Posted on 06/15/2003 10:36:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
What do you mean by proof? As I already said, proof is only for mathematics or formal systems. In science we can only demonstrate something beyond reasonable doubt and this is the case with the big bang.
If you don't believe me I suggest you go to Prof. Wright's Cosmology Tutorial or read some books on this topic.
Pardon me, but depending on the question, both theories about whatever it is could very well be wrong, or both could be partially right. Life is very rarely so neat and clean as to present you with exactly two possible answers, one absolutely right, and the other absolutely wrong. ;)
At first, the quote did not seem to be logicly supportable and you pointed out the obvious flaw; and you could be correct.
On the other hand, that logic may not apply to the macro-evolution v. intelligent design/special creation debate. The positions are so diametrically opposed that it is impossible to reconcile, or synthesize these opposing positions into one conclusion without utterly refuting both sides. While man cannot fully comprehend the designer and his methods, one can still readily support the conclusion that there is a creator.
Also, since in this debate no one has prososed a scientific model other than macro-evolution or creation/intelligent design, it is logical to conclude in this case that one must be true and the other false. This being this situation we find ourselves in, if one of the positions can be demonstrated to be false based on science and the observable evidence, the opposite position must be true.
Can this be determined with absolute certainty. Probably not. Can it be determined to the point where one might risk his very life and soul on it? Absolutely, because I have done it!
Evolutionists are so eager to point out that those who believe in the God of the Bible base their belief in a Creator soley on faith unsupported by evidence, yet those same evolutionists base their faith in evolution on mere speculation and suppositions which they claim to be facts. Merely stating that macro-evolution is a fact just because one makes the claim is no different than claiming that black is white. The truth stands on its own, and does not change merely on the whim of a man.
All over the internet and in public forums hither and yon, the battle rages between Biological Evolution and the Intelligent Design Movement. When the evidence is descriptive, the format of the debate reminds one of a courtroom. But when the subject turns to mathematics, the format of the debate narrows to such issues as "irreducible complexity."
I aver that it doesn't matter who wins this particular contest. Even if the "movement" were crushed tomorrow, the mathematicians and physicists are already in the fields of molecular biology and evolutionary biology. And there are far too many Platonists (weak and strong, naturalized and not) to sustain any "just so" stories.
Alamo-Girl: What a glorious essay. It took me three hours to read it. And every single paragraph paid dividends.
Need some more time to think it through; but for openers, I thought the following was laugh-out-loud hilarious:
"The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") consists of $1.35 Million (USD) paid directly to the winner(s). The Prize will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. To win, the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s).
Bet you anything, the prize committee will be sitting on that cash 'til Kingdom come, given those criteria! (Which are so descriptive of the profound epistemological and institutional problems that science needs to confront these days; or so it seems to me.)
Some readers have complained that mathematicians and physicists shouldn't go dabbling around in biology, 'til they actually get an education in biology first.
Hmmmmmmm.... There's another way to look at the problem:
The eye has 130 sites. That means there are 20 to the power of 130 possible combinations of amino acids along those 130 sites. Somehow nature has selected the same combination of amino acids for all visual systems in all animals. That fidelity could not have happened by chance. It must have been pre-rpogrammed in lower forms of life. But those lower forms of life, once-celled, did not have eyes. [emphasis added]
If Schroeder isn't speaking of "biology" here, then whut the hail is his topic???
I am simply fascinated, A-G, with the problem that Pattee raises. Thank you so much for reprising Wolfram for me, with one of the most startling observations of his text. And Schroeder -- his insights are liberating.... IMO.
I would point out that a 20^130 possible combinations does NOT imply a probability of 1:(20^130) of a particular conformation actually occuring -- apples and oranges. This is a very common and slippery fallacy. Some conformations have astronomically smaller probabilities than this, and some have astronomically greater probabilities than this. This is a glaringly obvious flaw to anyone with a background in organic chemistry. The phase spaces are highly biased and irregular, making assessments of probability by a simple combinatorial analysis grossly inaccurate. Heck, if this wasn't the case it would make computational chemistry a LOT easier and simpler than it actually is.
Lots of people cling to this argument, but it is a strawman. The size of the combinatorial space is not the same as the probability of any particular piece of that combinatorial space occurring. Flawed premise, flawed conclusion. For a simple analogy, think of a loaded dice. Just because it has 6 sides does not mean that the probability of any given side coming up is 1:6 if the dice is loaded. The distribution function matters. A lot.
At any rate, it was Yockey's credibility being called in question so I wanted to see what he thought of the allegations. I am pleased with Yockey's response.
I just wanted to point out that Schroeder was not speaking to probability. He was speaking to the number of combinations. And also he was remarking how strange that nature would use that same combination for all visual systems, that it must have been pre-programmed in the lower life forms which had no use for eyes.
If he were talking probability, a lot of statistical issues would have come up including Bayes theorum no doubt.
If you haven't done so yet, you might want to read the excerpt of Popper's essay at post #47. Perhaps you will agree with me that the very things which disturbed Popper about Marx and Freud are the things which are troubling to many people today about Darwin.
Hugs!
I treasure all your posts and am quite anxious to absorb your musings when you are ready to share them!
Also, I agree that the prize is a hoot and a very difficult challenge. It’s existence also makes the state-of-the-art clear, at least to me.
Indeed, Schroeder is speaking of biology in the same sense that Pattee, Wolfram, Yockey and Rocha are speaking of it. They are looking at the subject through the eyes of mathematics, information theory and physics – and all three are applicable across virtually all science disciplines.
The Pattee document at the link is loaded with good information, but I obviously couldn't excerpt everything I liked (LOL!)
It appears there are at least two theories in the works to avoid the consequences of a singularity at the inception of this universe (the Big Bang.) One of these is Hawking's No Boundary model which relies on imaginary time and is excerpted (from a lecture) in the above article.
The other one is the Ekpyrotic Universe theory. One of Physicist's colleagues, Burt Ovrut, is working on this model. It is in a very early stage, but for anyone interested in reading about it: 'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory
BTW, the phrase "before time began" is only a problem for the materialists. It makes no sense when they use it since matter and its motion are all there is. Creationists, however, acknowledge the existence of the Other which allows for the creation of time. It's an unfair advantage, isn't it?
Evolutionists use it a lot too try to talk away all the missing links.
tortoise answers this very nicely in #148.
Extant phenomena in biology arrived there via extremely biased pathways and with the help of many external variables. Biologists don't suggest that Cytochrome c, to use Yockey's example, arose by chance one fine day from simple molecules in a soup.
Some readers have complained that mathematicians and physicists shouldn't go dabbling around in biology, 'til they actually get an education in biology first.
The wonderful thing about FR is that armchair philosophers vicariously become physicists, mathematicians, and biologists, even without an education.
That may be true, however, the DNA 'dice' are not loaded. Chemistry does not force in any way a particular order of the DNA molecules. There are two proofs for this:
1. DNA molecules do not touch each other in the linear sequence. Instead they are joined 'on the outside' by sugar/phosphate molecules which make equally easy bonds with all four different DNA molecules.
2. If there was a chemical necessity to any particular scheme, we would be seeing that certain possible combinations do not occur. Instead we see all 64 possible combinations of the three bit code appearing in living things.
Seems that evolutionists are moving very close to what intelligent design is saying. Seems they cannot find a random explanation for the evolutution of species that will fit the scientific facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.