Life’s irreducible structure—Part 1: autopoiesis (ID and the Evos make big mistake?)

Journal of Creation ^ | Alex Williams

[GodGunsGuts]

The commonly cited case for intelligent design appeals to: (a) the irreducible complexity of (b) some aspects of life. But complex arguments invite complex refutations (valid or otherwise), and the claim that only some aspects of life are irreducibly complex implies that others are not, and so the average person remains unconvinced. Here I use another principle autopoiesis (self-making)-—to show that all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations...

[GodGunsGuts]

This paper is absolutely fascinating!

[GodGunsGuts]

ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Coyoteman]

This paper is absolutely fascinating!

Creation "science" is getting more ingenious all the time!

As ingenious, and fundamentally wrong, as phlogiston chemistry.

[DManA]

There is something that is motivating the mechanisms of life as we understand them. What says take this blueprint and make a protein now? What tells the what when to do this? Maybe there is a naturalistic explanation for this, maybe not. Maybe it’s like an onion - there’s something behind the something behind, the something behind........

[js1138]

I suppose it depends on how determined you are to remain ignorant.

Not knowing how something works inspires some people to find out. So most of us no longer believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it. Most of us no longer believe arrows in flight need to be pushed along by angels.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

What a load of poop.

No evolutionary biologist has suggested that vacuum cleaners are animals.

[mosaicwolf]

Darn! Wish I could read it. I can’t get the site to open.

[Alter Kaker]

This fellow's argument is certainly obscure, but obscurity does not equal profundity.

There is an unbridgeable abyss below the autopoietic hierarchy, between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environment and the perfect purity, the single-molecule precision, the structural specificity, and the inversely causal integration, regulation, repair, maintenance and differential reproduction of life.

This argument makes no sense. Cells just seem too clean and orderly to be of naturalistic origin? Guess this can't be natural either:

Basically every creationist argument, no matter how gussied up, seems to come from simple-minded incredulity. "That can't possibly be the case," because, well, "it just can't!"

[Alter Kaker]

There is something that is motivating the mechanisms of life as we understand them.

Every day for the last few billion years, the sun has taken millions of tons of Hydrogen and fuses it to produce Helium, releasing huge amounts of energy. What's the sun's "motivation?" What's gravity's motivation?

[G Larry]

Preferred over “As lame, and fundamentally wrong, as evolutionary theory”.

[GodGunsGuts]

Very good observations. Shouldn't science be allowed to ask obvious questions, like “Does the design we see in life require a designer?” Or “Does life's blueprint require an intelligent architect?” Or “Does the program of life require an intelligent programmer?” etc, etc.

[unspun]

Basically every creationist argument, no matter how gussied up, seems to come from simple-minded incredulity. "That can't possibly be the case," because, well, "it just can't!"

Not "can't because it just can't." Extremely unlikely because we don't see it happening in the universe on any consistent enough basis. (Remember the principles of actual science.)

[agooga]

Was just watching the Cosmos series again the other night, and Sagan eloquent and passionate as always, explained that there have been multitudes of competing theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe etc., and because one theory appears to be wrong, the scientific method insists that it be given all possible latitude to prove it’s case.

Creationists are almost certainly wrong, but the world needs all ideas to be explored to their fullest before judgements are made.

Science and God are not mutually exclusive. Many evolutionary biologists are religious. Who’s to say that evolution was not God’s tool to get here from there?

[Gondring]

If silver were to remelt and resolidify every time it didn’t come out round, and this occurred many trillions of times, do you think you wouldn’t get a round deposit of silver?

Likewise on it being iterative...a round disk might not look like much of a coin, but it could be an intermediate step, even if it doesn’t meet the modern neumistmatist’s needs. So even if an eyespot doesn’t provide true vision, it can be an intermediate step toward an eye.

[DManA]

We have good understanding of the mechanism of solar activity. We have a good theory to explain every every molecular reaction from a few seconds after the big bang until today.

A more accurate analogy would be what motivated the Big Bang.

[DManA]

Actually a few microseconds after the big bang.

[PC99]

Is it a valid question to then ask where the hypothetical uber-complex intellegent designer came from, or am I supposed to show reverence and stop there? If the hypothetical complex designer is somehow declared eternal and didn’t require a creator itself, what is the basis for that conclusion, other than pure faith?

[Gondring]

If the Creator truly left as much evidence for Evolution as we have, but Evolution didn’t actually occur, then our Creator’s name is Loki.

[P8riot]

Psalm 139:14 - I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

[P8riot]

Who’s to say that evolution was not God’s tool to get here from there?

God

[GodGunsGuts]

Asked and answered in the paper. You might want to actually read the paper before commenting next time—GGG

[GodGunsGuts]

Thank you! It certainly gives that verse whole new meaning, doesn’t it!!!!

[GodGunsGuts]

Another Evo who has no idea what the paper actually says.

[GodGunsGuts]

==No evolutionary biologist has suggested that vacuum cleaners are animals.

Another Evo who didn’t bother to read the paper.

[G Larry]

Not knowing how something works also inspires many to invent scientifically unsupportable theories and then ridicule doubters.

[Coyoteman]

Was just watching the Cosmos series again the other night, and Sagan eloquent and passionate as always, explained that there have been multitudes of competing theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe etc., and because one theory appears to be wrong, the scientific method insists that it be given all possible latitude to prove it’s case.

Creationists are almost certainly wrong, but the world needs all ideas to be explored to their fullest before judgements are made.

Creationists are welcome to join in the discussion. But if they are going to try to do science, they have to play by the rules of science. These require that they bring evidence to support their arguments, and that evidence is subject to testing. The problem we see so far is that the evidence they bring gets disproved but the creationists still cling to it as if it supported their case. Irreducible complexity is one example; Behe's case has been disproved, but IC is still pushed as the "magic bullet" that disproves the theory of evolution. The RATE Project is another example; creationists spent over a million dollars to show that the beta decay rate was a variable rather than a constant. They found evidence that supported what science said all along, but they refused to believe their own evidence.

These examples, and many more, are why creation "science" is not treated seriously by real scientists. It is apologetics, not real science.

[Caramelgal]

I can’t get the site to open.

Perhaps your computer was poorly designed.

[agooga]

Agreed. Evolution is almost certainly correct. But, you can speculate infinitely on who or what set the natural laws into motion. Why these laws and not others? Change a law or two and the universe becomes completely chaotic and inhospitable. Have there been other universes with laws that prevent atoms from binding together, for instance?

This speculation is rich territory to mine your personal theory of god.

[dan1123]

Cells just seem too clean and orderly to be of naturalistic origin? Guess this can't be natural either:

[Image of Giant's Causeway]

You could have posted a picture of a snowflake or a crystal too, but all of those are not what ID is arguing about. It is not that cells are "orderly" or "clean", but that it is a complex machine that down to the individual molecule does exactly the tasks that are needed and nothing extraneous--compounded by the fact that extraneous functions would likely kill the organism. This is about information and its order-like the difference between randomized bits (or in your case, a repeating pattern of bits) and a well-engineered computer program.

[Gondring]

Have there been other universes with laws that prevent atoms from binding together, for instance?

There have possibly been 932,223,452,481,938,323,879,571,698,879 previous universes.

Note also that recent findings are that the tolerances are not quite as tight as we believed previously.

It doesn't mean there's no god...but it means that we can't use it as evidence of a god.

[P8riot]

Yep! That’s exactly what went through my mind when I read it.

[agooga]

It’s all right to let creationists cling to their beliefs regardless of testable evidence. The Catholic church did not officially forgive Galilleo for his heresy until 1981. I don’t recall that belated offering stopping space exploration or science in the meantime.

[calex59]

Is it a valid question to then ask where the hypothetical uber-complex intellegent designer came from, or am I supposed to show reverence and stop there? If the hypothetical complex designer is somehow declared eternal and didn’t require a creator itself, what is the basis for that conclusion, other than pure faith?

Ok, if you think, and let me make it clear right now I am not a Christian or an ID believer, that you have asked a profound question I.E.: Where did the designer come from? I have one for you. Where did the material that supposedly formed the universe come from? Yes, the big bang theory says all matter was compressed into a very small area and then it exploded, but there the explanation stops. Where did all the dust and debris that compressed into this dime sized spot come from? The explosion didn't create it, it simply spread it out. So tell me in your wisdom, where did it come from? How did it get into space.

Another thing scientist keep alluding to "the Universe" as if the planets and stars were the only thing in the Universe, totally ignoring the space, the totally empty space that the stars, planets, asteroids, comets and meteors hang out in. That is part of the universe. Tell me what it is, where did this vast emptiness come from? And most importantly where did the material that comprises those asteroids, planets, comets, and suns come from?

Saying it exploded in the big bang does not account for its creation, it had to be born so to speak before it could be compressed into a dime sized spot and then explode. Answer this question and then I will happy to listen to evos and creationist, as of now I don't subscribe to either theory.

[js1138]

Not knowing how something works also inspires many to invent scientifically unsupportable theories and then ridicule doubters.

For example?

[agooga]

“Answer this question and then I will happy to listen to evos and creationist, as of now I don’t subscribe to either theory. “

You pose the issue perfectly. Neither science (at least at our level) nor religion is sufficient to answer all of our questions adequately. But science shows infinitely more promise of eventually doing so.

[Gondring]

Picture the board game “Life” (I think that was the one...)

Imagine you have no money. You can get from the bank a $20 and a $20 Promissary Note.

No wealth was “created,” yet you have money and anti-money.

Similarly, could there not have been spontaneous creation of matter and anti-matter?

[dan1123]

If the Creator truly left as much evidence for Evolution [change of allele frequency within a population] as we have, but Evolution [molecules to man] didn’t actually occur...

Fallacy of Equivocation: The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there.

[Alter Kaker]

Not "can't because it just can't." Extremely unlikely because we don't see it happening in the universe on any consistent enough basis.

In the universe? We've observed speciation here on earth. It's difficult to observe speciation elsewhere in the universe, given technological limitations.

[calex59]

But science shows infinitely more promise of eventually doing so.

That isn't necessarily so, but keep believing as you will. I have found that science through the centuries have been wrong most of the time and failed to acknowledge real facts until years, and sometimes centuries, had passed. You do remember tomatoes being poisonous right? Or do you remember the ether? Maybe not but it used to be taught in schools. Also, many, many fake fossils have been submitted to schools and taught as fact. Still being done today. Evolution and creationism, as Christians see it, are both wrong and I am waiting for the truth but think I will not see it before I die.

[Aliska]

Thanks for the interesting article. For all the mysteries that have been unravelled, each answer raises more questions, the pursuit of which must end somewhere, but the onion layers analogy works for me.

In time, more and more mysteries will be solved, especially with the help of more and more sophisticated computers and technology.

Will we ever get to the absolute bottom of it? I'm guessing not, either in this life or the next if there is really one. And even that, if it turns out to be true could potentially have infinite possibilities, which is why I try to keep an open mind to all the possibilities put forth at this point in time and haven't decided it all to satisfy myself one side or another

It just could turn out both sides are right to certain limits, and even other possibilities added to the mix the human mind has yet to conceive and perhaps never will.

[calex59]

Nope because the matter has to exist. You cannot create matter out of nothing, unless of course you have super powers that don’t seem to exist anywhere that I have looked. The same is true of life on the planet earth, no science has been able to explain how it started, it has become so embarrassing to them that they(scientists)are now reduced to the theory that life came here from outer space on an asteroid or some other interplanetary vehicle, thinking this would shut people up but totally ignoring the fact that this does not explain how life started else where in order to be transported to earth. Nope, you can create matter from no matter, period.

[agooga]

I was not alive when the examples you talk about were believed to be real, but I am aware of them— and many more.

The difference between science and religion is NOT that either of them make mistakes. They both do. But that there are internal mechanisms in the scientific process that eventually correct the mistakes through testable, repeatable, peer-reviewed means.

No such provision exists in religion.

Right now, in probably many scientific theory we hold as “true” there are almost certainly flaws and errors that we have no idea exist. In time, these errors will be revealed and corrected.

[agere_contra]

There have possibly been 932,223,452,481,938,323,879,571,698,879 previous universes.

I hope you see the problem with this.

Materialists must posit the existence of quadrillions of randomly appearing Universes in order to allow for the 1 in a quadrillion Universe that can give rise to life.

Deists must only posit the existence of a designer who created time and space.

Neither is a disprovable hypothesis. Similarly no-one can show that there is no God. No-one can show that there aren't quadrillions of random, mutually orthogonal Universes.

The Deist version can at least be proven - if for instance God were to enter His creation. But the materialist version cannot be proven because of the definition of what a Universe is. If you can detect a Universe, you are in it.. So if you detect a remote piece of dark matter in a Brane dimension coiled within an affine space or whatever, it's part of your Universe. The test of an event belonging to another Universe is that you can't detect it.

Any theory of multiple Universes is therefore completely divorced from the Scientific process. It can't be disproved : moreover it can't be proved. A theory that God made the Heavens and the Earth can at least be proved: God only has to make Himself known.

[exDemMom]

You could have posted a picture of a snowflake or a crystal too, but all of those are not what ID is arguing about. It is not that cells are "orderly" or "clean", but that it is a complex machine that down to the individual molecule does exactly the tasks that are needed and nothing extraneous--compounded by the fact that extraneous functions would likely kill the organism. This is about information and its order-like the difference between randomized bits (or in your case, a repeating pattern of bits) and a well-engineered computer program.

Actually, that's not true. Cells do not work in a perfect fashion, nor do they do nothing extraneous. If cells did nothing extraneous--if they worked perfectly--we would not age, get diseases like cancer, or die. The amount of non-functional DNA in cells is huge. Cells "make mistakes" all the time: misfolded proteins, mutated DNA, etc. As machines with a supposedly ideal design for our function, we're pretty poorly engineered, when you get right down to it.

[agooga]

At this time, you are correct, but many cosmologists speculate that it may be possible, some day, to create universes in a laboratory. If this is proven to be a possibility, then it is easy to speculate that given enough time, trillions of universes could have been created in a similar fashion by multitudes of civilizations reaching that state of technology.

It is speculated that such universes would contain their own sets of laws, and that the creators would not be able to interact with their creations in any way.

Who knows. I love cosmology!

[dan1123]

Actually, that's not true. Cells do not work in a perfect fashion, nor do they do nothing extraneous. If cells did nothing extraneous--if they worked perfectly--we would not age, get diseases like cancer, or die. The amount of non-functional DNA in cells is huge.

That's not true. Read up on something a little more modern than a 20 year old biology text please.

[agooga]

In fact it is specifically mutated DNA, a “mistake” in the coding process that leads directly to evolution. Most mutations are bad for the species, but some are good and offer an advantage and this mutation is passed along the genetic chain into future generations.

[agooga]

In fact it is specifically mutated DNA, a “mistake” in the coding process that leads directly to evolution. Most mutations are bad for the species, but some are good and offer an advantage and this mutation is passed along the genetic chain into future generations.