that occur when a living system goes from infancy to maturity we are truly speaking volumes. the immensity of the contol systems required to accurately shape individual components and keep relationships accurate throughout the life of the system must be a truly monumental acheivement of premeditated design.
Consider now that cancers and diseases and birth defects and the myriad other non normal system alterations are simply an interuption of any of thousands of control systems that are in continuous action throughout the existence of the system and the supposition that random chance can produce anything other than a malady within a highly interelated and balanced system just shows the level of ignorance that allows its conception.
[ 11. February 2006, 19:04: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 11. February 2006 19:08
Okay, what if the ratios are marked in the control program, where Fn is a MSR attribute, and M is a mutational co-efficient. Then:
M(Fn + M/2(Fn) + Fn)
Could a single mutation to M satisfy?
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 11. February 2006 20:42
"Could a single mutation to M satisfy?"
I must first say that a system does exist that controls formations and relativeties since infant to mature changes necessitate its existence. the structure of this control is a fairly big mystery though and so far no one has determined any one place that mutational manipulation was able to do a global change so I would say at this point that a single point that controls all MSR's is not probable. I would think it is more like a net of interrelated controls, as birth defects typically don't cause global deformations that would reveal a specific % change in all affected areas. Here is a study to back my assertions.
Quantitative Trait Loci for Femoral Size and Shape in a Genetically Heterogeneous Mouse Population.
Dr. Steven A. Goldstein, PhD University of Michigan.
http://sitemaker.med.umich.edu/dtburke/files/jmbrpaper.pdf
The geometric traits measured in this study can be divided into three groups. CSA and CortTh are traits that only depend on the size of the bone, while SF and StdOFL only depend on the shape of the bone. The other traits MinOFL, MaxOFL, AveOFL, IAP, and IML are influenced by both the size and shape of the bone. The permutation analysis suggests that the 14 genetic markers studied here are similarly segregated. D3Mit62 and D4Mit155 appear primarily to affect bone size, since these markers are strongly associated with CSA and/or CortTh. D12Mit167 andD14Mit170 are strongly linked to both of the shape traits, so we can infer that these markers primarily affect the shape of the bone. The remaining markers are linked with traits that describe both size and shape. Collectively,these findings indicate that the genetic control of cortical bone geometry is complex and that femoral size and shapemay be influenced by different, though overlapping, groups of polymorphic loci.
So on the surface the idea of a centralized control may seem like a decent detraction to my idea however since this must be considered in an evolutionary sense we must of course ask how a single control came to exist and then how did only those things that required variation to control msr get included in an overall control? we must also never forget that evolution posits that new components were added to the system and there would be no logical way of surmising that as each new component appeared in the system that its new msr needs could be included in the overall control.
We would come down to the same problem of needing to explain how the component with a new parameter set was wedded to an existing balanced system and then just the highly specific trait controls fell under the same architecture as the previous system and remain balanced as well.
A supposition that requires intelligent design to form with a view to an end.
[ 13. February 2006, 12:51: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 12. February 2006 14:10
Irving,
I slept on the idea of how such a control could possibly come to exist and no matter how many ways I try to visualise its beginnig by evolutionary means I hit a dead end. I think we may have an irreducibly complex system whether it is a global or localized conrol. Lets consider the realities of it.
1] It would not have existed prior to the mechanical systems it would need to regulate via variably set regulation.
2} It could not have arisen after there were mechanical components that required its control, otherwise the system would have been out of balance and selected out.
3} The only possible way it could have occurred is for the components that required it to come into existence with it and the control would have to be set to regulate the trigonal shapes of the two separate components at its creation. I would say that this is far beyond any random possibility to scheive.
4} If we suppose that such a combination occurred how can we possibly conceive that other components could be added to the existing system that would need to connect to existing structures and hence require the addition of their specific control as well as the modification of the control of an existing components control to allow them to function together and keep system balance?.
We have effectively identified an irreducibly complex system.
[ 12. February 2006, 14:13: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic