The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

self | January 26, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE

By Jean F. Drew

“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. Autopoiesis provides a compelling case for intelligent design in three stages: (i) autopoiesis is universal in all living things, which makes it a pre-requisite for life, not an end product of natural selection; (ii) the inversely-causal, information-driven, structured hierarchy of autopoiesis is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry; and (iii) there is an unbridgeable abyss between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environmental and the perfectly-pure, single-molecule precision of biochemistry.”

So begins Alex Williams’ seminal article, Life’s Irreducible Structure — Autopoiesis, Part 1. In the article, Williams seeks to show that all living organisms are constituted by a five-level structured hierarchy that cannot be wholly accounted for in terms of naturalistic explanation. Rather, Williams’ model places primary emphasis on the successful transmission and communication of relevant biological information.

Note here that, so far, science has not identified any naturalistic source for “information” within the universe, biological or otherwise. And yet it appears that living organisms remain living only so long as they are “successfully communicating” information. When that process stops, the organism dies; i.e., becomes subject to the second law of thermodynamics — the consequences of which the now-deceased organism had managed to optimally distance itself from while alive.

Evidently Williams finds Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity arguments insufficiently general to explain biological complexity and organization, and so seeks a different explanation to generically characterize the living organism. Yet his proposed autopoietic model — of the “self-making,” i.e., self-maintaining or self-organizing and therefore living system — itself happens to be irreducibly complex. That is to say, on Williams’ model, any biological organism from microbe to man must be understood as a complete, functioning “whole,” transcending in the most profound way any definition of a particular organism as the “mere” sum of its constituting “material” parts.

Further, the idea of the “whole” must come prior to an understanding of the nature and function of the constituting parts. Williams terms this idea of the “whole” as inversely causal meta-information; as such, it is what determines the relations and organization of all the parts that constitute that “whole” of the living organism — a biological system in nature.

Just one further word before we turn to Williams’ autopoietic model. To begin with the supposition of “wholeness” flies in the face of methodological naturalism, the currently favored model of scientific investigation, and arguably the heart of Darwinist evolutionary theory. For methodological naturalism is classical and mechanistic (i.e., “Newtonian”) in its basic presuppositions: Among other things, it requires that all causation be “local.” Given this requirement, it makes sense to regard the “whole is merely the sum of its parts” as a valid statement — those parts being given to human understanding as the objects of direct observation of material events. The presumption here is that, given enough time, the piling up of the parts (i.e., of the “material events”) will eventually give you the description of the whole. Meanwhile, we all should just be patient. For centuries if need be, as a collaborator once suggested to me (in regard to abiogenesis. See more below).

Yet subsequent to classical physics came the astonishing revelations of relativity and quantum theory, both of which point to “non-local” causation. The transmission of information across widely spatially-separated regions (from the point of view of the biological organism as an extended body in time) so as to have causative effect in the emergence of biological life and its functions is decidedly a “non-local” phenomenon. Indeed, non-local causation seems ubiquitous, all-pervasive in the living state of biological organisms, as we shall see in what follows.

Williams’ Autopoietic Model
Williams lays out the five-level, autopoietic hierarchy specifying the living system this way (parenthetical notes added):

(i) components with perfectly pure composition (i.e., pure elements)
(ii) components with highly specific structure (i.e., molecules)
(iii) components that are functionally integrated (i.e., components work cooperatively toward achieving a purpose or goal)
(iv) comprehensively regulated information-driven processes (DNA, RNA)
(v) inversely-causal meta-informational strategies for individual and species survival (we’ll get to this in a minute)

Pictorially, the model lays out like this:

Figure 1 summarizes the five-level, hierarchical specification of any living organism, microbe to man. But how do we get a handle on what this hierarchy actually means?

An interesting way to look at the problem, it seems to me, is to look at the available potential “information content” of each of the five “levels” or “manifolds” of the hierarchy.

You’ll note that Figure 1 depicts an ascending arrow on the left labeled “complexity.” For our present purposes, we’ll define this as “algorithmic complexity,” understood as a function that maximally yields “information content.” If we can find complexity measures to plug into the model, we might gain additional insight thereby.

Fortunately, algorithmic complexity measures have been obtained for certain levels of the hierarchy; i.e., Level (i) and Levels (iv) and possibly Level (v). For the latter two, the measures were taken with respect to the living human being. Figure 1 can thus be expanded as follows:

Notes to Figure 2:

¹ Gregory Chaitin: “My paper on physics was never published, only as an IBM report. In it I took: Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s laws, the Schrödinger equation, and Einstein’s field equations for curved spacetime near a black hole, and solved them numerically, giving ‘motion-picture’ solutions. The programs, which were written in an obsolete computer programming language APL2 at roughly the level of Mathematica, were all about half a page long, which is amazingly simple.”

On this basis, Chaitin has pointed out that the complexity we observe in living systems cannot be accounted for on the basis of the chemical and physical laws alone, owing to the paucity of their information content.

² George Gilder: “In each of the some 300 trillion cells in every human body, the words of life churn almost flawlessly through our flesh and nervous system at a speed that utterly dwarfs the data rates of all the world’s supercomputers. For example, just to assemble some 500 amino-acid units into each of the trillions of complex hemoglobin molecules that transfer oxygen from the lungs to bodily tissues takes a total of some 250 peta operations per second. (The word “peta” refers to the number ten to the 15th power — so this tiny process requires 250 x 10¹⁵ operations.)

A Word about Abiogenesis
Darwin’s evolutionary theory does not deal with the origin of life. It takes life for granted, and then asks how it speciates. Moreover, the theory does not elaborate a description of the constitution of the individual living organism, such as Williams’ irreducibly complex/autopoietic (“IC/AP”) model proposes.

It’s important to recognize that neither Darwin’s theory, nor Williams’ model, deals with the origin of life. It seems to me that evolution theory and ID are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. One deals with the species level, the other the biological structure of living individuals, the “building blocks” of species, as it were.

Yet there is tremendous hostility towards intelligent design on the part of many orthodox evolutionary biologists, which has gotten so bad in recent times that the more doctrinaire Darwinists have run to the courts for “protection” of their cherished beliefs (and interests personal and institutional), insisting that ID “is not science.” Judges are not scientists; in general they are ill-equipped to make judgments “on the merits” of scientific controversies. Yet they render judgments all the same, with profound implications for how science is to be taught. I fail to see how this redounds to the benefit of scientific progress.

If science is defined as materialist and naturalist in its fundamental presuppositions — the currently-favored methodological naturalism — then ID does not meet the test of “what is science?” For it does not restrict itself to the material, the physical, but extends its model to information science, which is immaterial. The problem for Darwinists seems to be that there is no known source of biological information within Nature as classically understood (i.e., as fundamentally Newtonian — materialist and mechanistic in three dimensions).

The problem of abiogenesis goes straight to the heart of this issue. Abiogensis is a hypothesis holding that life spontaneously arises from inert, non-living matter under as-yet unknown conditions. Although evolution theory does not deal with the problem of the origin of life, many evolutionary biologists are intrigued by the problem, and want to deal with it in a manner consistent with Darwinian methods; i.e., the presuppositions of methodological naturalism, boosted by random mutation and natural selection. That is, to assume that life “emerges” from the “bottom-up” — from resources available at Levels (i) and (ii) of the IC/AP model.

There have been numerous experiments, most of which have taken the form of laboratory simulations of “lightning strikes” on a properly prepared chemical “soup” (e.g., Urey, Miller, et al.). At least one such experiment managed to produce amino acids — fundamental building blocks of life (at the (ii) level of Williams’ hierarchy). But amino acids are not life. On Williams’ model, to be “life,” they’d need to have achieved at least the threshold of Level (iii).

For it is the presence of “functionally-integrated components” that makes life possible, that sustains the living organism in its very first “duty”: That it will, along the entire extension of its complete biological make-up (whether simple or highly complex), globally organize its component systems in such a way as to maximally maintain the total organism’s “distance” from thermodynamic entropy. An “organism” that couldn’t do that wouldn’t last as an “organism” for very long.

And so in order for the materialist interpretation of abiogenesis to be true, the “chemical soup” experimental model would have to demonstrate how inorganic matter manages to “exempt” itself from one of the two most fundamental laws of Nature: the second law of thermodynamics.

From cells on up through species, all biological organisms — by virtue of their participation in Levels (i) and (ii) — are subject to the second law right from creation. Indeed, they are subject to it throughout their life spans. A friend points out that the second law is a big arguing point for Macroevolutionists, who try to argue that the second law is irrelevent, i.e., doesn’t apply to living systems, because “it only applies to closed systems and not to open ones.” Thus they say that living systems in nature are “open” systems. But what this line of reasoning does not tell us is what such systems are “open” to.

And yet we know that every cell is subject to the second law — simply by needing to fuel itself, it subjects itself to the effects of entropy, otherwise known as heat death. And although it can and does stave off such effects for a while, doing so requires the cell or species constantly to deal with maintaining distance from entropy in all its living functional components, organized globally. Entropy plays a big part in all life — from cells to completed species.

When the successful communication of meta-information begins to slow down and break down, cells and species then begin to succumb to the effects of entropy, to which they have been subjected all their entire life. This is because they can no longer combat, or stay ahead of the “entropy curve,” due to inefficient communication processes and, thus, degradation of the maintenance procedures communicated to the cells via the meta-information system that is specific to each particular biological entity and to each particular species. After all, any species description is necessarily an informed description.

Yet another origin-of-life approach — the Wimmer abiogenesis experiment — is highly instructive. He managed to “create” a polio virus. He did so by introducing RNA information into a “cell-free juice,” and the polio virus spontaneously resulted.

Wimmer used actual DNA to synthesize polio RNA based on information about the polio virus RNA which is widely available, even on the internet. The RNA information was truly “pulled” from the DNA, which “resides” at the next-higher level. He could not synthesize RNA directly; he first had to synthesize the DNA from the raw information and then synthesize the polio RNA from the synthetic DNA.

Yet RNA information, like all information, is immaterial. In terms of the Williams’ hierarchy, clearly Wimmer had obtained an organism functioning at about Level (iii) — because it had sufficient information to propel it to that level, as “pulled” by the information available at the next-higher level where DNA information “resides” — Level (iv).

Unlike biological organisms expressing all five levels of the Williams model, the polio virus, though fully autonomous as an information processor (leading to its “successful communication” in Wimmer’s laboratory), somehow still doesn’t have everything it needs to be fully “autonomous” as a living being. A virus, for instance, is dependent on a living host in order to execute its own life program. As such, it is a sort of “quasi-life.” Shannon Information Theory helps us to clarify such distinctions.

Before we turn to Shannon, it’s worth mentioning that, according to H. H. Pattee and Luis Rocha, the issue of autonomy (and semiosis — the language and the ability to encode/decode messages) is a huge stumbling block to abiogenesis theory. For that kind of complexity to emerge by self-organizing theory, in the RNA world, the organism would have to involuntarily toggle back and forth between non-autonomous and autonomous modes, first to gather, and then to make use of information content as an autonomous living entity. The question then becomes: What tells it how and when to “toggle?” Further, it appears the source of the information content that can toggle non-life into life remains undisclosed.

Shannon Information Theory
The DNA of any individual life form is exactly the same whether the organism is dead or alive. And we know this, for DNA is widely used and proved reliable in forensic tests of decedents in criminal courts of law. And so we propose:

Information is that which distinguishes life from non-life/death.

Information, paraphrased as “successful communication,” is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in a receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. It is the action which facilitates any successfully completed communication. Thus Shannon’s model describes the universal “mechanism” of communication. That is, it distinguishes between the “content” of a message and its “conduit”: The model is indifferent to the actual message being communicated, which could be anything, from “Don’t forget to put your boots on today — it’s snowing,” to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The value or meaning of the message being transmitted has no bearing on the Shannon model, which is the same for all messages whatever. Pictorially, the Shannon communication conduit looks like this:

Information is further defined by its independence from physical determination:

“I came to see that the computer offers an insuperable obstacle to Darwinian materialism. In a computer, as information theory shows, the content is manifestly independent of its material substrate. No possible knowledge of a computer’s materials can yield any information whatsoever about the actual content of its computations. In the usual hierarchy of causation, they reflect the software or ‘source code’ used to program the device; and, like the design of the computer itself, the software is contrived by human intelligence.

“The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of ‘news.’ Information is defined by its independence from physical determination: If it is determined, it is predictable and thus by definition not information. Yet Darwinian science seemed to be reducing all nature to material causes.” — George Gilder, “Evolution and Me,” National Review, July 17, 2006, p. 29f.

Referring to the Shannon diagram above, we can interpret the various elements of the model in terms of biological utility, as follows:

Note the head, “noise.” Biologically speaking, with respect to the fully-integrated, five-leveled biological organism, “noise” in the channel might be introduced by certain biological “enigmas,” which broadly satisfy the requirements of Williams’ model and, thus, are living organisms. Shannon Information Theory describes such “enigmas” as follows:

Bacteria — typified by autonomous successful communication; bacteria are single-cell organisms. Because they are autonomous entities, communications follow the normal flow in Shannon theory — source, message, encoder/transmitter, channel, decoder/receiver. The bacteria’s messages are not “broadcast” to other nearby bacteria but are autonomous to the single-cell organism.

Bacterial Spores — typified by autonomous successful communication. Bacterial spores, such as anthrax, are like other bacteria except they can settle into a dormant state. Dormant bacterial spores begin regular successful communication under the Shannon model once an “interrupt” has occurred, for instance the presence of food. Anthrax, for instance, may lay dormant for years until breathed into a victim’s lungs, whereupon it actively begins its successful albeit destructive (to its host) communication, which often leads to the death of its host; i.e., the bacterium’s “food source.”

Mycoplasmas — typified as an autonomous bacterial model parasite successfully communicating. Mycoplasmas are akin to bacteria except they lack an outer membrane and so often attach to other cells, whereby they may cause such events as, for instance, the disease pneumonia. In the Shannon model, mycoplasmas are considered “autonomous” in that the communications are often restricted to the mycoplasma itself; e.g., self-reproduction. But because they also act like a parasite, they might alter the host’s properties and thus result in malfunctions in the autonomous communication of the host by, for instance, interfering with the channel.

Mimivirus — typified as an autonomous virus model parasite successfully communicating. Mimiviruses are gigantic viruses. They are viruses because they are parasites to their host, relying on the host for protein engineering. But the mimiviruses (unlike regular viruses) apparently do not need to be a parasite, and thus they are “autonomous” with regard to the Shannon model. But like the mycoplasmas, the presence of mimiviruses can alter properties of the host and thereby result in malfunctions in the autonomous communications of the host by, for instance, interfering with the channel.

Viroids — typified as non-autonomous virus-like noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication. Viroids have no protein coat. They are single strands of RNA that lack the protein coat of regular viruses. They are noise in the channel under the Shannon model; i.e., messages only that are not communicated autonomously within the viroids themselves. They can also be seen as “broadcast” messages, because viroids may cause their own message (RNA) to be introduced into the host.

Viruses — typified as non-autonomous virus noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication. Viruses feed genetic data to the host. They are strands of DNA or RNA that have a protein coat. Viruses are parasites to the host, relying on the host for communication; e.g., reproduction. In the Shannon model, viruses are either noise or broadcasts that are not autonomous in the virus and appear as noise messages to the host. It is possible that, unlike the polio virus which is destructive, there may be some viruses (and viroids) whose messages cause a beneficial adaptation in the host.

Prions — typified as non-autonomous protein noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication (protein crystallization). Prions are protein molecules that have neither DNA nor RNA. Currently, prions are the suspected cause of bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Mad Cow Disease. In the Shannon model, prions would be incoherent in the channel because they have no discernable message; that is, neither DNA nor RNA. Thus the prion would lead to channel or decoding malfunctions.

So far there is no known origin for information (successful communication) in space/time. This should be visualized as activity represented by the arrows on the above illustration. Possible origins include a universal vacuum field, harmonics, geometry.

Shannon’s mathematical theory of communications applied to molecular biology shows genuine promise of having some significant implications for the theory of natural selection in explaining the rise of information (successful communication), autonomy, and semiosis (language, encoding/decoding). — S. Venable, J. Drew, “Shannon Information and Complex Systems Theory,” Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy, Lulu Press, 2006, p. 207f.

It seems worthwhile to note here that, under Shannon’s model, the thermodynamic “tab” is paid when the “molecular machine” goes from the before state to the after state. At that moment, it dissipates heat into the surroundings. Level (v) meta-information successfully communicated to the organism provides it with strategies to counter and compensate for local thermodynamic effects. Ultimately, when the organism reaches a state in which it is no longer successfully communicating, the entropy tab must be paid by ordinary means. And so eventually, the living organism dies.

Putting Williams’ IC/AP Model into Context
So far, the autopoietic model — though it provides an excellent description of the information flows necessary to establish and maintain an organism in a “living state” — seems to be a bit of an abstraction. Indeed, in order to be fully understood, the model needs to be placed into the context in which it occurs — that is, in Nature.

Each living entity as described by the model is a part and participant in a far greater “whole.” Niels Bohr put it this way: “A scientific analysis of parts cannot disclose the actual character of a living organism because that organism exists only in relation to the whole of biological life.” Including the species-specific meta-information unique to any particular species, which also controls and dictates how the entire biological system works as a “whole”; i.e., at the global level. And arguably, not only in relation to the entirety of biological life, but to the physical forces of nature, to inorganic entities, and to other biological beings, including the “enigmas” described above, which appear to be a sort of “quasi-life.” For even though they may be autonomous communicators, some of these “quasi-life” examples suggest an organic state that is somehow not “sufficiently informed” to stand on its own; i.e., they exemplify a state that needs to latch onto a fully-functioning biological entity in order to complete their own “program” for life — the very definition of a parasite.

The single most telling point that Williams’ model makes is that information is vital to the living state; that it flows “downward” from the “top” of his model — Level (v), meta-information — and not from the “bottom” of the model flowing “upwards” by the incremental means characterizing Levels (i) and (ii) — not to mention orthodox Darwinist expectation. On this model, Levels (i) and (ii) “do not know how to fit themselves” into the “biological picture.” For that, they need the information available at Levels (iii) to (v).

Many questions relevant to our exploration of the fundaments of biology have not been touched on in this article — e.g., what is the meaning of “emergence?” What is the manner in which “complexification” takes place in nature? What do we mean by “open” and “closed” systems? What do we mean by “self-ordered” or “self-organizing” systems in nature? (And what does the prefix “self” mean with respect to such questions?)

But since we’re out of time, we won’t be dealing with such problems here and now, though I hope we may return to them later. Instead, I’ll leave you, dear reader, with yet another depiction of Figure 1, this time elaborated to show the total context in which the irreducibly complex, autopoietic model is embedded:

Note the model now sits, not only with respect to its natural environment, but also with respect to the quantum domain of pure potentiality, and also with respect to a (proposed) extra-mundane source of biological information.

I think for the biological sciences to actually progress, a model such as Williams’ IC/AP model is worthy of serious consideration. Remember, Darwin’s theory is wholly classical, meaning dimensionally limited to 3-space, to local, mechanical, largely force-field-driven material causation. Relativity and quantum theory have both moved well beyond those precincts. It’s time for the Darwinian theory of evolution to “catch up” with the current state of scientific knowledge — and especially with the implications of information science.

©2009 Jean F. Drew

[allmendream]

Talk about flailing around. Your disjointed post had no relevance to the subject under discussion. You can call Pluto a “planet” an “extra solar body” or “zugzug” and it doesn't change anything scientific. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

[js1138]

Changes in the ability to metabolize new food sources, such as nylon, requires mutation.

[spunkets]

Re: Information doesn’t exist independent of the physcal machinery that gives rise to it

"That’s not what is being stated- it is beign stated that info exists independent of outside determinations- it exists without being acted upon"

As I said, reality can't be defined out of reality. Also, "being acted upon" is irrelevant. An underlying physical reality is required in order for any and every instance of information to exist. If any information exists, it exists as an instance of configuraiton in an underlying physics.

"the containment doesn’t act upon the information- it simply contains it- it takes outside infromaiton acting upon contained info to activate that info- Nature can not explain how either info can arise however, and htis is the cenrtral issue- not whether there needs to be a containment or not."

Information is not contained in the underlying physics. The underlying physics give rise to it as a real instance of information. THe underlying physics is not simply a box that contains info; the info is properties of the physical configuration.

Re: All that’s needed to know and understand Biology is contained in the underlying physics.

" That’s a fien and noble undertaking, but it doesn’t explain how info can arise- especially hte metainfo being discussed.

Information is the configuration of some underlying physics. Reality has no need for anything contained in the concept of meta-info. The concept of meta -info is purely a creation of mind which is an instance of circular logic. It says that the properties of an assembly, or configuration in an underlying physics must require more physics than what's contained in the physics it arises from. Science has never found that more physics is required to know and understand any assembly, or configuration than the physics required to know and understand any of the constituent parts, or configurations.

[CottShop]

[[Changes in the ability to metabolize new food sources, such as nylon, requires mutation.]]

they require being acted on- the act isn’t the change- nor is it the information being changed, cells are predesigned just as I described in previous posts and show anticipation especially when many systems are affected and have info triggered that goes on to trigger other infos etc.

[tpanther]

Thanks...I figured you might make the point much better than I could by appointing yourself omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent science snob once again.

Errr....I was talking about the classification of Pluto.

Good job!

Two thumbs up!

[js1138]

Changes in the ability to metabolize new food sources, such as nylon, requires mutation.

If you have a source that says otherwise, please provide a link.

[betty boop]

By algorithmic complexity, are you referring to the cellular machinery, or something else?

No. It seems cellular machinery would be in the province of genomic complexity — which in turn is governed by algorithmic complexity as the "instruction set" which tells the genomic instructions what to do. In short, the relation of algorithmic to genomic complexity is as "instructor to the instruction set." So to speak.

BTW, while I'm still thinking about it, I found it rather funny that the Szostak YouTube piece used Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" from the 9th Symphony as background music. For there is absolutely nothing in Szostak that could explain "joy," or "ode," or even "Beethoven."

[CottShop]

[[As I said, reality can’t be defined out of reality. Also, “being acted upon” is irrelevant. An underlying physical reality is required in order for any and every instance of information to exist. If any information exists, it exists as an instance of configuraiton in an underlying physics.]]

You’re talking points irrelevent to the idea that BB was talking about info being able to exist indepenedent of outside physical actions acting upon it.

[[THe underlying physics is not simply a box that contains info; the info is properties of the physical configuration.]]

Well yeah in a sense it is simply because the container isn’t responsible for the action of the information when triggered by outside forces- The coexistence of the container and the info has no bearing on the fact that info can and does exist indepenedent of outside forces acting upon it in hte direct manner specific to that information as it was intended to react as per the instructions contained withion hte info

[[Information is the configuration of some underlying physics.]]

That is is-

[[Reality has no need for anything contained in the concept of meta-info. The concept of meta -info is purely a creation of mind which is an instance of circular logic.]]

Talk about circular reasoning- Reality absolutely does rely on higher instructions- Metainfo is NOT a ‘mind concept- but a biological reality as evidenced by the fact that systems of metainfo are intelligently constructed and display higher function by controlling the reactions that occure when lower instructions are affected for whatever reason- this isn’t a ‘concept’- htis is biological fact- reality- it’s not opinion, it’s not an assumption, it’s a verifiable reality.

The rest of your post is an excersize in confusion I’m afraid- Knowing somethign about parts and assemblies of physical structures is a much different issue than is the interconnected woprkings, controllings and directions of the actual information systems. You are assignign hte value of metainfo to the scientists by claiming htey don’t ‘need more physics’ in order to understand any asembly- Of course they don’t- they are mimicking hte end product of metainfo when they understand the mechanics and assemblies. your arguemt does nothign to rebuttal the need for metainfo- it only goes to strenthen it I’m afraid.

[editor-surveyor]

"In layman’s terms, explain Williams’ Autopoietic Model..."

If such were possible, I'm sure that BB would be up to it, but even then, would it be satisfying? - I have to contend that Williams’ Autopoietic Model cannot possibly scratch the surface of the real problem of supplying a source of life of ever increasing complexity.

Many simplists here; most of them being evolutionist 'groupies,' wish to maintain that an increase in information is possible by random means, but I wish to assert that even the transfer of a constant level of information is impossible by anything other than intelligent, guided means.

Even if we accept the presently known genetic code as a comprehensive plan, said plan still needs an intelligent reader. IOW, a roll of plans cannot build a hotel, an airplane, or a clay pot; it requires a foreman, and a skilled crew. We can see these elements in existance now, but where did the first information receivers come from?

[CottShop]

they require being acted on- the act isn’t the change- nor is it the information being changed, cells are predesigned just as I described in previous posts and show anticipation especially when many systems are affected and have info triggered that goes on to trigger other infos etc.

Not sure what you’re not understandign about htis?

[betty boop]

Physical theory covers the required underly pohysics of the machinery that makes possible any and every instance of information. Without the underlying physics, there can be no information.

So, what are you yelling at me about, spunketts??? I thought I made it very clear that I think life has a physical basis, or it couldn't exist in this world.

The problem is, however, that the information at the level of physics and chemistry cannot account for life. That's the Level (iii) "hit the wall" problem in a nutshell, right there.

[Filo]

That’s where you went off the rails.

Not quite

If 50 doctors pick drug A to be the best drug for hypertension while 50 other docs pick drug B to be the best drug for hypertension and write papers supporting their findings, science is very much, in the end, subjective when it comes to my decision deciding how to lower my blood pressure.

Not at all. Your doctor's choice about which drug to use is subjective, the doctors who chose which drugs to study might have been subjective, but the scientific process used to determine the efficacy of the drugs themselves is quite objective.

The research, studies, peer review, publication and so on are all guarantees that, in the end, the drugs will have been scrutinized sufficiently to give a solid estimation of the expected outcomes.

Now, if three different drugs went through three different trials and came out roughly the same for cost and effectiveness then you and your doctor are welcome to choose which to use as subjectively as you want.

The interpretation of science very much is subjective and scientists are influenced by politics, ideology and yes money, just like anyone else.

True, but that has nothing to do with the objectivity of the science itself.

Scientists are people and, as such, fallable. Science, however, will always settle on truth in the end.

Global warming immediately comes to mind.

And this is an excellent example of junk science (like ID) that is readily disproven by rigorous application of the scientific method.

[RSmithOpt]

Yup...was random we went to the moon by chance in 1969.

[editor-surveyor]

And even more random getting back :o)

[CottShop]

Betty- just to follow up on that- Information is contained in a container that equires higher info to sustain itself- the actual info might draw info fro mthe contianer to ‘sustain’ itself, however, the central issue is that the info can remain in a sustaining mode without performing it’s designed functions, and in this sense, it exists independent of higher info in regards to it’s specific functions- The function of hte informaiton isn’t to sustain itself, but to respond to change via outside information input.

[CottShop]

[[And this is an excellent example of junk science (like ID) that is readily disproven by rigorous application of the scientific method. ]]

If you wish to be taken seriously in htis thread, you’ll refrain from childish ad hominem attacks that are detached from reality

[spunkets]

"You’re talking points irrelevent to the idea that BB was talking about info being able to exist indepenedent of outside physical actions acting upon it."

Defining it so doesn't make it so.

Re: Reality has no need for anything contained in the concept of meta-info. The concept of meta -info is purely a creation of mind which is an instance of circular logic.

"Talk about circular reasoning- Reality absolutely does rely on higher instructions- Metainfo is NOT a ‘mind concept- but a biological reality as evidenced by the fact that systems of metainfo are intelligently constructed and display higher function by controlling the reactions that occure when lower instructions are affected for whatever reason- this isn’t a ‘concept’- htis is biological fact- reality- it’s not opinion, it’s not an assumption, it’s a verifiable reality.

Sayong so, doesn't make it so. The time development of complexity in biological organisms and systems is observed to always procede from simple to complex, in accordance with the laws of physics and in a fashion modeled by evolutionary algorithms. The end point complexity has never been found to be required in any of that. IOWs, info doesn't "flow" down, it's collected as a collection of successful physical possibilities, according to the mathematics of an evolutionary model.

[Filo]

If you wish to be taken seriously in htis thread, you’ll refrain from childish ad hominem attacks that are detached from reality

Look above to where I defined ad hominem. It's hard for me to worry about criticism from someone using terms they clearly don't understand.

Then again, it's hard to take anyone seriously when they think that ID is anything but utter garbage.

[editor-surveyor]

"It's hard for me to worry about criticism from someone using terms they clearly don't understand."

Now look in the mirror for the paragon of illustrations of that principle.

[CottShop]

[[Sayong so, doesn’t make it so.]]

Nope- sure doesn’t- but on the other hand, sayting it doesn’t make it so doesn’t make it not so- As well, it can be shown experientially that info can exist at hte physical level without hte need for being acted on to induce the instructions contained within the info- science shows this is a reality Spunket- Think genes that are turned off- these genes don’t function by doing what they wwre designed for- those instructions in the info lies in a static suspension awaiting an outside action to turn htem on again

[[The time development of complexity in biological organisms and systems is observed to always procede from simple to complex,]]

that is an a priori assumption AFTER the fact- We know complexity exists, and it’s nothign ut an assumption to claim it must have stepwise evolved especially when htere is no evidence to show it could, infact, it’s even worse- the evidence we do have shows it can’t. You are taking an intelligently designed complexity, looking to lower levels of complexity, and ASSUMING the higher level must have coem fro mthe lower. Miller made this same mistake when tryign to ‘explain’ the evolution of IC is blood clotting, but he simply proved that it woudl take a conciderable amount of intelligent design and careufl directing and controlling to actually achieve the higher level of complexity seen in land dwelling clotting systems.

[[The end point complexity has never been found to be required in any of that.]]

Really? Try removing it- This argument was destroyed in another thread

[[IOWs, info doesn’t “flow” down, it’s collected as a collection of successful physical possibilities, according to the mathematics of an evolutionary model.]]

If this is your position then show how it could- We discussed htis at length in another htread on life’s irreducible structures, and it was shown complexity can NOT arise in such manner. Piling info on top of info can NOT create a system of metainfo- there NEEDS to be a system of metainfo already inplace directing ANY changes so that they do not upset the whole works- the bottom down explanation discussed in BB’s thread here makes htis perfectly clear- as does hte other thread.

Beleive me, I tried arguing for a piling up stepwise process of info- but it didn’t take long to run into serious impossibilites involved in htis process. Metainfo is an absolutely necessary system I’m afraid- and pointing to more simplistic CHANGES in simpler complexities does nothign to show the more compelx complexities coudl arise- if anything- change in simpler complexities just lead to further simplified complexities as those natural changes woudl result in degredation IF there were no higher metainfo already present preventing changes from causing undue entropy and chaos.