|
Author
|
Topic: The Birth of MSR and the End of the Theory of Evolution
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 05. February 2006 14:00
THE BIRTH OF MSR AND THE END OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
I would like to begin this paper with an explanatory definition for a term that I have devised that will allow us to better analyze system mechanics by scientific method.
I have coined a term I call "MECHANICALLY SPECIFIC RELATIVITY"(MSR) and what this term means is that we can quantify physical relationships within a system by numerical representation thereby defining specific complexities required for a system to function.
As creative agents we use this tool all the time during the creative process of designing any system. MSR allows us to define and convey the relationship parameters of components within a system by ratio percentages. For those who have little mechanical inclination this concept may appear hard to understand but I will attempt to convey the concept by showing a step by step use of MSR to scientifically analyze one of the most beloved intelligent designs of the 20th century;
"The Internal Combustion Engine"
The function of the engine is to convert the explosive power of gasoline into mechanically controlled motion thereby allowing us a method of doing work without the expenditure of our human energy.
Now that I have defined the function of the system as a whole we can scientifically analyze the components within the system and determine values that must exist in order for the function to happen.
The first relationship that we can define is that the material that the components are made of must be able to withstand the concussive force of the detonation of the fuel/air mixture. This value can be expressed in this manner;
The numerical value of the component materials property to resist deformation[RD] must be greater than the numerical value of force released[FR] by the explosion of the fuel/air mixture in order for the system to remain intact and function to exist.
Thus the first numeric expression of MSR for this system is [RD] > 100% X [FR]
Next I will consider another obvious MSR, the piston size to cylinder size relationship. In this observation we now must define a range of values with upper and lower limits that these components must stay within in order for overall function of the system to occur. Let’s say that the piston is 3 inches in diameter and the cylinder is 3.1 inches in diameter. The first parameter we can define is that the piston diameter[PD] can only be a maximum of 99% of the cylinder diameter[CD] otherwise function would suffer as a result of binding. The other half of this range I estimate would be about 96% (this is testable) before blow by would degrade functional efficiency.
So our second expression of MSR is [CD] x 96% <= [PD] <= 99% x [CD]
My next observation is of the balance relationship existing among the components of the rotating assembly which is basically the crankshaft, piston rod and piston. This relationship is a highly constrained value as even minor divergence from optimum balance would cause the whole system to vibrate and ultimately break down. I would estimate that this value which is testable for accuracy exists in a range just as our last MSR was defined. I know that we can never get better than 100% balance and I know that this balance value cannot be much less than about a 99.5% difference between the crankshaft counter balance weight [CCBW] and the rod and piston assembly weight [RPAW]
So our third expression of MSR is [CCBW] x 99.5% <= [RPAW] <= 100% x [CCBW]
Now that I have defined a few examples of this concepts use, it should be easy to understand how we can easily define scientific values for relationships within any system. I have only provided a sample of the multitude of relationships that could be defined in the system described above and I would think that now you the reader can find many, many more of these definable relationships within this same system.
The use of defining these relationships for an intelligent designer has several applications but for the intent of this article I will focus on its use in the modification of the system I have already defined.
As a designer I am invariably asked to change a system according to a defined need such as changing a 50cc engine into a 250cc engine to power a vehicle such as a motorcycle. This process normally takes much forethought and planning in order to make a functional design. A major part of this process is to keep the defined MSR's of the previous system intact within the new system in order to be sure that system integrity is conserved.
Because of my analysis of the small motor using MSR I can now determine what minimal requirements must occur within the physics of the new system and I can logically reason that if the combustion chamber size gets five times bigger, then I can infer that everything that is connected to this must change proportionately and obey the defined MSR ratio's or we can empirically state that system function would be impaired or non functional.
Come inside the mind of an intelligent designer with me now to observe the use of MSR's to intelligently evolve a defined system:
...The first MSR defined the minimum properties that the material in that motor needed to possess and by using a steel tube with a thickness of 1/64 inch I satisfied that minimal requirement, now if I want to change the system size by five times I can empirically state that the new cylinder size must have a wall thickness of at least 5/64 inch to withstand the five times greater force released[FR] and this will satisfy the formula;[RD] > 100% X [FR]. I must also figure this change to all system component sizes as I design them. The next MSR concerns the relationship between the diameters of the piston and cylinder. I must now calculate the new cylinder size according to the formula of surface area and determine the new value for diameter and this equates to about 7.0 inches so now I must apply the second MSR formula to define the correct proportion of the piston to the cylinder which is [7.0] x 96% <= [PD] <= 99% x [7.0] and this gives me 6.72 - 6.93
Inches as a defined size range.
Lastly I will consider the MSR for balance, my previous piston and rod weight was 1 pound which meant that the counter balance weight had to be between .995 pounds and 1 pound and when I apply the increase factor of 5 to piston and rod weight I come up with 5 pounds so by applying this new value to my MSR I can say that the new counter balance weight must be within the range of 4.975 - 5 pounds...
I hope everyone realizes that the values I assigned to represent the physical properties of the system described above were a bit arbitrary and actual scientific measured values will still plug in to these formulae and give us confidence of meaning.
I would like at this time to give you some insight into how I came up with the concept of "MECHANICALLY SPECIFIC RELATIVITY". For many years now I have been designing mechanical systems and this concept of the design process I used frequently without actually defining it and during my spare time I liked to read everything I could about the human mechanical systems as these are among the most complex and integrated designs I have ever had the good fortune to observe and learn about. I spent many years in absolute amazement at what scientist have uncovered and I was in awe that these systems came about by chance, Well at least I was until I began to apply the same principles of MSR to human mechanics that I applied daily to non-living systems. This is when the whole delusion of evolution began to fall apart for me and I realized that chance could not account for the specifications and relationships that these mechanical systems were exhibiting in their structure.
One of the first things I realized was that we could now analyze the fossil record by this method allowing us to see how many instances of MSR that previous living systems exhibited and I began to analyze the bone structures of vertebrate species trying to define possible ranges for MSR's that related to size that might be possible by the engine of random mutation. It became apparent that size and proportion values could vary to possibly infinite values, take for instance the Shrew [Microtus agrestis] it has a femur length of approximately 15mm or about 1/2 inch now compare this with a sauropod femur length of 1.7 meters or 67 inches for a 13,400% difference in size possibility. It becomes obvious that if random chance could code for the size of the shrew femur and it could code for the sauropod femur then it would be capable of coding for any possibility in between at any time for any vertebrate as well. I can further imply that if random chance could make forms within that range then it should be able to code for practically any imaginable size.
This observation leads me to be able to make a falsifiable prediction about evolution that has previously not been possible without MSR methodology:
If the engine of random mutation and natural selection were indeed operating throughout life’s history then the fossil record should show that the majority of intact species skeletons should show that any one of their MSR's were not conserved and the result was their failure to be one of the fittest since failure to maintain and improve upon previous species form would at all times make the new mutation less fit compared to the existing norm so we should find it especially prevalent in the young of the species as this would be the area where natural selection would exert the greatest culling force.
The empirical evidence to back this idea is the experiments that have already been done with mutations that shows that most mutations result in deleterious results for the mutated creature and since there may be thousands of bad mutations for every one good one then our fossil record should be a literal graveyard of evolutionary failures with only a small percentage of actual fit mutations appearing in the young skeletons.
It is my contention that once a system is complex enough that most of its component systems are Mechanically Specific Relative to each other then small incremental changes can only be deleterious to the organism and since it would require so many highly specific changes to each component to retain system balance that it would no longer be a small incremental step then as a result evolutionary chance is removed from being able to account for a viable system change because the minimal change requirement is more than a small incremental change to evolve the system at any stage and retain its selectability by natural selection.
I can also provide another prediction by the same information gained from MSR study that backs intelligent design:
If we look at the fossil record and find that over 95% of all skeletons show a consistent tendency to stay in all the MSR ranges that have been identified then we know that an intelligent agent would be required to keep these highly stringent values selected for each specie at each proposed change.
I would suggest that we can begin searching the scientific records for data that’s related to sizes of component parts taken from whole skeletons such as this:
Bilateral symmetry of biomechanical properties in rat femora.
Battraw GA, Miera V, Anderson PL, Szivek JA.
Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson 85724, USA.
In many studies, bone healing and remodeling have been examined in various animal models using one femur as a control for the contralateral femur based on the assumption that they are bilaterally symmetrical. Symmetry studies have been limited mainly to geometrical properties. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not there is symmetry in the mechanical properties of rat femora. Two strain gauges were attached to the anterior surface parallel to the long axis of explanted femora of retired female breeder and 120-day-old male Sprague Dawley rats. Femora were mechanically tested in cantilever bending and the strain values were recorded. Moments of inertia, cortical areas, and moduli of elasticity were determined from strains and cross-sectional properties. Female femora showed a bilateral strain difference of less than 2.2% and an elastic modulus difference of less than 8.7%. Males had less than 2.0% and 7.9% differences for strain and elastic moduli, respectively. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between left and right femoral strain values for the females, but modulus differences were significant different at the p = 0.05 level. There was no significant difference in strain and modulus values for the males, indicating mechanical and geometrical symmetry of their femora.
PMID: 8884507 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
We should also begin to identify what types of MSR's that can be logically defined such as:
symmetry
1) (mathematics) an attribute of a shape or relation; exact correspondence of form on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane
2) balance among the parts of something
3) (physics) the property of being isotropic; having the same value when measured in different directions
trigonal
1) having three-fold symmetry
bilateral symmetry
An animal body structure in which the right and left halves of an organism are approximately mirror images of each other. Most higher invertebrates and all vertebrates have members which are bilaterally symmetrical.
Since The human skeleton is comprised of 206 bones when fully mature we have a great amount of MSR's that can be defined at the connection points of each bone as there is a blueprint for each bone contained within the DNA and for random chance to succeed then it would have to keep an MSR relationship within the joints, further we may be able to establish an MSR that appears constant among all vertebrate species where the joints are concerned that would raise the question of how anything but intelligence could consistently keep these relationships constant for all species at every mutational level proposed.
It is with humble regard for everyone that has helped that I submit this paper and I hope that this method will now enhance our positive scientific backing for the need of intelligence within form.
This post not yet defeated by;
Scott l. page (slp2)
[ 20. August 2007, 22:57: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 11. February 2006 17:28
Delightful read. Thanks for your insight and paper.
Atom
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 11. February 2006 19:19
Atom,
Please don't stop giving feedback, this idea needs refinement and different perspectives to move it forward and by all means please post in the other thread where discussion of this topic is currently being batted around. Your insight and input was instrumental to allowing me to figure out how to put this into words and I would be honored if you would really give the idea a good thrashing with an eye towards weak spots. Although I know the foundational idea is sound I am however a poor writer and my high level math skills are in need of locating and being assisted.
Irving has been providing excellent counterpoints which make me pause for thought and this type of repoire is needed if this concept is to become a solid backer of truth.
My humble regards to you Atom
[ 11. February 2006, 19:21: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 11. February 2006 20:13
Wow Kevin (if I may be so bold), I am humbled by your appreciation of my input. I am glad I could move the discussion forward a bit, as I had a burning desire once I read of your idea to see it formalized. I only added input because no-one else was taking a stab at the formalization. : )
I will attempt to re-insert my thoughts back into the main thread. To be honest, lately I've been dealing with personal relationship issues, which is making it harder to find the time and energy to devote to abstract thought. (I'm lame, I know). But hopefully I'll get my butt back in gear and help you churn through this.
Superficially, I did notice a lack of flow in the paper at spots. I would take what you have, store it, and begin by writing an outline of what you hope to discuss. My suggestion would be: introduction to the concept in a light manner, followed by motivation (history of your idea), then go into the detail with an example. You can follow this with some research already done in the area, and cap it all off with a conclusion and highlight areas where the concept needs to be further researched. That's my thoughts on what the best flow would be.
Other than that, I think you have something substantial in the paper. I am going to (G-d willing) attempt to rephrase my ideas concerning the formalization in easier terms, to aid both mine and everyone else's understanding on MSR.
Thanks for giving us something to build with.
Atom
Intelligently Designed Hip-Hop
[ 11. February 2006, 20:14: Message edited by: Atom ]
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 11. February 2006 21:29
Atom,
I am just another person such as yourself who recognizes the truth. Our largest problem is how to formalize it in such a way so as to reach the farthest levels of understanding in those who are still afloat in misunderstanding.
Even if I fail somehow, at least I gave it the best shot my limited intelligence was capable of, so any intelligence you can impart can only help bring to life another tool to aid in revealing truth.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 13. February 2006 13:25
I've been thinking about your MSR concept. I have found two weaknesses in it. First, I think that biological systems work more like computer software (my expertise) then they do like mechanical engineering projects. I think, actually, that the way DNA is coded is more like dynamic CAD designs than they do like physical production. In CAD, one establishes all of the relevant systems, in your example if I modify the diameter of the cylinder, the diameter of the piston automatically adjusts.
In a software model, the piston is coded to grow to a few thousands smaller than the cylinder size, therefore we only end up with one MSR where we had two before.
Considering your discussion of skull bones. The algorithm there seems to be something like "grow until you bump into another bone." We see this particularly in small children with their "soft spot." The growing of the bones together has not completed it's job yet.
I think that this reality of the way of biological systems radically reduces the number of MSRs.
I've also been thinking about an example presented in "Of Pandas and People." They present the giraffe as an example of an "unevolvable."
When I put my evolutionary hat on and look at the giraffe, or more accurately the pre-giraffe, I see a situation where "taller is better." The neck is trying to grow taller, the legs are trying to grow taller. They are certainly bouncing into each other's limits as per your MSR model. (However, the details of bones growing taller, muscles getting longer, blood vessels, and nerves getting longer I believe are all taken care of with my point 1.) We see, for instance that if the legs get too long for the neck, the giraffe can no longer drink. When we watch giraffes drink we can see that they are pushing the threshold in this area with their peculiar braced stance.
The length of the neck, as pointed out by "Of Pandas and People" is limited by blood pressure issues. If there is enough blood pressure to keep the brain happy when the head is held high, then there is too much pressure when the giraffe lowers his head. This, in itself is a clear MSR experience.
I would assume, therefore, with my evolutionary hat on, that a pre-giraffe grew as tall as it could without a custom solution to solve the blood pressure problems. It probably pushed it's luck just a bit, to where the animal got a head rush every time it took a drink, or it may have developed odd manarisms of moving it's head down slowly so as to not get the head rush. In this position, it was ripe for a lucky mutation or two, a lucky mutation that gave it at least the beginnings of a blood pressure management system as described in the book. It now is able to grow beyond the previous MSR. This limit, because of the new mechanism, is no longer a limit.
The giraffe grows taller. How tall? Well, either the animal is still in flux, or some status has been reached. Maybe it's crashing into some other limiting factor. Or maybe being taller no longer offers reasonable advantage. After all, once you can eat the leaves off of the top of the trees, what does height benefit you?
In conclusion (at the beginning of a dialog) I find the MSR concept valuable in discussion, but I believe that biological systems are much less MSR bound than you presented.
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 13. February 2006 23:34
Bruce,
You said:
"DNA is coded is more like dynamic CAD designs than they do like physical production"
There is something you need to understand about dynamic or parametric cad that may not be obvious and that is, in a parametric model you can define relationships or parameters about anything within the model, I can choose to assign a relationship between a cylinder and a piston that the model must always conform to and in this way a relationship is created and maintained. The assumption that things will just adjust logically adjust is an illusion created by software engineering to allow ease of design and like any tool it has a healthy bit of code behind its use. The point that I make is that nothing constrains itself into any form but rather it is a controlled constraint of objects such as cells that see no further than their immediate surroundings that defines form fit and function.
"In a software model, the piston is coded to grow to a few thousands smaller than the cylinder size, therefore we only end up with one MSR where we had two before."
As you point out the MSR is a relationship that is "CODED" to obey certain rules within a finite boundary which we can represent as an MSR% and some of these constraints must remain within 1% accuracy. I indeed agree that a piston to cylinder MSR is one MSR just as the femur head is related to the pelvic cup by one MSR%. The true question here is how many individual things are constrained to act within a specified parameter on each object?
As an engineering object lesson I think you may benefit from my beginnings into cad which of course is 2 dimensional drafting.
In a proposed object lesson I would ask you to take a shape such as the outline of the femur, then define its shape using the least amount of data so that others can reproduse it with accuracy.
Now my question is how much data in kilobytes will it take you to acheive this goal?
Remember each piece of code that defines any point of the constrained shape can have any value to infinity and requires constraint or a parameter to control.
I have taken the liberty to trace out a real femur by scanning a picture of the item into cad and I traced it so that it is accurate to about .001" and I find that my file size is about 23 kilobytes, can you tell me how much individual bits of information the program requires to accurately replicate the 2D image of the femur?
Next I 3D'd a femur by laser scanning a real femur into cad, this model was scanned in at .005" increment points in a 360 degree circle from top to bottom of the bone and I find that my file size has grown to about 10 megabytes in order for me to be able to reproduce this item to this accuracy, so now I ask how much data is being constrained to control the bone cells that have no concept of anything other than their own little world into a defined trigonal shape?
Finally we must consider the actual material that our object is composed of and that would be the bone cells. How many cells does just the outside shell of a femur contain? billions? quintillions? well it could be figured but I will pass on that calculation for the moment. What would happen if each cell was not constrained to fit it location?
They typically call it a bone spur or uncontrolled growth, but back to the figuring, How much information would it require to constrain every cell in just the shell of the femur?
Lastly can you conceive of a control system that accurately makes these constraints happen.
Once you have figured out such a system then consider that every parameter under control and every part of the control system itself is open to mutational change and anyone of those values can be infinite. now roll the infini-dice for as many parameters as you feel a small incremental change would consist of and let me know if you ever end up with a balanced mutated system.
"grow until you bump into another bone."
Explain for me then why the head of the femur grows into the body of the pelvis if they just grow until they hit each other? would that not just be a butt joint? The accuracy of the form for a specific function defy's such a simple explanation. Even the Knee which is closer to a butt joint would not form perfect semicircles on the femur side and matching semi circular cups on the tibia. it would be just 2 flat mating points if that was the rule of growth.
"I see a situation where "taller is better.""
As an intelligent thinker you would see that that would be true but the real question is what do the individual cells see? how could a control system see outside the system and then make just the appeopriate changes to millions of constraints to acheive a goal. Are you willing to assign random chance mutations to acheive such a thing?
What you descibe is intelligent design, it has forethought with a goal.
"The giraffe grows taller. How tall? Well, either the animal is still in flux, or some status has been reached. Maybe it's crashing into some other limiting factor. Or maybe being taller no longer offers reasonable advantage. After all, once you can eat the leaves off of the top of the trees, what does height benefit you?"
Why did the neck have to grow? why not the legs instead? why not adapt to an easier food source? Why not grow a trunk?
If you think that growth is unguided and only stops when it reaches some environmentally limiting factor then why do any of the mechanical systems we observe stop growing in any direction? would not growth in any specific direction require a control system to constrain growth in that direction only? All replicated shapes are defined and controlled at a cellular level.
Many evolutionary concepts are portrayed in a very simplistic manner without thought to the underlying mechanics required to make it a reality. Mechanical relationships are a part of any functioning machine and our body is a living machine but still a machine requiring constraint and defined relationships at a cellular level and I would be interested in how you perceive a control system that can constrain the growth of one bone in 3 dimensions at a cellular level could come to be and how random mutation could accurately redefine or add to all those constraints to end up with a different form that provides a balanced function within the organism, then come up with a control system that is organism wide in scope.
The real truth of MSR's is that every definable MSR that can be measured and shown empirically to exist is actually a specified control of an almost inumerable amount of parameters that define mechanical form and I am quite confidant that if we use scientific methodology we can find thousands of relationships that retain observable and recordable relationship values within each system such as our human machine, and by using such a method it allows its use as more than just conceptual banter.
consider the MSR for water as an example of its real life use.
"for every oxygen molecule there are two hydrogen molecules 100% of the time"
MSR's help us define the world around us in an empirically definable way.
[ 14. February 2006, 12:44: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 14. February 2006 15:37
Let me see, you seem to be saying that the amount of data necessary to render life as we know it in your mechanical engineering and "cad" model would take an enormous amount of data, correct?
Well, we know that the simplest form of known life involves around 450 genes ( * 300 nucleotides per average gene = 135K nucleotides. The information in a nucleotide is renderable in 3 bits of data, so we can divide by 3 to get approximate byte count = 45K bytes of data.) We understand that man, with all of his complexity is implemented in 20,000 genes (the amount of dna that 'to the best of our knowlege' codes into our phenotype, as opposed to 'junk dna', 'recessive genes' etc.). By the same calculation method, we end up with about 2 meg of data.
You seem to be saying, "I have a model," (a model that isn't all that similar to DNA based life.) "My model doesn't work." Therefore DNA based life doesn't work.
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 14. February 2006 16:02
Bruce Fast,
You're not taking into account epigeneic information necessary to do something with those 450 genes. In computing terms, the genes act as the database component, while all the epigenetic machinery required to make sense of these instructions is something like the OS and system daemons. Just genes by themselves (to my knowledge) will not code for an entire organism, which is why a female egg is needed, conatining the factory if you will, not just a nucleus of genetic material.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
As for the giraffe, we need to just say NO to Just-So stories. It's like Dembski said when talking about monty python's "How to Play the flute":
"You can play the flute, it's easy. Just blow in the top, and move your fingers up and down on the holes. Now you're playing the flute!"
To specify all the structural and control changes necessary to make a functional valve blood control system such as the giraffe has, a simple mutation or two is not meaningful. Unless by "simple mutation", you mean a complex set of instructions and control mechanisms. My guess is that the valve system is pretty CSI intense, and if so, would bring it out of the reach of simple unguided mutation mechanisms. You are probably underestimating the complexity of the structures involved. History has sided with Design theorists when it comes to estimating the complexity of biological structures. We always find they are more complex, not less, than previously thought. So, just say no.
Atom
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 14. February 2006 19:24
"Let me see, you seem to be saying that ...life as we know it ...would take an enormous amount of data, correct?"
Bruce,
Just give a me simple answer to how you constrain every cell into a specific form?
Tell me how much information it would take to control form, it seems like such a simple thing to consider.
Suppose you are a bone cell, how do you know where you must be to conform to the shape that you must be part of?.
I don't think i'm asking for too much here, you must admit that the bone cells of a femur form into a very close approximation of a femur in each generation. just give me your best guess on how the individual cells know when to form in any one position and not any further.
Should we attribute random chance every time a baby occurs and they contain the same femur shape as the last?
The funny thing is in cad it requires 3 numbers to define any point in model space based on x,y,z and it requires 2 points to define a line to make it reproducible thats 6 parameters and this is the best system we have to constrain forms to allow repetition, so If you can simplify this system then a very rich man you will be.
Logic plain simple logic
[ 14. February 2006, 19:46: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 15. February 2006 12:49
Atom, thanks for the new word "epigeneic." I am familiar with the "other stuff" that goes on in cells, and the belief that this other stuff contains valuable "information" as well as the DNA. (I understand that fairly little research has been done in this area because scientists have been hyper-focused on DNA.) I believe that this adds a level of complexity to the abiogenesis challenge -- a challenge that has certainly not been met with a natural explanation.
However, in this equation, the difference in the shape of bones between various animals, well, I don't believe that the epigeneic machinery is a factor. Consider, for instance, that I have seen photos of a human ear growing out of the back of a mouse. It is clear from this picture, and other DNA experiments, that the structure of our body parts is fully encoded in the DNA. Ie, it's in the software, not in the 'cpu'.
As far as giraffes go, I am just chaffing at the simplistic thought presented in "Of Pandas and People." Biological systems are dynamic, pre-giraffes could well have existed with longish necks and longish legs, like a llama. They could have been longish enough that the blood pressure issues became a limiting factor. At that point an innovation is required. Is this innovation complex enough that it could not have evolved? Well, that has not been proven. Considering the complexity of the bacterial flagellum, and the fact that most scientists (including many ID camp scientists) are not convinced by Behe's arguement that such could not have evolved, I doubt if the blood pressure control mechanism would rate as a good hill for ID to die on.
What is true is that ID loves complexity, ID sees complexity as poison to evolution. The natural result, however, is that IDers tend to over-complexify things -- to hope that they have found more complexity than is actually there. Of course, the flip side is that the evolutionary camp tends to under-complexify things; to see "oh, this one protein in a flagellum is also used elsewhere, see, there is no problem."
KBC1963, I am sorry but you are definitely asking for information beyond my understanding of biology. I understand that there is a very limited packet of data that defines a human as discussed earlier. I also understand that part of the technique that life uses to implement with so little data is best described as "data compression." Individual genes, code for a protein, then split up and code for a bunch of sub-proteins, that sort of thing.
However, biological systems remain to be a fundimentally different puppy than our electronic and mechanical systems are.
I actually have interest in understanding this stuff because I wonder if it wouldn't offer me opportunity to be a better software developer. I know that the AI boys have tried to incorporate biological concepts into software, and have had limited success. Neural networks promised to take over the software world, they have offered very limited value. Fuzzy logic seems to offer more value in the electronic world, it certainly moves some distance in the direction of providing the data efficiency that biological systems maintain. The third area, still in it's infancy is genetic and evolutionary programming. In these models, the computer is set to simulate a "random mutation + selection" model, and set to run for a while. The results have been interesting, but have hardly decommissioned us coders.
The facts remain, it takes about 20 meg of data to define a human in all of his intricacy -- with all of the differences between me and you encoded in there. If your model differs from that by more than an order of magnitude or two, then the model is likely to be too inaccurate to be used as a judge of the viability of biological mechanisms.
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 15. February 2006 13:06
Bruce,
I would suggest that the mouse in your example contained the necessary machinery to make sense of the "ear" code, so the information was still present in an epigenetic form. I feel that this isn't too far of a stretch, seeing as how the hox gene kits are amazingly compatible across different organisms. The machinery seems to be more or less compatible, but I don't know to exactly what degree.
Either way, there is no free informational lunch. Since the ear form contains aperiodic, non-repeating information (it is not just a simple repeated pattern), we would need to somehow specify for all of the non-repeated information. Thus the information for shape would need to come from either the DNA itself, or the surrounding built-in epigenetic machinery and information stores.
quote:
Is this innovation complex enough that it could not have evolved? Well, that has not been proven.
You have your burden of proof exactly backwards. It is not on me or any IDist to show something incapable of evolution. The onus is on the darwinist to show that RM+NS can evolve a system of this complexity. I do not have to show something cannot have evolved; you must show that it could evolve if you want me to take your theory seriously. Appearance of design is the natural intuition, so one whould have to show how this intuition is wrong. To date, dawrinists have not shown that RM+NS capable of producing any biological system of sufficient complexity. The flagellum is way beyond their ability, and I would place a bet that so is the giraffe pressure control system.
[ 15. February 2006, 13:08: Message edited by: Atom ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 15. February 2006 14:39
quote:
we would need to somehow specify for all of the non-repeated information. Thus the information for shape would need to come from either the DNA itself, or the surrounding built-in epigenetic machinery and information stores.
1. It is certain that the information must be in there somewhere.
2. There isn't all that much information - about 20 megabytes based on the latest scientific understanding.
Now, is the information hiding in the epigenetic machinery? Well, when we are speaking of the difference between the phenotype of a human's bones and the phenotype of a mouse's bones, the mouse contains the epigenetic machinery necessary to implement the human DNA to produce human bones (as it does with human ears) then the difference between the mouse and the human can be fully accounted for by the DNA alone! That which details the shape of the human ear, or any of a human's bones, is fully defined within the DNA.
Now, how can all of that shape be hidden in so little DNA? Let's start at the start -- it is! All that shape is hidden in the DNA, therefore if we don't understand how it is, the problem is with our understanding of the system, not with the system itself.
Let me suggest a few concepts from data compression, however. When we compress color images, one of the methods we use is the 'wavelet'. With wavelet technology we take very few parameters such as "to approximate the image, from here to here" apply this 'wave' formula. The result is that complex shapes can be produced with very little data. I don't know if DNA uses wavelet technology exactly, but the general concept can produce all manner of apparently complex three-dimentional shapes with just a few formulas and a very few parameters. (Remember, the DNA isn't trying to copy something external to the organism, it is implementing shapes that are naturally compatible with it's systems.)
As far as burden of proof goes, well "you have the burden of proof" is very easy to say. If you have ever been falsely accused of an offence you will see the fragility of this argument, however. Dispite the fact that the law presumes that you are innocent until you have been proven guilty -- ie the prosecution has the burden of proof -- when it is time to make your defence, you fully recognize that the burden of proof is fully yours.
Now, evolution is way out in the lead when it comes to the hearts and minds of the scientific community. To deny that is foolishness. Therefore, even though evolution may have a logical burden of proof, ID fully has the functional burden of proof.
With ID's "complexity" argument (there certainly are other cases that ID can make) I still suggest that the flagellum is much more likely to make the case than the blood pressure control system in a giraffe. However, in the complexity argument, even the flagellum argument has not been able to hold many of the ID camp scientists, let alone convince the evolution camp scientists. For the complexity argument to be effective, ID needs to quit pretending that evolutionists are obligated to 'step up to the plate and proove their theory.' Rather, ID needs to proove its case at least to the point where virtually all of the ID scientists are convinced.
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 15. February 2006 15:00
I disagree about burden of proof. Simply saying "You can't prove evolution wrong" is not the same as showing evolution to be right. To say that design arguments have no weight because evolution can produce the structures in question, you must first demonstrate that RM+NS can indeed produce them. There is no ambiguity about who has the burden of proof. To this day, Darwinists have failed to move beyond mere conjecture in their critiques of ID arguments.
quote:
Dispite the fact that the law presumes that you are innocent until you have been proven guilty -- ie the prosecution has the burden of proof -- when it is time to make your defence, you fully recognize that the burden of proof is fully yours.
No, the defense merely needs to attack the prosecution's credibility. If the prosecution cannot make a credible positive case against the defendant, the defendant will walk free. In the same way, Darwinists claim IC systems are not evidence for design because RM+NS can produce them. Fine. They now need to make a case to show this true. If not, IC systems are still evidence of design, since we know Intelligent agents regularly produce them, and know of nothing else that produces them. Until Darwinists can show unintelligent processes making IC and CSI rich systems, then their criticism is witout force, and the onus remains with them. Like the defense, all we have to do is attack the credibility of their Just-So stories and wild speculations.
As for popularity among scientists, I'm not too worried about that. There was a time when Ptolemaic astronomy was the unquestionable truth held by most scientists and institutions of learning. We don't have to appease our "massas", we need to just keep developing the alternative theory of ID. And judging by the increasing hostility and frustration of Darwinists (to the point of censorship and legal actions), it seems that ID is becoming a real threat to their fiefdom.
As for the approximation algorithms, the formulas themselves are exactly what I'm talking about: they produce (and can only produce by definition) compressible information. This is simple information theory. I have not studied the how the body produces the ear per se, but I do have a degree in an information science field. And unless scientists can show that the DNA by itself, not relying on "library code" already present in the environment, can produce the aperiodic structure and functionality of the ear, my experience would lead me to believe that there is some hidden information that we are missing. It may not be in the DNA, but information does not come from nothing. My best guess is epigenetic information.
I understand what you are saying about the ear. If scientists can find the algorithm that produces and ear from a small input data stream, and shows that this combination of algorithm + stream actually contains very little information, then I will cede the point. But until that evidence is available, I must rely on standard information theory, since we're talking about the use and transmission of information. I doubt the ear structure is compressible, due to its specifications of shape and irregular features. That is a prediction on my part, but one in agreement with experience.
Atom
[ 15. February 2006, 15:18: Message edited by: Atom ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 15. February 2006 15:10
One example I feel you are missing. You said that the differences between a mouse femur and a human femur can be specified by DNA alone.
You are both right and wrong.
Here's an example that may show what you're missing. Let's say I build a function in C++ that takes in a single parameter: Org, which is either "1" for human, or "0" for mouse. (Org is for organism.) Now this function will have a logic switch that says, if 1: follow steps 1 through one million to produce a human femur, and if 0: follow steps one million and one to 2 million to produce a mouse femur. The function itself contains all the steps (information) necessary to produce either a human or a mouse femur.
Now we're looking at a program from the outside and only happen to look at the inputs. The function itself is a black box we do not fully understand (much like DNA systems at present). We see that a user can pass in a single bit, and wow, out pops a fully functional femur.
Now it would be foolish and incorrect to assume that it only takes 1 bit of information to specify for a femur of either animal. The ratio of input data to output data would suggest to us that the black box actually contains information stores, and the inputs are acting as switches.
You seem to miss this point. Even if only 2 bits of DNA (a single nucleotide) were enough to allow a mouse to grow a human ear, the output itself seems to be information rich. Which leads us to look for additional epigenetic information stores.
Hope that helps.
[ 15. February 2006, 15:24: Message edited by: Atom ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic