Evolution has never been observed

[cypress]

Yes, unlikely to the point where you wouldn't see it happen even if the universe ended several times over. Still not impossible, technically, just very very unlikely, and more unlikely the more particles involved. You do realize that statistical models allow you to calculate probabilities of things even if they haven't been observed, right?

 

Mathematical models often do not model reality, sometimes due to simplifications, other times because the model is incomplete or flat out wrong. Just because one can devise an incomplete mathematical model that indicates a finite probability for a specific random event does not mean that it is a correct model that can be actualized. It may be a poor approximation of reality that works for most situations but fails to model reality in the extreme. How would you show that your probability model is real in these extreme cases?

 

In the case of modeling probability of finding all the gas molecules on one side of a container and none on the other by Brownian motion alone, a model based purely on entropy and thus the probability of all discrete energy states would imply a very small probability. A model that considers physical configurations and so also includes the spacial and volume considerations including all kinetic and potential energy transfers would almost certainly eliminate the possibility of this occurrence. When one drops the size and molecule density to the nano scale, then physical constraints are removed and the FT theorem does apply.

 

Thus, although statistical models output very small but finite probabilities, it is not clear that these statistical models accurately model reality. The one in this case cannot because it is necessarily incomplete.

 

One reason why FT does not apply to macro systems is because it does not include spacial considerations / physical constraints that do not apply at the nano scale where FT does apply. It is incomplete.

 

Cap'n Refmmat moved the goal post by referring to a situation that does not apply to the situation nor to the context of the thread.

 

If we're relating this to evolution, then we can limit our size to something like a chromosome or smaller, and natural selection can select some of the intermediate steps (if they affect fitness), and the organisms have an input for lowering thermodynamic and information entropy.

 

For a single discrete event perhaps, just as FT applies to discrete events in a macro system. But evolution depends on a continuous chain of these discrete events and the entire sequence is posited to include untold numbers of ineffective discrete events occurring during the process. It is wishful thinking to treat evolutionary steps as isolated discrete events as opposed to the combinatorial events that bimolecular research confirms are required for novel form and function.

[Edtharan]

The causal agent for an organism is the parent from which the organism was derived. Life's known causal agent life. Information's known source is information.

But accoring to you, information entropy has to increase, so over the genrations as no new information is being brought into living systems so each generation must have a lower information content. This is even if evolution did not exist!

 

But, we don't see this, so either there is some supernatural entity adding in information, and if this is the case we should be able to identify the exact point in which such an entity add the information as we would see an imediate jump in information as it is added. But again, we have no seen such an uncaused jump.

 

Which means there is no evidence to support your hypothisis. If you can give us a link to an experiment that identifies such a jump that would go a long way to helping you argument.

 

Also, you have made an unsupported assumption here: "Information's known source is information."

 

You have not provided any evidence that this is the case, only attempted to show that process can't provide information (but life is a process so if you believe your claim here, then you also have to accept that processes can increase information which is actually in support of our argument).

 

Your proposed solution is a logical fallacy because it moves the goal post. It answers a question I did not ask. The sun provides a source of thermal energy and order to power biological systems through the irreversible thermal cycle under which they operate. This is the question you answered, but was not asked of you. You have not provided a source of functional, prescriptive information and order to power biological systems through the cycle of net gain in functional information and information order necessary to generate observed diversity. Evolutionary theory posits that all biological diversity is a result of observed evolutionary processes. But these processes do not explain or account for a source for this information.

But as I ahve shown, processes can create information and reduce information entropy, but at the cost of increasing entropy in the global system.

 

remember the thing about entropy is not that you need a source of low entropy, but that you need a sink of high entropy. So according to this, it is perfectly possible for a system not to have a source of low entropy if it has a sink of high enrtopy. Information can be created without a source of low information entropy because there can be a sink of high information entropy that it can dump into.

 

Yes I have, there is no indication whatsoever that any physical only process can increase information without a source of information. Functional, prescriptive information is formal, as opposed to physical, though a representation of information can be stored in, transported, transcribed and processed by physical systems. Every attempt to generate prescriptive information from physical only systems greater than what the probabilistic resources import, has failed.

In another thread you stated that you accdepted that random processes can increase information, so this statement here is directly counter to what you have argued before.

 

Using evolutionary algorithms you can show that by only comparing the entropy difference between data sets, you can select for the lower entropy data set (discarding the higher entropy data set) and this will drive the data set towards a low entropy state.

 

Now remember what I said above about not needed a low entropy source if you have a high entropy sink. When you discard the low entropy data sets, you increase the total entropy of the total system far more than the descrease in entropy from the low entropy data source (this is clear because you are more likely to produce a high entropy data set than a low entropy one so you would end up with lots more high entropy - but discarded - data sets).

 

It fits your requierments as to information entropy as the "source" of the low information entropy is the accumulation of high entropy "rubish". Also, as no other information is needed than what is contained within the system, and that information is generated from random processes, it still fits your requierment.

 

The only processes that go on are ones involed in evolution, namly the copying if the data sets with variation, selection of the low entropy data set and using the low entropy data sets as the starting point for generating new data sets with variations. THere is no need for a source of low inforamtion entropy because there is a vary large sink of high entropy.

[cypress]

But accoring to you, information entropy has to increase, so over the genrations as no new information is being brought into living systems so each generation must have a lower information content. This is even if evolution did not exist!

 

Equal or less information and information order if there is not an external source.

 

But, we don't see this, so either there is some supernatural entity adding in information, and if this is the case we should be able to identify the exact point in which such an entity add the information as we would see an imediate jump in information as it is added. But again, we have no seen such an uncaused jump.

 

Random mutations may import information in proportion to the resources brought to bear, so small changes in total information quantity is accounted by these random processes. However random processes degrade order, so these processes cannot account for net increased order. Natural selection can select discrete events that substantively alter existing function in a way that offers net reproductive advantage in the current environment but observed evidence indicates that new form and function require large numbers of coordinated, coherent, integrated changes and one does not observe pathways of selectable discrete events leading to these combinations. There is not even one example of a 4 or greater step selectable evolutionary pathway.

 

Clearly diversity occurred, so there must be other process involved, ones that do allow for import of new functional information, ones that are capable of deriving coherent integrated systems.

 

One example of a sudden jump is the novel gene T-urf13 plus associated expression and regulatory controls, and assembly components that derive and construct a specific protein that joins with several copies of itself to form a transmembrane channel in the inner membrane of mitochonria in several varieties of corn. This protein seems to have shown up suddenly very recently over a period less than 40 years and includes far too many discrete differences to be accounted for by the traditional known evolutionary processes.

 

We don't observe, in real time, novel form and function that would confirm increases in functional information quantity and order so past instances of diversification must have occurred through a process other than those posited by evolutionary theory.

 

Also, you have made an unsupported assumption here: "Information's known source is information."

 

No this is an observed fact. Wherever functional prescriptive information is found, and the source can be objectively traced back, the source is a mind that used stored information as an input to the information in question.

 

You have not provided any evidence that this is the case, only attempted to show that process can't provide information (but life is a process so if you believe your claim here, then you also have to accept that processes can increase information which is actually in support of our argument).

 

 

Biological systems contain information, but we don't currently and objectively, deductively know of any physical only biological process capable generating novel functional information.

 

But as I ahve shown, processes can create information and reduce information entropy, but at the cost of increasing entropy in the global system.

 

No, sorry, you have not, at least not without involving teleological design. Your examples move the goal post.

 

remember the thing about entropy is not that you need a source of low entropy, but that you need a sink of high entropy. So according to this, it is perfectly possible for a system not to have a source of low entropy if it has a sink of high enrtopy. Information can be created without a source of low information entropy because there can be a sink of high information entropy that it can dump into.

 

Ok, but this example requires an isolated source of low entropy to begin with, otherwise one can dump all the disorder one wants and all you are left with is a small total quantity of disorder.

 

In another thread you stated that you accdepted that random processes can increase information, so this statement here is directly counter to what you have argued before.

 

Random processes import small quantities of information commensurate with the resources. Increase information of a sub-system? perhaps. Formally create it from non-information? I doubt it. Perhaps you can show that it is unambiguously true that a physical only random process can and does generate novel formal information. I would be interested in an actual case.

 

The only processes that go on are ones involed in evolution, namly the copying if the data sets with variation, selection of the low entropy data set and using the low entropy data sets as the starting point for generating new data sets with variations. THere is no need for a source of low inforamtion entropy because there is a vary large sink of high entropy.

 

The variations are no more ordered and more often less ordered and less functional than the source sets. Most selectable adaptations involve damage to functional components and loss of order. New order is still a requirement for new form and function.

[Edtharan]

Equal or less information and information order if there is not an external source.

But you have states that random events can cause information to increase locally. That is all that is needed.

 

Random mutations may import information in proportion to the resources brought to bear, so small changes in total information quantity is accounted by these random processes. However random processes degrade order, so these processes cannot account for net increased order. Natural selection can select discrete events that substantively alter existing function in a way that offers net reproductive advantage in the current environment but observed evidence indicates that new form and function require large numbers of coordinated, coherent, integrated changes and one does not observe pathways of selectable discrete events leading to these combinations. There is not even one example of a 4 or greater step selectable evolutionary pathway.

Random processes usually increase disorder. It is because there are more disordered states than ordered states.

 

Clearly diversity occurred, so there must be other process involved, ones that do allow for import of new functional information, ones that are capable of deriving coherent integrated systems.

Yes, as I have said, processes can cause an increase in information, as you have stated here. So if you agree that processes can increase information, then I don't understand why you keep insisting that processes can not increase information.

 

The only thing I can see you doing here is that you think some processes can increase inforamtion, but others can't, but for the life of me I can not see any clear definition that you have provided that distinguishes one from the other. All you keep stateing is this process can and that one can't.

 

Take for example your insistance that the "Mind" is a source of information. But the Mind is a process. We can measure the increase in thermal entropy caused by it (and the operation of the human brain has quite a large energy requierment and hence a large increase in entropy caused by it). So we have here, evidence that using energy one can cause a process to occur that can cause a decrease in information entropy, and that this process is one you keep insisting is capable of doing so.

 

I have never disagreed that an inteligent agent could cause a local decrease in information entropy and my argument would requier that it could (as I argue that processes can decrease information entropy at the cost of increaseing thermal entropy).

 

So answer me this: If you are willing to accept (and even argue for) that a process can decrease information entropy, then why can you not accept a process can decrease inforamtion entropy?

 

One example of a sudden jump is the novel gene T-urf13 plus associated expression and regulatory controls, and assembly components that derive and construct a specific protein that joins with several copies of itself to form a transmembrane channel in the inner membrane of mitochonria in several varieties of corn. This protein seems to have shown up suddenly very recently over a period less than 40 years and includes far too many discrete differences to be accounted for by the traditional known evolutionary processes.

Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#p/c/F626DD5B2C1F0A87/1/SdwTwNPyR9w

 

This shows how, through slight changes to protines, you can end up with a system that becomes irriducably complex. I think this sort of answers your 4 step process: that it doesn't have to occur to get such jumps.

 

To put it one way, I can't jump 100m high in a single jump. But I can step up a single step, and many such steps can allow me to reach 100m high. But once I am up there, if I stand on a blacony, it could appear that I just jumped up 100m (which one could then point out is imposible).

 

We don't observe, in real time, novel form and function that would confirm increases in functional information quantity and order so past instances of diversification must have occurred through a process other than those posited by evolutionary theory.

Yes, evolution does occur slowly, but so does continental drift. We have evidence of continental drift in the form of "fossil" evidence (eg: the magnetic allignement of certain rock each side of divergent plate boundaries. We also have evidence of small movments of the Eath's crust at these sites and when we extraploate that such small movments over a long period of time would add up to large movments.

 

We can see from direct evidecne that during reproduction, mutations can occur in DNA (and I don't think you have denied this). We can also see that these canges can be harmful, neutral or occasinally benificial (and I don't think you have denied this either). We can also extrapolate that many such small changes can build up over long periods of time to large amount of change in the DNA.

 

At each point, these changes are small and random. However, at each point any bad mutations are removed when the organism dies (or fails to develop). This way only the random mutations that are good (or neutral) remain and are passed on.

 

Because good or neutral mutations are passed on and it occurs over a long period of time, then what you will get is large "good" mutations building up.

 

It is a bit like a ratchet mechanism. A Ratchet allows movement in one direction but stops it occuring in the other direction. If you were to randomly move the divice in any direction, then when it moved against the direction the ratchet could move, you would be stopepd from moving the device. However, if you were to randomly move it in the direction it could freely move, then the divice would move in that direction, and then prevent you from moving it back to its starting point again.

 

If you were to set up such a system to work automatically, you would see the ratchet seem to move with a purpose in one direction. You could then conclude that there was some directional and non random force pushing the ratchet device in the direction you could see it moving, but in fact it is a series of random motions, just that part of the system restricts movment in certain directions but allows them to occur in a particular direction.

 

In evolution, the exponential increase in number caused by reproduction acts as a naturally occuring ratchet. If an organism reproduces more often than another organism, then this ratchets the DNA of the species in favour of the more successful reproducer.

 

Take for example a Lion. How fast do you have to run to escape a lion? Well, you only have to run faster than the slowest in your group as the lion will catch them and stop chasing you (and I am sure you will agree this is a system that does not requier a "Mind" to set up, lions hunt and we run away).

 

Now any mutation that allowed one person to run faster would mean that they would not be the slowest member of the group, but any mutation that made someone run slower would mean that they would be the one caught by the lion.

 

In this situation, as lions attack and we try to run away, only people with fast running mutations would survive, and they would live to have children and their children would inherit this fast running advantage.

 

However, as all the slow runners eventually get eaten, these fast runners would become threatened. Then if any of these fast runners had a mutation that allowed the to become even faster runners then these would be able to avoid getting caught and the fast runners (not the faster runners) would get caught.

 

Because the population lost the slow runners to the lions, it caused the DNA to ratchet up to the fast runner DNA, but then when the slow runners were all gone, only the faster runners could avoid being caught and this ratcheted the DNA up again.

 

This is a direct example where a naturally occuring system (lions and their prey - it doesn't have to be humans) causes a net increase in "functional" information (in terms of DNA that increases running speed) without the need for a "Mind" to drive it. Not only that, it is only random modification that are needed and not directed modification by some outside inteligent agent.

 

This shows that your assumption that a inteligent causal agent is not needed. And, if you want to know how the entropy is accounted for, well there is a lot of the runners that would get caught by lions and each of them has information in the DNA, so this loss if information means that there is a larger increase in inforamtion entropy in the total system (and turned to thermal entropy because of the cost of the energy needed for that organism to grow).

 

No this is an observed fact. Wherever functional prescriptive information is found, and the source can be objectively traced back, the source is a mind that used stored information as an input to the information in question.

As I have shown, the Mandelbrot set can produce an infinite amount of information. Does this mean that the person who discovered it needed an infinitely low amount information entropy to do so? No. For the Mandelbrot set to exist (even as a natural process - and fractals are a natrual phenomena) does it requier that the universe have an infintly low amount of entropy? No.

 

What it does mean is that if you desire to produce the information contained within the Mandelbrot set, then you are requiered to expend energy through a process (and thus increase the total thermal entropy of the universe) to do so. And, if you wanted the full data set, you would need to expend an infinite amount of energy to do so (so we can only ever access a portion of it - but it can be shown to be mathemtatically infinite).

 

Now I have seen you keep shifting the goal posts on this issue. First it was just entropy, then you brough in Information entropy, then Functional information entropy, and now Functional Perscriptive Information entropy. How many words are you going to add to this, how many times are you going to shift the goal posts?

 

I can see what you are trying to do here. You are trying to show that information is cotext dependent, that what is considdered low entropy information in one context, in another it would be considdered high entropy.

 

Take for example this information:

"for (a=0;A<100;A++)

{

cout<<"Hello World"

}"

 

You might think this is a low entropy piece of information, and if this was in the context of a C++ programing environment it would be. But in a Pascal programing environment it would be gibberis and considdered a high entropy piece of inforamtion.

 

Or take for example this:

"0110011001101111011100100010000000101000011000010011110100110000001110110100000100111100001100010011000000110000001110110100000100101011001010110010100100100000000011010000101001111011000011010000101000100000001000000010000000100000011000110110111101110101011101000011110000111100001000100100100001100101011011000110110001101111001000000101011101101111011100100110110001100100001000100011101100101001000011010000101001111101"

 

To you it might just look like a string of random numbers. And it could very well be such a string or it might be an encripted sentence proveing evolution. It could also be more than one of these things or it could be something else.

 

You can not know without knowing the context.

 

Actually, it is exactly the same as the program above, just translated into ascii and then binary.

 

But I can see this is where your argument is shifting its goal posts to. You are trying to argue that because we can construct a context, that we are the source of what makes it "Functional Perscriptive Information". That is information that is part of a process (ie: Functional) and that we have given it a context (ie: Perscriptive).

 

I can tell you now, information used by evolution has its own context which does not need an inteligent entity to give it one. The context is that of survival to reproduce. The Function of it is that Evolution is a process.

 

So your moving goal posts does not escape the fundamental flaw in your argument: That Information exists whether an inteligent agent knows about it (or created it), it can have function without the need for an inteligent agent if it is part of a process, and it can be perscriptive if it has a context and these can exist without the need for an inteligent agent.

 

Biological systems contain information, but we don't currently and objectively, deductively know of any physical only biological process capable generating novel functional information.

You might not, but I do, and have repeatedly posted on it. If you had done any of the experiments I posted, you would also know that it such physical systems can produce "novel functional information" (we now have "novel" to add to our growing list goal post shifting words).

 

No, sorry, you have not, at least not without involving teleological design. Your examples move the goal post.

And this proves my point about you moving the goal post. This is what you have been getting at since the beginning, just hat you did it by slowly moving the goal posts. This was your goal all along (unless that it you are going to move the goal posts agin).

 

Why you think I have moved the goal posts is because you have moved them first and I didn't follow you.

 

If you look back to my first post, all I have been trying to do is to show that Evolution is a process, specifically an algorithm. I have shown this.

 

Not only that I have responded to your counter claims that such a process can not create information. First you tried to show that proceeses couldn't produce information because you called them just "compression algorithms". But, when I showed that such algorithms, if they didn't start with information to begin with, are not compression algorithms at all, but are actually capable of generating information, you moved the goal posts and started to argue that the information needed some form of low entropy information to exist, and that although an algorithm could produce information it needed a source of low entropy information as its source. I then explained that it didn't need a source if there was some way to sink information into a higher entropy state.

 

But now you are trying to force the goal posts to move yet again to requier that the information can only be considdered aplicable if it is created by an inteligent agent by calling it "perscriptive" (ie: that is has a context).

 

You are also trying to shift the goal posts so that the information has to be "novel". However, any change to existing information is novel, so this requierment, this yet again shifted goal post is a meaningless red herring argument (see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring ).

 

As "novel" just means "new" and any change to a state that it hasent been in before is "new", this means that any change to the inforamtion that creates a new state in the information is considdered "Novel".

 

Now, as all the other "criteria" you have shifted the goal posts with have been filled, and your shifting the goal posts has been so obvious, you have no argument left without further attempting to shift the goal posts.

 

I have shown that

1) Processes (including algorithms) can produce information.

2) I have shown that processes that can produce information can occur natrually.

3) I have shown that this information is functional (as it influeces the processes).

4) I have shown that this information has a context (and so can be considdered perscriptive).

5) I have shown that this information can change through random processes and thus can be considdered "Novel.

 

I have shown that natrual processes, that don't requier a source of low information entropy, can produce Novel, Functional Perscriptive Information. I have shown that with each shift of the goal post, evolution still fullfills your requierments.

 

So go on, shift it again.

 

Ok, but this example requires an isolated source of low entropy to begin with, otherwise one can dump all the disorder one wants and all you are left with is a small total quantity of disorder.

Yes, they were examples. As you were talking aobut entropy as if you knew a bit about it, and that I had stated it previously, that you would know that you could ahve a source of low entropy, or a way to increase the total entropy.

 

It is common knowledge with entropy that so long as the total entropy increases (or remains the same) there is no violation of entropy laws.

 

you even were arguing for this point, so I just assumed that as you demonstrated this knowledge that you actually had that knowledge.

 

May be it is my bad here? Maybe I should not have assumed that just because someone talks about something, that they actually know anything about it.

 

Random processes import small quantities of information commensurate with the resources. Increase information of a sub-system? perhaps. Formally create it from non-information? I doubt it. Perhaps you can show that it is unambiguously true that a physical only random process can and does generate novel formal information. I would be interested in an actual case.

I have already given one: See this post: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52622-evolution-has-never-been-observed/page__st__160__p__573612#entry573612

 

This is a biological system that does exactly what you asked here.

 

In that example, simple chemicals (that can be produce through the interaction of UV light with Amonia, Methane Hydrogen and Water) with a variable heat source (such as the convection current set up by undersea vocanic vents) can produce replicating systems through only natural chemical processes, then by variations cause by random changes introduced during the replication can produce systems that have novel inforamtion. I then went on to show that the chemicals involved have secondary effects that can effect the rate of replication.

 

These secondary effects would, if they provide a positive effect on replication be conserved due to the increased replication rates, and if they provided a negative effect on replication, this reduced rate of replication would cause these systems to become less prevelent in the system and eventually get destroyed by the more sucessful replicators.

 

As this infoarmtion is functional and has a context (influenceing the rate of replication), then it fulfills your requierment as being formal (that is if you haven't introduced "forma" in an attempt to shift the goal posts yet again - or should I add that to the growing list).

 

It is not self replication, so it is not life, but they are organic molecules, and these molecules are very similar to the molecules used by living organisms.

 

The variations are no more ordered and more often less ordered and less functional than the source sets. Most selectable adaptations involve damage to functional components and loss of order. New order is still a requirement for new form and function.

As any damage results in a system that is removed, and only system not removed replicate, than this removes any damage from the system. Yes, there will be more damaging than advantagious changes, but what is important is that the damged data sets are removed. If these damaged data sets wern't removed, then you would be right. But the fact is, the system removes damaged data sets and that is why your argument is wrong.

[mississippichem]

Cypress, in past posts we had a disagreement over entropy considerations and the length of a peptide or protein that could spontaneously polymerize in a prebiotic solution of amino acids. The following is an example of a short peptide (8 residues, linear) spontaneously (in thermodynamic terms) dimerizing with it's self complement sequence. Though this in itself is unremarkable, and chemically predictable, the fact that the peptide dimer went on to conglomerate into a macroscopic structure is somewhat noteworthy. The self assembly into a macroscopic structure was controlled by the specific amino acid sequence's tendency to form [math] \beta [/math]-sheets. However, the remarkable aspect is that the macrostructure was not degraded by the addition of 1% SDS (sodium dodecyl sulphate, common denaturing surfractant) @90 C for 4h. Nor was it degraded by pH 1.5, 3.0, 7.0, or 11. Finally it couldn't be beaten by 8M urea (yes 8 molar!) or even 7M guanidine hydrochloride (arguably the most aggressive denaturing agent). To be fair I'll add that it was quite susceptible to physical degradation.

 

Point being that information is often selected for by nature because the chemical holders of this information display chemical properties that inherently favor the survival of the information. This oligopeptide macrostructure is chemically tough by anyone's measure. I don't know of many amide linkages that can take pH 1.5 and pH 11. No, this doesn't conclusively prove the chemical development of life from non-life but it does show how specific chemical coincidences of properties can add up to an increased stability of information. That amino acid sequence has a very good chance of being preserved in a primordial pool. I think it is not a far stretch to imagine this spontaneously formed protein pore getting randomly trapped inside a lipid micelle of sufficient size to form an even more stable pre-life information carrier . This becomes more and more apparent as the modern advent of inclusion chemistry is realized.

 

S Zhang et al.

 

The full version of the article is available free...click on the "full text PDF" link in the right hand column.

 

The reason I am so convinced of the spontaneous evolution of life is that the deeper and deeper we delve into possible chemical mechanisms for the origin of life the more we find that there seem to be an infinite number of chemical routes to the formation of increasingly stable soluble macrostructures through mild conditions.

 

*By the way on a lighter note, look at this guys circular dichromism spec. That must have been some clean stuff! He's got nice correlation where [math] \beta [/math]-sheets usually look nasty from random stacking interactions. Not relevant to the debate, but scientifically noteworthy.

[cypress]

So answer me this: If you are willing to accept (and even argue for) that a process can decrease information entropy, then why can you not accept a process can decrease inforamtion entropy?

 

I argue that no physical only processes can reduce net entropy when inputs and outputs are considered. I have been clear about this. You're changing the question, moving the goal post.

 

This shows how, through slight changes to protines, you can end up with a system that becomes irriducably complex. I think this sort of answers your 4 step process: that it doesn't have to occur to get such jumps.

 

The posited changes are tens, hundreds and even thousands of steps apart, and there are no signs that the intermediate steps even exist. This is like saying one can walk across the Pacific Ocean without falling in the water because after all Hawaii is a stepping stone along the way. The video explains almost nothing. It is but another false analogy.

 

To put it one way, I can't jump 100m high in a single jump. But I can step up a single step, and many such steps can allow me to reach 100m high. But once I am up there, if I stand on a blacony, it could appear that I just jumped up 100m (which one could then point out is imposible).

 

Only if the steps to the balcony actually exist. Your descriptions are of the ground and of the balcony but never the steps. But I keep asking for the steps. Where are the steps? Where is even one actual case of a four step evolutionary progression.

 

I don't find anything new or revealing in the balance of your arguments.

[Edtharan]

I argue that no physical only processes can reduce net entropy when inputs and outputs are considered. I have been clear about this. You're changing the question, moving the goal post.

It is well known and with loads of experimental evidence that according to thermodynamics that there can be local decrease in entropy as long as the total entrop increases.

 

So, if you look at the inputs and outputs of a specific sub system then there can be a net decrease in entropy because it is only a sub system of a much larger system. The entropy increase might not be in that sub system, but in the system as a whole the entropy will increase.

 

For example: Take a bag of glass beads that come in two types: Red and Blue. As these are in a single bag they will be mixed up and this represents a state of high entropy. One can then sort them into two piles, one Red and one Blue. These piles both are of low entropy as they are both highly organised.

 

If one only looks at the inputs (the bag with rad and blue beads mixed) and outputs (the two piles of beads of a single colour) of the system, then you will see a miraculous decrease in entropy.

 

However, in the universe as a whole, the act of sorting these beads will have requiered energy and thus increased the total entropy of the universe. If you do the calculations of how much the total entropy has been increased through the expendature of energy and how much it has been decreased by the sorting of the beads, then you will find that the entropy increase far exceeds the amount of entropy decrease.

 

Thus, even though the inputs and outputs of the system seem to indicate an net decrease of entropy in violation of termodynamics, when you look at what is actually going on, you can easily see that there has been a net increase in entropy.

 

This is the same as it is with evolution. Sure, there is a local decrease in entropy, but to do so there has been a much more massive increase in entropy due to the energy from the sun and the lost information from organisms that have died off.

 

But, if you think that because sorting beads requiers a "mind" to sort them, then considder the sorting of different sized pebbles on a beach due to wave and tidal forces. This is a sorting effect, but to do so the energy contained in the water has to disipate and thus increases entropy more than the decrease in entropy caused form the sorting of the different sized pebbles.

 

 

This is a purely physical only process that causes a local decrease in entropy. Not only that it is a natrual selection process that does not requier human intervention or the intervention os a mind (it is purely physical processes). Of course, these pebles don't have the other requierments of evolution (replication with veriation - although there is creation of them by other physical processes).

 

So this request of a physical only process has been answered (many times now). There is absolute proof that physical only processes can, and do, create local decreases in entropy. If you don't believe me, just go down to your local beach or stream and see for your self how physical only processes can sort objects and create low entropy.

 

The posited changes are tens, hundreds and even thousands of steps apart, and there are no signs that the intermediate steps even exist. This is like saying one can walk across the Pacific Ocean without falling in the water because after all Hawaii is a stepping stone along the way. The video explains almost nothing. It is but another false analogy.

Your analogy is bad because the video was not saying that it can make a jump, but that when you remove unnecesary things, it can appear to make jumps. In other words, you misunderstood the video.

 

The better analogy is saying that because you can't see any boats on Hawaii, a person must have jumped there. But, because once a person reaches Hawaii, they no longer nead the boat, it could leave or be destroyed (or some other thing that ment it was no longer on Hawaii).

 

As your analogy is the exact opposite of what the video was saying (and I was saying), your argument does not hold. You to come up with another argument that actually addesses the issue.

 

Only if the steps to the balcony actually exist. Your descriptions are of the ground and of the balcony but never the steps. But I keep asking for the steps. Where are the steps? Where is even one actual case of a four step evolutionary progression.

As the video explained, the steps can be removed after you have reached the balcony. In that case, when you go looking for the steps, you don't find any and thus simplisitically conclude that the person jumped up there contrary to known physical reality.

 

Experiments have shown that there do indeed exist small steps between each point, however, due to the constraints of this formum, I can not provide such lengthy explaination. In the links on the videos, it directs you to such research. They provide you with all the steps.

 

Actually the Eye has been shown that known, single step changes to the DNA, it can be evolved from a patch of light sensitive cells to a fully formed eye similar to our own (and only in a few thousands steps - oh wait, a few thousand is more then four).

 

To summerise this process in a shortened form:

 

1) A Patch of cells, through the repition of Hox genes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene ). Gene duplication mutations are single step mutations.

 

Advantage: Larger patches of cells are able to gather more light and thus respond more accurately. Also, they can provide a direction of movment of whatever is casting a shadow.

 

2) The patch of cells can become concave by the reduction (removal) of the Hox genes. Gene removal mutations are single step mutations.

 

Advantage: A concave patch of cells give the organism a stronger directional sense of whatever is casting shadows.

 

3) Mucous can fill the concave pit where the patch of light sensitive cells are. Mucous production is controled by the DNA of the cell. Gene duplication of Mucous protein sites or removal of genes to limit mucous production will enable this to occur. As said before, gene duplication and removal are single step mutations.

 

Advantage: This protects the cells of the proto eye from damage, and their higher refractive index will help focus the light and give a more defined image.

 

4) The mucous can be modifed to form a harder surface, or by producing a slightly different type of mucous from certain locations around the rim. Slight changes to proteins are single step muations, and the differences between the protines that make up the surface of the eye and make up the fluid in the eye are know to be very similar (only a few steps different and each step, by giving more protection and foccusing ability ends up as single step muations - I just combined there her efor the sake of brevity).

 

Advantage: A Harder surface gives more protection and the more dense surface gives an even better ability to focus the image.

 

5) The hard surface and be increased in thickness. Again this is gene duplication and such are single step mutations.

 

Advantage: Better focus and protection for the eye.

 

6) The surface of the eye gains a lense shape. This is through modification of the Hox genes (again) and each step that gives a more lense shape gives an advantage in ability to focus images. This this series of single step mutations has been combined into a single point here for the sake of brevity.

 

Advantage: Better ability to focus the image

 

7) The mucous inside the eye becomes more clear and less able to focus light. Again, each step of this is a single step mutation but combined here for the sake of brevity.

 

Advantage: This allows more light to reach the light sensitive cells at the back of the eye thus increasing the organism's visual accuity.

 

We now have an eye arrived at by single step mutations, and with natural selection caused by advanages of the new structures.

 

Does that answer your concern?

[cypress]

Cypress, in past posts we had a disagreement over entropy considerations and the length of a peptide or protein that could spontaneously polymerize in a prebiotic solution of amino acids. The following is an example of a short peptide (8 residues, linear) spontaneously (in thermodynamic terms) dimerizing with it's self complement sequence. Though this in itself is unremarkable, and chemically predictable, the fact that the peptide dimer went on to conglomerate into a macroscopic structure is somewhat noteworthy.

 

How was the 16 residue peptide formed?

 

The self assembly into a macroscopic structure was controlled by the specific amino acid sequence's tendency to form [math] \beta [/math]-sheets. However, the remarkable aspect is that the macrostructure was not degraded by the addition of 1% SDS (sodium dodecyl sulphate, common denaturing surfractant) @90 C for 4h. Nor was it degraded by pH 1.5, 3.0, 7.0, or 11. Finally it couldn't be beaten by 8M urea (yes 8 molar!) or even 7M guanidine hydrochloride (arguably the most aggressive denaturing agent). To be fair I'll add that it was quite susceptible to physical degradation.

 

What similarity if any does this example of regularly repeating 8 and 16 residue units have to the assembly process of biologically active polymers?

 

Point being that information is often selected for by nature because the chemical holders of this information display chemical properties that inherently favor the survival of the information.

 

Natural processes seem to select patterns based on deterministic binding tendency of regular structures, only a limited number of regular structures will form based on specific sub components. Biologically active polymers have irregular sequences and form based on transcription from a blueprint contained on a high entropy carrier. The configurations are driven by formal information. Change the information and the configuration is changed. Any configuration will form. Any sequence will form based on the blueprint. However, very few of these sequences form biologically active proteins.

 

This oligopeptide macrostructure is chemically tough by anyone's measure. I don't know of many amide linkages that can take pH 1.5 and pH 11. No, this doesn't conclusively prove the chemical development of life from non-life but it does show how specific chemical coincidences of properties can add up to an increased stability of information.

 

I don't think it does. Deterministic processes don't increase information, they can't because no alternative configurations are possible and so no alternatives are eliminated.

 

That amino acid sequence has a very good chance of being preserved in a primordial pool. I think it is not a far stretch to imagine this spontaneously formed protein pore getting randomly trapped inside a lipid micelle of sufficient size to form an even more stable pre-life information carrier . This becomes more and more apparent as the modern advent of inclusion chemistry is realized.

 

S Zhang et al.

 

The full version of the article is available free...click on the "full text PDF" link in the right hand column.

 

The reason I am so convinced of the spontaneous evolution of life is that the deeper and deeper we delve into possible chemical mechanisms for the origin of life the more we find that there seem to be an infinite number of chemical routes to the formation of increasingly stable soluble macrostructures through mild conditions.

 

All investigations of chemic processes reveal nothing but the chemical laws we already know. the challenge to explain biological processes as an outgrowth of chemistry is equivalent to explaining the derivation of biological information. On this point, chemical discovery has been helpless. Until one can explain the source of this information order the progress seems to be superficial window dressing.

 

*By the way on a lighter note, look at this guys circular dichromism spec. That must have been some clean stuff! He's got nice correlation where [math] \beta [/math]-sheets usually look nasty from random stacking interactions. Not relevant to the debate, but scientifically noteworthy.

 

Yes, nice.

[Edtharan]

Until one can explain the source of this information order the progress seems to be superficial window dressing.

It has been explained: Low entropy enrgy can drive processes. Processes can create information...

 

I don't think it does. Deterministic processes don't increase information, they can't because no alternative configurations are possible and so no alternatives are eliminated.

 

As I have explained, an energy input in the form of water flowing down hill, can sort stones and pebbles according to size. This sorting is a form of information order and it is created by a process driven by energy (btw: the energy of the water is derived from the sun through evaportation and eventual precipitation).

 

Order, and information can be creagted from processes. There are million, if not billions, of examples if you just go outside and look. They are extremely common and easy to find.

 

Here is another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Permafrost_stone-rings_hg.jpg

 

This is only formed by the frezing and thawing of water in the soil and it causes the ground to assume these higly ordered states. Yes, it is true, processes, when driven by energy, can create order - even in completely natural environments without the aid of any inteligent agent.

[Ophiolite]

Through deterministic processes, though these higher elements are not complex in the same sense as functional information, so other than as a logical fallacy I don't see your attempted point. Are you suggesting that these deterministic physical processes generate functional information and information order?.

They generate complexity. In what way do you think the complexity of an element, composed of fundamental particles, differs significantly from the complexity of a molecule composed of atoms? Are you surprised that since the constituent components are different that there will be some difference in the natureof the complexity? Are you claiming this difference is significant? apparently so?

 

Define then, if you will, the difference - in detail - of the functional information you say is present in molecules, but not in elements.

[cypress]

They generate complexity. In what way do you think the complexity of an element, composed of fundamental particles, differs significantly from the complexity of a molecule composed of atoms? Are you surprised that since the constituent components are different that there will be some difference in the natureof the complexity? Are you claiming this difference is significant? apparently so?

 

Is complexity in the sense you mean synonymous with low probability states? It does not appear to be the same. My argument is based on probability theory. I don't know one way or another about any significant differences in complexity in the sense you mean. I don't see any difference in molecular configuration and the probabilities of those discrete states and the probabilities of subatomic particle states.

 

Define then, if you will, the difference - in detail - of the functional information you say is present in molecules, but not in elements.

 

I don't think there is much of a difference since information is based on probability and elimination of alternative configurations. It would seem that information in some form is present wherever probability is less than 1. Information is available when the probability can be determined. This is why deterministic processes cannot import information since they cannot change the probability of a configuration.

[Moontanman]

Cypress, my hats off to you, you have presented the best argument in defense of ID I have seen. While I have little formal education I totally grasp the idea of natural processes creating information, I've experienced it in the way the ocean can sort materials. Simple random wave motions can produce some astounding examples of design, about 30 years ago i was beach combing, something I did almost every day then by walking miles of beach, one nice winter day i found a piece of brick vaguely shaped like a Valentines Day Heart. Bricks had been dumped to make a sea wall about 50 years before and the ocean in this area had been breaking down and smoothing these fist sized pieces of bricks for decades. As I walked along i found several more pieces of brick shaped like hearts but they were beginning to be closer and closer to being perfectly heart shaped. In a stretch of beach maybe 10 meters long there were many of these heart shaped pieces of brick and in the center of the stretch of beach i found several pieces of brick that were perfectly heart shaped. As I moved away from this area heart shaped pieces of brick became more rare until they disappeared completely and in a few more meters the pieces of brick disappeared completely.

 

In that small stretch of beach not only did the ocean sort out all the bricks into a 100 meter stretch of beach the ocean sorted them by shape, one of those shapes looked like something I was familiar with. An interesting side note, an older woman who was walking near by came over to see what I was looking at and she saw the heart shaped bricks and commented "Isn't wonderful how God shaped those pieces of brick into hearts? It just shows how much he loves us" She obviously saw gods hand in the heart shaped brick pieces but does god really have to be invoked to explain information? If what i saw as information was randomly created and sorted out by the ocean in a few decades i can see natural processes creating any amount of order (which is really what should be said here instead of information)

 

Now while this story is interesting it should also be said the ocean had sorted nearly all the brick pieces by shape as well, there were small cylinders, ovals, small spheres all sorts of regular shapes among all the irregular shapes and all of them were sorted to shape and size, even the irregular pieces were sorted as to similar shapes and sizes. Now unless god had sorted them out or aliens had sorted them out natural processes had to the the method of such order.

 

While i commend you for your debate abilities so far you have given nothing new to the ID idea, it still totally fails and just because we can use our intelligence to design a heart and carve that heart out of stone so can the ocean with random movements and lots of time and no intelligence what so ever...

[cypress]

While i commend you for your debate abilities so far you have given nothing new to the ID idea, it still totally fails and just because we can use our intelligence to design a heart and carve that heart out of stone so can the ocean with random movements and lots of time and no intelligence what so ever...

 

Nice story. Do you think it was the random motion of the waves alone or deterministic physical characteristics of density and hardness and the interaction of buoyancy in the sand and water that caused the shapes and the sorting you observed?

[Moontanman]

Nice story. Do you think it was the random motion of the waves alone or deterministic physical characteristics of density and hardness and the interaction of buoyancy in the sand and water that caused the shapes and the sorting you observed?

 

 

I've been beach combing for almost 40 years now, the ocean sorts out stuff by shape, size density, even species of shells. I've seen piles of telephone pole sized piling and patches of sand flour fine, to rocks as big as basket balls. Even dead creatures sorted out by size and shape, it's a fascinating process and never fails to amaze.

[cypress]

I've been beach combing for almost 40 years now, the ocean sorts out stuff by shape, size density, even species of shells. I've seen piles of telephone pole sized piling and patches of sand flour fine, to rocks as big as basket balls. Even dead creatures sorted out by size and shape, it's a fascinating process and never fails to amaze.

 

I've observed the same, the beach can be a place of amazement. What though do you attribute the sorting? Do you say it is random wave action or deterministic laws of density force and kinetic motion?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd say yes.

[Moontanman]

I've observed the same, the beach can be a place of amazement. What though do you attribute the sorting? Do you say it is random wave action or deterministic laws of density force and kinetic motion?

 

 

i would say the differences between the particles and energy input of the waves, with out the energy input everything just sits but add energy and things happen, order and arrangement is driven by energy, an earth quake can sort things as easily as wave action or the heat and chemical energy of volcanoes, wind can do the same things, add energy and things happen, different particles react differently to the energy input resulting in order.

[cypress]

So the kinetic energy enable change. Without the deterministic processes of density, hardness, buoyancy and such, do the random processes produce sorting and similarity of shape or is it the deterministic processes that perform the sorting and shape distribution?

[Mr Skeptic]

The sorting is done by random processes, most definitely not deterministic. Deterministic sorting would be perfect but these aren't perfect sorting. A more easily reproduced example is putting little things in a box and shaking it sideways or vibrating; they will quickly get sorted based on some properties (size, density, probably friction too).

[cypress]

So it is the properties then that are responsible for sorting, right? The random process simply provides the mechanism for movement and thus determines the time (based on probability) it takes to complete the sorting process.

[Moontanman]

So it is the properties then that are responsible for sorting, right? The random process simply provides the mechanism for movement and thus determines the time (based on probability) it takes to complete the sorting process.

 

 

No cypress, it's the synergy of energy input and the properties of the particles, with no energy input the properties of the particles would not result in any sorting. If the particles were not different in some way energy input would not result in any sorting of the particles at all. Both must be there to result in order from disorder.

[Mr Skeptic]

So it is the properties then that are responsible for sorting, right? The random process simply provides the mechanism for movement and thus determines the time (based on probability) it takes to complete the sorting process.

 

No. It is the random processes that do the sorting. You can test this. Put the items in a box and let them sit, and they do not get sorted regardless of their properties. Shake the box, and they get sorted. So with the properties, there is no sorting, with the random process there is sorting.

 

There are two random processes at work with different results. First, putting the items in sorts based on which item was placed in first. Second, shaking the objects randomly rearranges them, but the details depend on properties of the items and also the properties of the shaking. The sorting will continue until it reaches equilibrium, but it won't be perfect sorting. The effect is similar to how particles in a refrigerator randomly collide in such a way that the particles inside a refrigerator lose energy and the ones outside gain energy. If you pretend that particles don't exist, you could pretend the process was deterministic, but if you look carefully you will see that thermal motion is random but with the quantity of particles involved any statistical differences become near certainties. So while a naive person with limited knowledge of physics might think the process deterministic, if they look closely it is in fact random and it is simply statistical likelihoods rather than determinism. In addition, the deterministic model does not provide a causal mechanism that is consistent with reality.

[cypress]

No. It is the random processes that do the sorting. You can test this. Put the items in a box and let them sit, and they do not get sorted regardless of their properties. Shake the box, and they get sorted. So with the properties, there is no sorting, with the random process there is sorting.

 

But if one were to place numbered objects in the box but otherwise there were no other differences in physical properties would they get sorted by random processes? Entropy considerations say they won't. How about taking the objects from the previous case where the physical differences did exist but the random shaking was replaced by a determinist process of measuring and placement based on the physical differences? How about using the numbered objects and sorting them based on a deterministic process of reading the numbers and placing them based on the numbered values? From this it seems that random processes are neither necessary nor sufficient, while determinist processes are both necessary and sufficient, correct?

[Moontanman]

But if one were to place numbered objects in the box but otherwise there were no other differences in physical properties would they get sorted by random processes? Entropy considerations say they won't. How about taking the objects from the previous case where the physical differences did exist but the random shaking was replaced by a determinist process of measuring and placement based on the physical differences? How about using the numbered objects and sorting them based on a deterministic process of reading the numbers and placing them based on the numbered values? From this it seems that random processes are neither necessary nor sufficient, while determinist processes are both necessary and sufficient, correct?

 

You are assuming that numbers are real, they are not, they are simply human constructs, no amount of energy input will sort a human idea. There have to be real differences between the particles not some arbitrary human idea of numbers. the synergy between energy input and some physical difference between the particles is what creates the apparent order of sorting, you cannot shoe horn the human concept of numbers into the idea.

[cypress]

You are assuming that numbers are real, they are not, they are simply human constructs, no amount of energy input will sort a human idea. There have to be real differences between the particles not some arbitrary human idea of numbers. the synergy between energy input and some physical difference between the particles is what creates the apparent order of sorting, you cannot shoe horn the human concept of numbers into the idea.

 

I could just as easily suggested different colored rocks of equal density and shape. Random processes alone would not sort these but deterministic processes alone can. The point of course is that random processes are neither sufficient nor necessary to accomplish the sorting you and skeptic suggested. This is as expected because entropy laws inform us that random processes acting on a system will drive the outcome configuration to the discrete states with the highest probability. When deterministic processes are also involved, these add constraints that limit the permutations and alter probability distribution, but either way the random process by virtue of entropy considerations drives the system to the highest probability over time, which is partial sorting if gravity and density differences are involved.