Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
I'll answer both your emails at the same time. You wrote,
>>Hello Mark Our discussion has helped me see the underlying problem here. To state the obvious: 1. We both have a differet 'world views'. 2. these world views include notions on the existence of God, origin of life, morality, etc. 3. These world views are generated by notions that seem reasonable to us in our own heads 4. Ultimately the acceptance of these notions may (read probably) be subjective. <<
We have different 'world-views' they are not 'generated by notions' in our 'heads'. One is humanistic, the other from the bible, known as 'God's Word'. The world is real, and truth is something that exists independently and regardless of what we think. It's not something 'generated' in our heads but remains true regardless of our thoughts. In short, there are absolutes. If there are not, then it's all head thought, and begins and ends with man and men make up their own rules. And in the end, nothings right or wrong, its all subjective and relative.
>>5. This is a universal problem - be it between science and religion, between religion A and religion B, between different sects in a religion and between individuals. what are we going to do about it? Now we can either bounce fairly reasonable emails we won't agree about to each other until we get bored or can we think up sensible ways of sorting our metaphyscial differences?<<
One solution is to reslize believing in a Creator does not conflict science, reason or facts. Looking at the world today, it's everything we would expect based on what the bible says. Man is more than just body, he is spiritual with mind or soul. There is no problem "between science" and the bible. They have always complimented each other. Both need to be carefully read and applied. However, "religion" and science have problems, just as evolution and science have problems.
But belief in God is not contrary to science. The complexity and organization that abounds is proof there is a God. This might seem 'religious', but only because you don't know the Biblical God. But there is design, order and laws in abundance and these didn't happen by chance. No design without a Designer, or order without putting things in order. These are not religious ideas but facts. We understand these with our mind, which indicates there is a Greater Mind. The world has all the signs of been created. And one doesn't need to be religious to understand this.
>>Its like the work of that Gitt chap - he informs your ideas because you accept his 'information' (no joke intended), I think hes a big fake so obviously I reject him.<<
Of course you reject by default comments of those who differ with evolution. You are following the religion of 'evolution' which denies all others but itself. I've read Gitt, he's no 'fake'. That's rubbish! Prove me wrong.
>>How do we settle the basic validation problem here given that we are both interested in understanding 'truth' and convincing other people about it. Unless -of course- your present techniques work and you have a lot of emails every day thanking you for converting them to christianity. - thats just a new thread of discussion - get back to me on entropy as well when you get a chance.<<
I suppose we are attempting to 'settle the basic validation problem' now. Hopefully our minds are not closed so nothing will change them. A good scientist is known by his quest for truth and diligent research, not closed mindedness. I suggest evolution theory is drowning in conjecture, fallacy, and stories and has grown by error. By now you must appreciate some of the problems with the theory, unless you are closed minded.
The 2nd law: It's one of the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences. The amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, or 'entropy' is increasing to a maximum. 'Entropy' is a measure of disorder, or of the decrease in usable energy. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited and the amount of usable energy decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever or it would have exhausted all usable energy and reached 'heat death' (cosmos to chaos).
There is a universal tendency for all systems of matter and energy to run down. Energy is dissipated and order lost. Without a programmed mechanism even 'open systems' will tend from order to disorder, from information to non-information. This is the reason heat flows from hot to cold, and why the sun won't make a dead stick grow. When applied to the origin of life, it denies that such specified complexity can possible arise except from outside information impressed on matter. And it contradicts the chaos to cosmos all by itself, the essence of evolutionary philosophy. (see Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen 'The Mystery of Life's Origin'. Lewis & Stanley. Dallas Texas).
>>Mark 1. Regarding entropy - What I'm trying to get at is that when you suggest mainstream science is 'lying'. You aim to cast doubt on the very same rational processes that has inferred the notion of entropy. Its not very convincing because you're saying "western science is lying except when it agrees with what I think".<<
Not my words but yours. I don't have a problem with 'mainstream science' but with evolution that suffers from speculations, assumptions and limited to man's understanding. It pretends to be science, like alchemy - an erroneous theory that lasted 2,000 years. Alchemists claimed to turn metal into gold, etc. The theory evolved 3 times and dominated and delayed the progress of science for centuries. All based on an incorrect theory.
Evolution (a scientific religion or a plastic philosophy) uses words like 'might be', 'likely', 'could have', 'we think', '100 million', '75 billion' etc., Note the guesses and speculations. They date rocks and fossils according to the theory, their round-figures for ages have countless assumptions, contrary evidence is read to fit. That is not real science, which is limited in dealing with the past. Its regarded as absolute, never questioned, never wrong, any contradictions are dismissed unless they in some way 'agree with what' it teaches.
>>Which remids me - do you agree with the 'Big-bang' theory - thats a predicted 'cosmic start point' in the phyics of entropy. Note the zero information content of matter in the singularity at time zero.<<
The big bang lacks evidence and is not universally accepted by scientists. www.cosmologystatement.org Mainly because of the unanswered questions and problems with the theories on how the moon, galaxies, and solar system originated. There is a popular misconception that it's a proven fact. It has problems - New Scientist Aug.21 1999 p.23-26 & Ap. 16. 1999 p.443-6. As for the assumption of 'zero information' at zero hour. I suppose if you believe explosions in junk-yards result in 747's, it follows that from nothing came everything, and without reason or purpose. Belief in a God however makes more sense, the order and laws in the universe appear placed together by a skilful watch maker.
>>On the complexity/order issue I think the problem here is - as you say - people have different colloquial meanings for terms such as 'complexity', 'organization', 'order- disorder', 'chaos', and 'randomness'. However your ideas prey on people's misconceptions of these words. My point is that although in day-to-day speach you are entitled to use them however you want - science has had to set specific definitions. Trying to predict outcomes from scientific laws using the wrong definitions of the variables is flawed, of course you're going to get the wrong answers.<<
Yet apparently many scientists (even evolutionists) use the word 'complexity' as referring to high information. As quotes show, Prigogine SCIENTIST “All our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms”. Asimov SCIENTIST “in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe” I know you understand what they say, because you make excuses for them. Do they give 'the wrong answers'?
So it's hardly convincing 'complexity' is wrongly used. Most 'people' understand what 'complexity' means. You object because the 2nd law reveals flaws in evolutionary philosophy. I'm not convinced 'the outcome from' the 2nd law is more order, "information" and so evolution. That's a 'wrong answer'. The 2nd law does not mean an increase of order, but a decrease, the opposite to Darwinian evolution.
Only evolutionists would make up a 'definition' that the 2nd law results in everything increasing in information. And claim the human body is orderly and disorderly. To most people that's crazy.
>>You quoted for me the words of Asimov and Prigogine both are using terms in potentially coloquial ways. Prigogine is a physicist talking about biology. Bacteria as we both agree may well seem 'simpler' but they are by no means 'simple'. Asimov is also technically correct when he uses the term 'ordered'. Things can be mixtures of order and complexity, although I suspect asimov is being colloquial in his usage.<<
Yes "things can be mixtures of order and complexity'. Just what I wrote -
"Your first email was based on an error....It's evolution that requires additional information, order and complexity occurring naturally over time...... We never see new information added to the DNA for new structures and functions - which would be an increase of order and complexity."
>>For clarity let me state it thus - living organisms are mixtures of order and disorder. Yes in physical terms we have disorder too - turbulent blood flow, chaotic organization of cardiac impulses, fractal geometry to our pulmonary tree, neural network etc.<<
Asimov and Prigogine are not referring to 'order and disorder'.
'Chaos theory' describes any kind of disorder or confusion. But what appears to be chaos is another layer of more complex order. Scientists use the word ‘chaos’ to indicate simple things that behave in complicated and unexpected ways — things that surprise and confound our ability to predict how they behave. Eg., the weather has surprise built in. It behaves unexpected, no matter how well understood, some things in nature are unpredictable.
Are living organisms mixtures of 'order and disorder'? ‘Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.’ [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life , John Wiley, NY, 1973, p.189] Stomach disorders are a problem, diseases are a disorder. The body is not disorderly, that would be 'misleading' and 'the wrong answer'.
It's amazing evolutionists criticize the human body because the design and order. Darwin had his list of body mistakes and problems. He referred to 'rudimentary' or 'aborted organs' and claimed they were redundant and useless. His followers had medical doctors ripping out body parts left-right and centre. Today medical science has stopped that, why? We know better.
The body is a highly complex and orderly construction. We can't create anything like it. The 'blood flow' is not 'turbulent' or 'chaotic', it's a marvellous circulatory system of networks, valves, glands and muscles, with a vital interaction with every organ, cell, muscle and bone in the body. The blood cells are the best shape possible, to absorb the most oxygen possible and travel with the lest residence possible. The circulatory system has an ingenious system of clotting to protect blood loss and an impressive method dealing with intruders in the body. Not to mention a hundred other amazing things we still don't understand and we're still learning.
The fact is the 2nd law is the reason why the body wears out. All things naturally do over time. Only evolutionists say the opposite – over time wear de-creases. Pull your car to pieces, leave the parts in your garage and wait a thousand years. Will it turn into a car? According to evolutionists it should!
>>In correct terminology very 'highly ordered' system cannot sustain life as they suggest a crystalline structure or metal lattice, with all the atoms arranged in a specific repeating order. Its only when systems have reduced order (increased entropy) and become aperiodic (ie. chaotic) that they can really have much information content.<<
A common mistake of evolutionists is to assume that the random occurrence of order (repetitive, low information) in nature, such as crystals and snowflakes, provides insight into the generation of complexity (nonrepetitive, high information). Dr J.Sarfati (Physical Chemistry) says, "The difference between crystals in rocks and proteins in living organisms is profound. Break a crystal and you just get smaller crystals; break a protein and you don’t simply get a smaller protein; rather you lose the function completely. Large crystals have low information content that is simply repeated, while the protein molecule isn’t constructed simply by repetition. Those who manufacture proteins know that they have to add one amino acid at a time, and each addition has about 90 chemical steps involved."(p.158-9 Refuting Evolution. AiG 2002).
>>This is the point behind shannons informational entropy, look at these sequences -> What number follows? 01010101010101010101 is highly ordered. not got much information. 0% uncertainty on next number. (0 bits) 00101110101010011110 less ordered can't predict next number very easily, but we are only ~50% uncertain. (1 bit system) 01012001201102102100 even less ordered, theres been some '2' mutations. At equal frequency we approach ~66% uncertainty over the next number. (~1.3 bit content to next number) 3t92451235945rl239459 - very disordered. Whats the next letter? (-> given frequency of occurence, and number of possible terms, Shannons information equation can tell you the information content of the system!) But - important point - in the physics of entropy the information content is proportional to the 'entropy' of the system. Our first system (0101010) could not hold Shakespeare but the 2nd, 3rd and 4th could because they are a aperiodic, yet deterministic (although we may not know what the rules are).
The numbers are 'complex' to you, but to me the lists become more random and unlikely to contain useful information. With life forms the information code DNA/RNA needs to be perfect to start with or there is no life. If corrupt there will be sickness or no life. Mutations don't result in evolution. Hugo de Vries, (1848-1935) was the first who believed they did. He discovered an unknown variety of Primrose and launched the theory of mutation: which is now an essential part of the canon of faith in the theory of evolution. Today there is a growing sense of dissatisfaction about mutations as the accepted mechanism of evolution. Many diseases are linked to mutations.
"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations towards a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder." [Grasse 'Evolution of Living Organisms' Acad. Press NY 1977 p.97,98]. The latest evolutionary theory to solve the mutation problem is "punctuated equilibrium".
>>Now it would take a VERY long time to generate shakespeare, but evolution doesn't call for that – it starts with the notion of the very simple.<<
From "the notion of very simple" its not possible to get the books of 'Shakespeare' over time without intelligence. The DNA is a code of information. Information how to make eyes, ears, hands, brains etc. Information how cells are made. It must be pre-written without mistakes and the slightest mutation from copying causes serious problems i.e., "disorders".
There is so much information that "If all your DNA strands were stretched out, they would reach to the Moon 6,000 times" (p.25 Science Facts for kids G Campbell & M Devins Egmont Books. GB 02). "If all the DNA in a human body was laid end to end it would stretch 50 billion kilometers (from the sun to the edge of the solar system) Each cell in the human body contains more information than the entire 30 vol. set of the Encyclopedia Britannica" (p.64 Investigate. Jn 02 Ian Wishart). How long would take DNA 'Data' to randomly fall in to place for it to function? You answer,
>>With physics saying that entropy/informational capacity appears in physical system as they become disorganised I don't think useful information just pop's up immeadiately. This is brought out by the 2 Billion year wait from the earths formation before the first fossil records of 'simple' organisms. The first 'low information' pre-cellular replicators are likely to have been short single molecules possibly chains of ~20-30 nucleotides. The other two features of evolution - Mutation (random errors) and survival/selection(death of the unfit) are both very entropic processes as you'll agree. We see then that these three entopic processes generated and maintain life - much the same way the entropic preocesses generate and maintain complex phenomena such as weather systems, solar systems, earth quakes, stock markets, traffic jams. You may not agree but this is all fairly mainstream stuff.<<
So '2 billion years' is enough time for the information to fall together? Why only 2 billion? If you unraveled the strand of DNA of the 'simple' E. coli bacteria, it would only go around the equator 3 times! How long do you think it would take DNA 'Data' to randomly fall into place for it to function? Like getting 'heads' off a coin a million times in a row.
There has not been enough time for naturalistic processes to account for information in living things. That's why evolutionists need billions of years because what they propose is so ridiculous they think more time solves the problem. Today we know that time destroys information, it doesn't make information. Time is the enemy of evolution not the assistant, because the more time, the more likely information is lost or damaged. As cells divide into cells they can mutate.
Although the simplest one-cell creatures are mind-bogglingly complex, they never accidentally increase information (ie, a coding for new structures, functions, greater complexity). Any mutations don't involve increasing information but a decrease. Pierre-Paul Grasse - "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution" [Evolution of Living Organisms. Acad. Press NY 1977 p.88].
Natural selection is not evolution. It can favour some information and cause some information to be lost, but it can't create new information. Living things are programmed to pass on information and make copies. The DNA is copied and passed on via the parents. That information is never improved, unless someone with a huge amount of information knows how to add new information to DNA.
Natural selection gets rid of information it doesn't create it. No amount of breeding or selection will produce a variety of species where there has been a total loss of information. In evolutionary theory, the role of creating new information is given to mutation - random, accidental mistakes which happen as this information is copied. We know mistakes happen and are inherited (the next generation copies from a defective copy). So the defect is passed on and eventually another mistake occurs, so mutationaldefects accumulate. A bird can loose it's ability to fly but a flightless bird doesn't regain the loss of information to fly.
So your explosion in junk-yard and natural selection will not produce a 747. Because storms, mutations, earth-quakes, disorders, are a break down - fall apart - not falling together.
>>2. Evolution as religion? Well - all science like religion is indeed a dawkin-esk meme, we keep science around not because it offers us immortality or spiritual realization – but because it does useful things like produce cars, antibiotics, maths, washing machines, etc. Evolutionary biology has proved useful in the last 30 years - by making useful prediction about human and animal population genetics. I'm tracking African evolution in response to Malaria. In fact we use a maths program to model parts of this process for us. You'll not be surpised to hear the program is named after the maths -'Entropy'.<<
Please realize the boundaries of real science (ie that 'produce cars' etc) is not based on speculative theories that are neither tangible nor tested scientifically like evolution. Don't confuse biology with evolution. One relates to workable science, the other is an unproven assumption, a philosophy. One is the study of living/dead organisms, the other an attempt to infer how organisms came to exist.
Regarding 'genetics', Prof., R. B. Eckhardt (Ph.D human genetics and anthropology) wrote, “Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as man’s hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no." (Population genetics and human origins. Scientific American", vol.226 (1), Jan.72, p.94).
You have faith in a universe which consistently generates its own complexity (in violation of its own laws), faith in unfound fossil links, in unobservable biological mechanisms and unobservable transformations which are unrepeatable by definition.
>>I'll take a closer look at Gitt, but from the sounds of his work I would suspect hes not being scientific because he makes up notions to back-up his religious views, without recourse to experimental evidence. I'll have a look at his additions to the literature. Gitt's arbitary distinctions of information into flavours is fairly unconventional, it obviously suits his purpose. Gitt likes to demote 'statistical' information - but is this just because he sees the implications of the real sceince as threatening? Claude Shannon fortunately did think about 'impact' and 'content' of information -read some background on him and the maths - 'impact' and 'content' are significant parts of his total informational content.<<
"Shannon" has not written about 'impact' or 'content'. He focuses on statistics and reduces information to something without meaning. Eg., the definition of 'Statistical information' according to Shannon is, any random sequence of symbols, without regard to it's origin, meaningful or not. Or a sequence of symbols measured in bits (see 'A Mathematical theory of Communication' - written in 1948). But nothing is said about the meaning of any sequence of symbols. According to Shannon any 'random' sequence of symbols is regarded as information, without regard to it's origin or meaning. If you think that is better than a code of information employed and understood, then don't write, use that code instead. Or better still, read Gitt's book and see.
Shannon's definition of 'information' entails only one minor aspect of the nature of 'information'. Dr Gitt says, 'the characterisation of the information concept requires all five aspects statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. They are all essential for both the sender and the recipient'. So even with 'statistics' there still must be a 'sender' (for transmission of information). So there must be a God. The higher levels of information concern the thoughts in the senders mind, metaphors, parables, meaning, leading to actions, purpose, conclusions etc. Instead of rubbishing Dr Gitt, read his book.
>>*phew* - This is a tricky discussion to have when we don't accept each other cannon of research. That's why I thought information theory was reasonable ground - its maths basis is objective and understandable by most people. Got any good ideas on neutral territory?<<
Why would I seek 'neutral territory' when Information theory is the nail in the coffin of evolution? The more you study about information, the more its obvious evolution is a fraud. Evolution and creation are two world views irreconcilable to each other with no 'neutral territory'. One has an Almighty Creator with all information that creates creatures with the information necessary at the start. While evolution assumes physical laws and living creatures make themselves. Everything came from nothing (contrary to the laws of nature, science and common sense).
>>I appreciate your need to feel mentally satisfied. We all want truth and meaning - but the universe may not be as nice a place as you want - sure it would be nice to have an omniscient deity looking out for us and ensuring justice<<
I'm 'mentally satisfied' because my faith is based on what I know, not on what I don't know. The problem with evolution is man is reduced to an animal; 'truth and meaning' disappear. Evolution has no fixed point to judge what is true or certain. How can you know what is true, if all is relative? The great Fathers of modern science based their work on the concept of a created 'universe'; so it must be comprehensible, meaningful, orderly, and can be studied. There is no basis for proper study once a Creator is rejected.
>>but it does seem to be "raining on the good and the bad". If on balance there is not be a benign superbeing there we probably should get down to fixing things ourselves.<<
The entrance of evil into the world is the best explanation why the world isn't a 'nice place'. Man caused that by ignoring God's information. Now we all suffer, all die, get sick and work. The 2nd law is running wild and things need 'fixing'. I take constellation that while the earth today is not as God originally intended, in a coming day, He promises a new creation.
>>...and anyway I hear the muslims, the other major monotheism on the planet, are fairly happy with their view of the cosmos. Doesn't make them right though. Right I'm going home for dinner. Its stopped raining. Andrew<<
I suppose there is an argument here that there are millions worldwide who believe there is a Creator. And I suppose that is the reason why even Dawkins admitted that "the more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer" [New Scientist vol.94 15Ap.82 p.130]. And, "We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance" [Blindwatch Marker p.43].